Toothless reporting

Even if you don’t have World Cup fever, you might’ve heard about Rape-aXe, the brand name of an anti-rape device invented by a South African woman named Sonnet Ehlers, who plans to distribute 30,000 of them at the matches.

Like a medieval but self-imposed chastity belt with teeth, the Rape-aXe is a sheath-like polyurethane vaginal insert. Small plastic “hooks” on the device’s inner walls painfully latch onto an unsuspecting rapist’s penis and won’t let go. It can only be removed surgically by a doctor.

The legs of the story derive from its shock value, and the triteness of the reportage reflects this:

Typical is Kat Hannaford’s post for the online gadget guide, Gizmodo.com, which reads like a press release. She reports that the anti-rape “condoms” are being distributed at the Cup, explains how they work and who invented them and comments that the need of a doctor in removal will help with prosecution. She adds that Ehlers plans to sell RapeaXe for $2 each.

A Buzzfeed.com link to the Gizmodo story by John Winskowicz picks up its breezy tone: “I think this idea is fantastic,” he gushes.

But weak reporting is not a simple matter of new-media blog versus traditional news source.

A widely distributed New York Daily News story by reporter Joe Tacopino cites the criticism by Victoria Kajja from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Uganda that Rape-aXe “not only presents the victim with a false sense of security, but psychological trauma.”

Rather than elaborate or cite any other critics’ concerns, however, Tacopino merely answers Kajja’s statement with Ehlers’ unquestioned claim that she “had taken the proper research and development steps before launching the product.”

Even more widely distributed has been the story by Faith Karimi for CNN.com. Karimi at least provides context: She reports that South Africa has one of the highest rape rates in the world, citing a recent Human Rights Watch survey.

But Karimi’s story still lacks depth: “Some critics have accused [Ehlers] of developing a medieval device,” she points out, without citing who the critics are or elaborating. Karimi also gives the Rape-aXe inventor the last word: “Yes, my device may be medieval, but it’s for a medieval deed.”

You can learn a lot by investigating. Titania Kumeh of Mother Jones, in a followup interview with Ehlers, found out that CNN got basic facts wrong: The devices haven’t been distributed at the World Cup or anywhere else. Ehlers is seeking donations and a distributor.

Amanda Bailly, a Student Correspondent Corps reporter from Boston University, provided more thorough coverage than either CNN or the New York Daily News in her April report for GlobalPost.com. Bailly raised critical questions about how safe the devices are for the women who use them—questions mostly ignored in mainstream sources.

Bailly cited filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson’s argument that Rape-aXe doesn’t make sense in the Third World. Jackson interviewed rape victims and rapists in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and produced The Greatest Silence.

“If a guy is raping you, and there’s five other guys waiting to take their turn… do you think he’s going to take that well? They’re going to mutilate that woman. It’s just a provocation,” Jackson told Bailly.

Likewise, in a country where HIV/AIDS rates are extremely high, Bailly wanted to know the potential danger from blood. Ehlers said that the Rape-aXe does not draw blood. But later in the story, Bailly reported that “the ‘teeth’ have yet to bite into a real penis,” rendering Ehlers’ claims suspect.

Ehlers’ own website claims that “the penis will be encapsulated and the tines are so small there will hardly be blood that can spill because it is in a capsule.” This statement is inconsistent with her more certain response to Bailly. And whether the tines draw blood is not the same question as whether blood can leak out of the sheath.

Later on the site, Ehlers states that the rapist would not suffer permanent damage but would be left with “tiny scars.”

The issue of blood here is not a minor concern, nor is the issue of retaliation. Both can impact a woman’s life just as much as rape.

Considering that Rape-aXe hasn’t been tested on people and is highly controversial, is it any wonder that there is no distributor and seemingly no government approval? On Ehlers’ website, there isn’t even an order form to purchase Rape-aXe. There is, however, one way to spend money on Ehler’s website in addition to sending her donations: her “stylishly decorated” guest house on Great White Lake near Capetown is available for rent.

The Rape-aXe, it turns out, is old news.

The BBC reported on Ehlers’ idea five years ago. In that story, she is identified as a “former medical technician.” It makes you wonder if CNN’s labeling her a doctor, which has been constantly repeated, is also false. Ehlers makes no mention of it on her site, referring to herself only as “a woman.”

Latching onto global publicity of the World Cup by falsely suggesting that she was on the verge of heroically distributing thousands of Rape-aXes, “Doctor” Ehlers hoodwinked the press into recycling her story as if it were new.

Back in 2005, anti-rape campaigner Charlene Smith told the BBC that the device would incite injured rapists to kill their victims.

“We don’t need these nut-case devices by people hoping to make a lot of money out of other women’s fear,” Smith said.

Write to dak@sdcitybeat.com and editor@sdcitybeat.com.