AR Wear is a up and coming project led by New Yorkers Ruth and Yuval. AR stands for Anti Rape, and this is their big idea to give "confidence and protection" to women. They are crowdfunding their project using Indiegogo. The pants are said to give a barrier against the attacker, they are impossible to remove by anyone other than the woman wearing them, and also impossible to cut through. The incentive for the campaign is that is it proven that most rapists will be deterred by some sort of resistance and will lessen the chance of a rape taking place. But what is the real message here?
When I first saw the campaign, I thought it was very interesting. I wanted to see what other people thought before sharing my own opinion. I thought maybe I had jumped the gun - it made me feel quite uncomfortable. There is certainly an issue here, and it definitely looks like I'm not the only one who shares this opinion.
Ruth and Yuval's hearts are in the right place, you can understand where they are coming from, however it is really sending out the wrong message. The campaign seems exclusive to those with money, for one. I doubt these pants are cheap, and the sad truth is that rape takes place everywhere, not just where there is wealth. It also sends the message to women "don't get raped" - rather than the message to men - "don't rape". I would much rather invest my money in a campaign that teaches people not to rape. Perhaps it's something that needs to be added into our appalling sex education system in this country. AR Wear tells women that it's their responsibility to not get raped. There are so many issues with this.
Another thing that I had a problem with, and that the campaign seems to skim over is firstly, the majority of rapes take place by people you know. I can guarantee that nobody is going to be wearing these pants every day and night, especially at the cost of $50-$60 a pop. The only consistent protection from these women is to have the confidence to report their attacker, and for them to be persecuted. Another thing is that not all of sexual violence involves rape, and this doesn't protect against that. It teaches women that whilst it's their responsibility to not get raped, it's also not looking at the fact that said rapist might just go and rape another girl instead, without protection. Oh, and of course, rape is not exclusive to women. Men are raped too.
All in all, good intentions, bad idea. I would really like and encourage people to look at this idea of teaching people not to rape and come up with some long term solution for this. As I said before, it is something that we need to be aware of in our sex education system, we should be taught about consent and what it means. And the consequences of ignoring that.
When I first saw the campaign, I thought it was very interesting. I wanted to see what other people thought before sharing my own opinion. I thought maybe I had jumped the gun - it made me feel quite uncomfortable. There is certainly an issue here, and it definitely looks like I'm not the only one who shares this opinion.
Ruth and Yuval's hearts are in the right place, you can understand where they are coming from, however it is really sending out the wrong message. The campaign seems exclusive to those with money, for one. I doubt these pants are cheap, and the sad truth is that rape takes place everywhere, not just where there is wealth. It also sends the message to women "don't get raped" - rather than the message to men - "don't rape". I would much rather invest my money in a campaign that teaches people not to rape. Perhaps it's something that needs to be added into our appalling sex education system in this country. AR Wear tells women that it's their responsibility to not get raped. There are so many issues with this.
Another thing that I had a problem with, and that the campaign seems to skim over is firstly, the majority of rapes take place by people you know. I can guarantee that nobody is going to be wearing these pants every day and night, especially at the cost of $50-$60 a pop. The only consistent protection from these women is to have the confidence to report their attacker, and for them to be persecuted. Another thing is that not all of sexual violence involves rape, and this doesn't protect against that. It teaches women that whilst it's their responsibility to not get raped, it's also not looking at the fact that said rapist might just go and rape another girl instead, without protection. Oh, and of course, rape is not exclusive to women. Men are raped too.
All in all, good intentions, bad idea. I would really like and encourage people to look at this idea of teaching people not to rape and come up with some long term solution for this. As I said before, it is something that we need to be aware of in our sex education system, we should be taught about consent and what it means. And the consequences of ignoring that.
Christ. The real issue here is that THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE A THING, and women shouldn't have to protect themselves against rape.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in places like Congo and Botswana, where rape rates are utterly ridiculous, though obviously they'd have to be given out by a charity. But what would be REALLY great for women in those countries is pants that castrate rapists. I could probably get behind that.
Exactly! I completely agree.
DeleteIf they were given out by a charity, I would feel a lot better about it. But still, the whole campaign just revolves around wealthy white women?! If you like the idea of an anti-rape device that castrates the rapist, I think you will like number 5! http://www.oddee.com/item_98705.aspx
x
First glance seeing these, I liked the concept but after considering it I also think more needs to be done in combating rape rather than it becoming a case of 'solving a problem!'
ReplyDeleteDefinitely! It's actually a really clever technical idea, it would definitely act as a protective barrier but the message it sends is quite a delicate one!
Delete