Anti-Rape Condom Unveiled for World Cup

reply to post by Ausar

any time a man congregates with a woman he becomes unclean and has to go through a process of cleaning himself after;......

Congregrate;

transitive verb
: to collect into a group or crowd : assemble
intransitive verb
: to come together into a group, crowd, or assembly

www.merriam-webster.com...

con·gre·gate (knggr-gt)
tr. & intr.v. con·gre·gat·ed, con·gre·gat·ing, con·gre·gates
To bring or come together in a group, crowd, or assembly. See Synonyms at gather.
adj. (-gt)
1. Gathered; assembled.
2. Involving a group: congregate living facilities for senior citizens.

www.thefreedictionary.com...


Please explain how a man that gathers together in a group that has a woman, or women in it becomes unclean ?

.....this is the law.it is illegal for you to associate with other men or women while you are unclean.

Please show us this "law". I'd also be interested in knowing what planet this "law" comes from.

a woman that is not a virgin is unclean; the process of congregation does not need to be sexual for a person to follow the law.a woman that has her hymen pierced is not a virgin.

As many of us have already asked you, please explain how she is "unclean".

A woman that has had her hymen pierced by engaging in sexual intercourse by her own choice is no longer a virgin, on this you are correct. A woman that has had her hymen pierced in any other manner is still a virgin. Please educate yourself before you spew forth any more feces.

but i find it even more defiling to nature for a woman to "create" an object that is to be inserted into another woman for the purpose of defiling congress.

She created it to try and help prevent rape, not "to defile congress". So by your words you don't consider there to be any acts of rape.

if it is law that a man and woman are unclean in union show me where there is an amendment that states otherwise.

First you must show us this "law" that you speak of. Of course you can show us no such "law" because none exists and you know it.

You love all the attention that you are getting, if you didn't you wouldn't keep coming back spewing forth feces like you do. It is your over zealous, fanatical backwards nonsense that is derived by a fear of women that is detracting from this thread and nothing else.

Originally posted by Ausar
the subject of this thread is not not about if you view rape as positive or negative. nor have any of my statements been proven false;

We have no such law in the US. Clearly, your legal system is archaic.

Originally posted by Ausar
if it is law that a man and woman are unclean in union show me where there is an amendment that states otherwise.

We dont need amendments, because there is no such law in the US. We do have some of the finest medical technology in the world here in the West, and scientists have found no source of special "uncleaness" in women that would justify the making of such a law. Yes, you need to wash your bits and pieces regularly, but you need to wash lots of body parts regularly to keep them from smelling funky.

Originally posted by Ausar
i have made are ancient observations written down as law common and practices of law common as by law.

I am guessing here that by "law" you really mean "religious law." Though in some backwards countries those two are indeed one and the same. Let me tell you something. There is no Santa Claus.

Those kinds of "commandments" and "laws" were the middle eastern cultures version of FDA recommendations on diet and other health recommendations. Clearly, STDs must have been a really, really big deal a couple thousand years ago, because you have a LOT of rules on how not to catch them. Yes, they ARE observations written down as law, from "Wise men" who were figuring out the transmission of STDs in this case, and they were purposeful in that context, in that time frame. Now they are just old and outdated, and pointless. "Your culture" is making a mockery of those "laws" by mindlessly following them when there are better "observations" that can be followed.


Merely going through the motions and repeating old, factually incorrect, out dated, methods of preventing venereal (or other) diseases is rather childish, and certainly unintelligent. It was a law, in the past, because thats the best they could do with their limited knowledge of disease. Now, we have medicine, condoms, and pre-sex testing that can be done to tell you if your penis will rot off if you have sex with some woman, or if your vagina will become a festering mess if you have sex with some man. In other words, science has given us other options besides labeling women unclean, and only having sex with virgins. Although if two people are both monogamous and virgins when married, STDs become highly, unlikely. Unfortunately, people cheat, dont they, and thats where pharmaceuticals come in handy.

Originally posted by Ausar
my "stance" has not changed.

an unclean vassal that parades around as clean with unclean objects within it is just as equal to what you have characterized to me as an unclean vassal(rapists?);they deserve each other.

I personally dont expect you to change your stance. If you had the kind of mind that was capable of more than just repeating rubbish you were taught as a child, we wouldnt be having this conversation. Just dont expect that anyone has to respect your stance. It is as simple minded and archaic as thinking a wolf has eaten the sun when there is an eclipse. YOU dont even understand your stance aside from having memorized it. You are repeating it mindlessly, unthinkingly.

If you DID think about it, you would realize that you dont catch STDs from having sterile objects inserted in your vagina, and thus you could not be made "unclean" by that. (Where "unclean" means what it originally did, STD ridden.)

off topic
this thread is about america?! or are the people to use this device located "somewhere else"?


if in the "america" you live there is no such law; then you are godless and not befit of being called american.the basis of your principles are based on the next whim you dictate as truth; and not a foundation that is american.go read more; and i refuse to tell you what to: as you will surely do as you have done presently, and tell me that what is now stated as factual is true and what was stated as law is false.you heathens are not americans any more than a dog born within your house is a citizen of such.if you do view yourself as american and refute the law i have stated you do not view yourself in entitlement to gods covenant.

'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness"

since this thread is not about my views and about an object created for insertion in womans body with intent to prevent womans from allowing any insertions after such; the whole thing reeks of dirtiness.

off topic.
if half of you people were as bold as the words you used with i; would there be a "rape" "epidemic"?


and just as you may see the world outside another perception of paradise.who is to say that the laws you have placed over women will alleviate or strengthen the "issue" of rape?is this object to be what you have dictated to others as truth, that which you want me to accept; as a solution?

it is false to deny "gods people" their rite of law and land. is this to be peddled to the good godly american women after the savage africans have accepted this as "legal"?

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
Bad invention, with good intentions.
Two things wrong with this:
1. Its the quickest way to turn rape into murder. This is the most dangerous repercussion of the device. Sure, they say you can not walk with it inside of you, but have you ever been in intense pain like that? You either pass out or are hyped up for a short amount of time on adrenaline. Think about it...

2. Vengeful women who desire to get back at some unsuspecting male. This device can be easily abused. Easy tool of revenge. Hidden and almost invisible.

Regarding point one, yes, entirely. This will result in escalation faster than a getaway.

Regarding point two, not so much on the invisible front since most people at least check the water temperature with a toe or finger before jumping in. That sounds like a really disgusting analogy, but in all seriousness that is not a foolproof device.

Originally posted by Ausar
off topic
this thread is about america?! or are the people to use this device located "somewhere else"?


if in the "america" you live there is no such law; then you are godless and not befit of being called american.

You sir, are..........................amusing. And not in the "laugh with you," sort of way, but the "laugh AT you sort of way." If you knew anything at all about America, one would assume that you might know that here, we have a separation of church and state. Which functions to prevent religious zombies from making "laws" that serve no purpose, not even the purpose they were intended to serve over two thousand years ago.

Originally posted by Ausar
the basis of your principles are based on the next whim you dictate as truth; and not a foundation that is american.

Your principles are based on ancient science, (and other things as well) that was sold to the ignorant many, (who were incapable of understanding even that fledgling science,) as "commandments from God." In one sense, they actually WERE "commandments from God" where God is considered "Nature." Yes, in those days, you really could be "struck down by God" for eating shellfish, or pork. Diseases in those two food sources were common, and deadly. You really DID need to make sure you only slept with virgins to prevent getting an STD that would drive you insane and make you useless or even harmful to your society. But things have changed. We have microscopes, and medicines, and new "laws" about the slaughter of animals and the handling of those carcasses that we did not have to pretend came from "God," though in fact the same "God" (nature) is still calling the shots. And they are not based on "whim," you see, scientists peer into crystal lenses to discern the "will of God" nowdays.

Originally posted by Ausar
if you do view yourself as american and refute the law i have stated you do not view yourself in entitlement to gods covenant.

"God" likes us better than any middle eastern country right now. Or any African country. And most European countries too. (Although we are admittedly on "Gods" poop list right now and that might change.) Do you know how you can tell that is true? He has showered us with blessings, and made us powerful enough to smite our enemies. And innocent people too, but thats beside the point. Religious "laws" were Gods "How to play the game of group selection and win" first edition. Remember in the old days where you could tell if God favored you by how the smiting was going? It hasnt changed. God is the "invisible hand" of natural selection, and Gods rules are remarkably consistent. What is changing is our understanding of this Gods laws, and the name by which some call this God. Modern scientists worship God as Nature.

Originally posted by Ausar
'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness"

Again, more evidence that Gods laws are about survival of the fittest, at the group level. Its just a pity so many clung to notion about "God said" and that even after a few thousand years the masses of people are still incapable of understanding WHY God said it, and how to keep up with Gods will. And if it makes you feel better, not all Americans are Jews, and its not our responsibility to keep them from unclean things.

Originally posted by Ausar
if half of you people were as bold as the words you used with i; would there be a "rape" "epidemic"?

Short answer, no. We have come up with other ways of dealing with rapists. Rape happens in highly religious countries too, we just dont stone the victim, we punish the offender if we can catch him.

Originally posted by Ausar
it is false to deny "gods people" their rite of law and land. is this to be peddled to the good godly american women after the savage africans have accepted this as "legal"?

Archaic savages who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones at other "savages." I doubt this device will catch on in the US or anywhere. Not because it isnt a good idea, but because it would require too much discomfort on the part of the intended beneficiary to prevent a rape that may never happen. Very few women are going to want to walk around with that thing on a daily basis. Its a clever device, but it doubtful women as a whole are going to be using it as a matter of course. Godly women or otherwise.

Please everyone, save your breath on this person. He is beyond help. He will always be a woman hating, inconsequential little man. Sad really.

Terrible invention. To many things can go wrong with this. For example, what if the woman forgets to take it out when going home. I don't think the boyfriend/husband would be very happy.

It has a good idea behind it don't get me wrong, but its dangerous.

reply to post by k0mbination


This is seriously the most awsome rape prevention ever and i hope it get's made available for all women.I wish this was invented year's ago.
Cudos to this Dr!


[edit on 25-6-2010 by KrillsAngelWings]

Originally posted by Recouper
reply to post by Ausar

 

Ausar, if may ask, you wouldn't physically punish a woman you considered to be "unclean" would you?

thats a dam good question, thanks for asking it.

Originally posted by pavelivanov22
reply to post by jessieg

 

its bad enough to smell like tuna but crap as well?

My recommendation: You should probably take a bath if these are your complaints or try dating a higher class of women if they are not.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Ausar

 

I want every guy on this board who mouths off about women to realize that THIS GUY is actually fairly representative of a large section of the human populace.

I would gladly fight to the death before I let a guy like this make any fracking laws in my country.

Have I told you what a fantastic human being you are and how much I simply adore you? Forgive me for being so lax.

This is what scares me about a device like this.

In 1994, Dr. Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University investigated the incidences, in one small unidentified urban community, of false rape allegations made to the police between 1978 and 1987. Dr. Kanin asserts that "unlike those in many larger jurisdictions, this police department had the resources to "seriously record and pursue to closure all rape complaints, regardless of their merits". He further states each investigation "always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects." and "the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false." The falseness of the allegations was not decided by the police, Dr. Kanin, nor upon physical or testimonial evidence. The number of false rape allegations concluded in the studied period was 45; this was 41% of the 109 total complaints filed in this period.

Former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman once stated "During my time as a prosecutor who made case filing decisions, I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made…Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes that there is [...] A command officer in the Denver Police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45 percent."

All rape victims should be automatically subject to a polygraph test by law

reply to post by YayMayorBee



Ok I'm a little confused here, are they saying that during the polygraph the complainants are forced to say that no rape occured to see if they're lying or not ?

So what I'm getting from the snippet of the article that you posted is that they determined the amount of false rape reports by the results of the polygraph ?

If so those results are not very reliable, polygraphs are not flawless and are far from fullproof. If a woman feels that she is in the smallest way responsible for being raped (the way she was dressed, being on a date, being in the wrong neighborhood, etc) then the results could be skewed. Look at the time frame that those polygraphs were given, that alone says a lot.

In a 2002 report, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that traditional polygraph screening was so flawed that it "presents a danger to national security." The group found that too many innocent people who took polygraphs were labeled guilty, and too many guilty people slid by undetected.

Polygraphers contend that -- especially when they start out with a piece of damning evidence -- they can catch liars at rates of 90 percent or better. The problem is that polygraphs check only for physical responses that indicate deceit: heavy breathing, high pulse rate, sweat. But panting or sweating don't necessarily mean that a person is guilty of anything. All these responses indicate is that someone is anxious, said University of Arizona psychology professor John JB Allen. And innocent people get jumpy, too -- especially when there's a bull-necked interrogator in the room.

www.wired.com...


Can you post a link to the article that you referenced, I'd like to read the whole thing ?