Dangerous Fantasies of Revenge

Treppenwitz isn't what one might call an issue-driven site.  In fact, I usually leave the sharp, shiny issues and fresh political wounds to those who are better qualified to offer commentary.  But occasionally I stumble across something that so outrages my sensibilities that I'll willingly take the risk of sounding like a complete idiot. 

This is one of those posts.

A friend recently forwarded a link to a site about a Swedish (I think) anti-rape device called FemDefense.   As a man, I have to admit that rape hasn't occupied a very prominent place on the list of things I've worried about during my life.  With the exception of a prison environment, the typical man lacks the basic equipment that would logically bump this topic up his priority list. 

However, as a son, a brother, a husband and a father, I have thought about rape the way a man might think about breast, uterine or ovarian cancers.  By this I mean that I would be horrified to contemplate one of my loved ones being attacked... but I have no first-hand experience with what that kind of vulnerability must feel like.

This link I mentioned took me to a site which tried to force me... shock me, actually...into contemplating feminine vulnerability.  But it just ended up making me angry.

The FemDefense device itself can be described simply as a tampon with a spike.  While the device was obviously the result of someone's horrible (and probably justifiable) revenge fantasies, the informational film on the site did nothing but depict horribly wrong-headed personal choices in order to justify and promote their product. 

Go watch the film and then continue reading.

Scene One:  Two women dancing drunkenly at a club with bottles of vodka clutched in their hands.  The female voice-over asks: "Do you like to get drunk?"  The scene switches to the women kissing a drunken goodnight on one of their doorsteps as the voice-over asks, "Do you like sexy clothes?"  The final scene shows the remaining woman walking tipsily home through a deserted underpass as the voice-over asks, "Do you hate being scared?".  The scene closes with the camera approaching her rapidly from behind... and then cuts to a picture of the FemDefense device.

My Problem:  To my way of thinking, this scenario advocates tossing good judgment to the wind.  It seems to be saying that if you dress provocatively, get sloshed and then choose a sketchy route home... everything will be just fine so long as you arm yourself with their device for the inevitable rape attempt.  Certainly, women have every right to dress, imbibe and walk as they please and without restrictions... but the makers of this film seem to be telling us that this silver spike is some sort of silver bullet against an attack.  I don't believe in blaming the victim... but I also don't condone lulling the victim into a false sense of security.

Scene Two: The second scene is thankfully free of voice-overs, but it continues along what seems to be a developing theme of throwing all personal responsibility to the wind.  The scene opens with a woman waking up groggily in what could easily be any of the following: a) a crack house; b) a frat house;  or c) a brothel.  There are flashing lights and loud anxiety-producing music playing in the background, as well as random people either passed out or stumbling drunkenly through the shadows of the place.  It is hard to tell if the screams we hear are from the soundtrack or from one of the squalid, noisome rooms.  The camera follows the woman as she walks through the trashed apartment and comes to a closed door.  When she pushes the door open the flashing light inside the room reveals a scantily clad woman cowering against a wall... and a fully clothed man in the fetal position on the floor clutching his genitals.  Cut to a picture of the FemDefense device.

My problem:  Again we seem to be hearing a subtext from the film's makers saying bad judgment is not the enemy here... only the man is!  I can't help thinking that if a woman has the presence of mind to slip this little defense weapon into herself, she should have the good sense not to place herself in the kind of scenario we have just witnessed!  Just as men frequently get rolled (and even killed) when they get smashed and pass out in such an unregulated environment... women who do so put themselves at risk for the worst sort of abuses.

Scene Three:  The last scene is by far the most troubling (at least for me).  Again, we are spared the voice-over, but the lack of verbal communication seems to emphasize the bit of sound one hears.  The scene takes place in a bedroom where a woman lies facing the camera with her eyes open...and her back to the door.  We hear the bedroom door open, and the sound of someone moving around in the shadows.  All the while the woman's eyes remain unblinking, so one can assume the visitor is not unexpected.  We then see a man in underwear approach the bed and slide in next to the woman.  It is only now that the woman feigns sleep.  The man caresses the woman's shoulder in an attempt to get a reaction and is rewarded with an annoyed shrug.  He then roughly grabs her leg, rolls her over and forces himself on the woman who we now assume is probably his wife.  As he forces himself on her, he makes one more token gesture of affection by caressing her cheek, but there remains no question that she is not a willing participant in what is taking place.  Cut to a picture of the FemDefenese device.

My Problem: Having volunteered in a shelter for battered women during college, this was a scenario where the correct course of action was crystal clear... and was ignored by the film makers.  Simply put, if a woman has reason to believe that she is likely to be raped by her husband, she needs to get out... not use her body as a bear trap!  The scenario in the film scared me badly because in the real world the best possible outcome would be her arrested for assault... and the worst case would probably end with her being bludgeoned to death by her angry (and injured) husband.  What were these people thinking?  Here is a woman who knows she is in danger.  She knows her assailant, and she has decided the best course of action is to inflict a non-lethal injury on a man who has presumably already demonstrated many times that he will abuse her without hesitation.  If a wife is certain enough that her husband is going to rape her to take the FemDefense route, then she should already be in a shelter, not waiting for him in bed.  The marriage is DOA... what possible reason can there be to join it in the morgue?  As far as I'm concerned this last scene is a lawsuit waiting to be filed on behalf of some dead rape-victim's estate.

What none of these scenes depicts is the fact that a rapist who has just been jabbed by the FemDefenese device is likely to kill the rape victim in a fit of rage.  Another point that is glossed over is that for the device to work, the woman does indeed get raped.  And lastly, even if the device works exactly according to plan and allows the woman to escape with only the momentary violation of her body... she will now have to undergo months of medical testing to see what kind of blood-borne 'gifts' her assailant may have left behind from his wounded weapon!

The tag-line for this product is:

FemDefense:  A protection against rape. 

However, in my opinion it should be:

FemDefense:  If you're only going to make one semi-rational choice this evening... choose the most pointless and potentially dangerous revenge fantasy ever contemplated by a rape victim.

I'm truly horrified.