Thinking out loud about nail varnish...

[StevesBollockAnalogy]

Okay so I suppose this is more for my benefit than anyone else's, but I'd be interested to hear what other people have to say and what your opinions are!

So when I heard about the nail varnish that detects the date rape drugs I was angry, but couldn't express why. I have since thought about it quite a lot and this is the conclusion that I've come to.

Even if we only consider rape cases in which the victim is in a night club, approached by a strange man etc. (which are by far not the norm and in the vast majority of rape cases special nail varnish or anything else would be no help at all) and a date rape drug is used, it doesn't prevent rape. That rapist does not go into a bar looking for a specific woman, he will rape whoever he decides to. If she wore a different dress, if she stayed at home, if she was fatter or thinner, if she had a different colour hair, if she detected date rape drugs in her drink, someone would still have been raped. He wouldn't think "oh well, she was the only one I was prepared to attack and rape, now she's detected my drugs I guess I'll just go home then".The nail varnish does not prevent rape, and to say it does is dangerous and misleading.

So say, a woman detects a date rape drug in her drink. She gets the hell out of there. The rapist would not give up and go home at this point, he'd find someone else. Someone who doesn't have that nail varnish. By not being "too drunk", or wearing "slutty" clothing, or wearing the special nail varnish, or going home earlier, you don't prevent rape. You sway the odds so it is less likely he will pick you, he is more likely to pick a faceless other girl. Who drank more or wore a shorter skirt or didn't buy the nail varnish and didn't 'protect' herself like you did. As long as you protect yourself, he will most likely choose someone else who didn't protect herself like you. Some who deserved it more than you. And we all know that leads straight to victim blaming and a whole host of disgusting stuff.

Does that explain it clearly why I'm angry? Am I right- or am I wrong? Other opinions and thoughts are welcome, this is just the conclusion I came to.

Seems like you've absolutely nailed what's wrong with it to me! I pretty much agree with all you've said.

Also, it wouldn't bloody work! I mean, you dip your finger in your drink before every, single sip do you? And what if he uses a different drug. Or just adds triple shots to your drink?

And if you were wearing the varnish but forgot to test every sip, were you 'asking for it'?

On the other hand, if she's with friends and thus doesn't feel immediately in danger, she'd have a chance to spread the word, to others and to the staff. Might scare the rapist away, though it probably won't put him off trying again.

Cross post there Bullets

To me, the biggest issue with it is that no one should have to wear a special nail varnish to avoid rape.

The baseline assumption ought to be that you have the right not to be raped, whatever you're doing and whatever you're wearing.

Placing the responsibility for detecting date-rape drugs on women (rather than, say, nightclub staff) smacks of victim-blaming to me.

The other thing that bothers me is the fact that if everyone wore this ridiculous nail varnish, people would still get raped, if everyone tested every drink, someone would still get raped.

I'm glad you think I'm right and not over simplifying it!

Completely agree with everything that has been said.

It's another idea which, while I'm sure there are good intentions behind, places the emphasis on women taking steps to prevent being raped.

MehsMum, it would stop the man raping any of the women in that group, possibly, but it won't stop him moving on to a different group or lone woman. If a man decides he's going to rape someone, I doubt some nail polish and a pair of anti rape knickers will ultimately stop him. The kind of rapist who drugs his victims is likely to be a serial offender, the only thing that will stop him is jail, which is highly unlikely to happen to him.

OP, nail on head.

There is something hideously ironic about the use of a trapping of femininity (nail varnish) being utilized in rape culture. There's something seriously fucked up about that. Lipstick used to be used to signify that women were prostitutes and nail varnish is in the same neck of the woods (that of othering beauty practices).

I totally agree with you OP. I hate stuff that puts the onus on women to prevent rape. It is so twisted.

They have been very careful in the wording of this, in interviews I have read. They didn't say the purpose of it was not to protect individual women but to make people who drug women afraid of getting spotted.

Which I can see. If at any moment any woman could show her drink had been drugged, it would surely make men using those drugs more wary?

Whenever I hear about some new 'anti-rape' device I think 'Does that mean any woman who doesn't buy/can't afford said anti-rape device will be blamed for not protecting herself?'

I can see what would be more likely to happen:

1. Man puts drug in drink.
2. Woman puts finger in drink and finds it drugged.
3. Woman points it out.
4. Bystanders call woman crazy and attention seeking and claim she drugged her own drink in order to make false accusation.

The thing that gets me most about idiotic inventions like this is that they have no connection to reality at all. The idea of drug-detecting nail varnish paints the picture of the vigilant woman on the lookout for the obvious rapists who immediately (with their rapey-rapist eyes or cheeks or forearms or some such) alert her that something is wrong. I mean, rapists aren't normal men, are they, they're monsters that you can spot from 30 miles away. So, the woman spots the hulking, drooling, monster and she immediately dips her finger and, bingo, drugs are spotted and monster retreats to his cave. Everyone is happy, apart from the monsters of course.

It's all so bogey-man, so Hansel and Gretel.

In fact, what happens is that a perfectly normal-looking man, charming and personable, starts a conversation with a woman who thinks "ooh nice guy," and they stand around chatting for a while, as you do. She might even know the guy, have dated him, or have been friends with him for years. He might be the partner of a friend. Whatever he is, he comes across as "safe" and the woman, like a normal person, relaxes, sips her drink, enjoys herself. She has no reason to feel any danger. It's only when she wakes up later that she realises that, in fact, rapists aren't drooling half-humans who you can spot from space, they are just "normal" men who hide in plain sight and rely on the fact that the whole world tells women that rape is their responsibility, their problem. If a woman is stupid enough not to protect herself, what does she expect?

I don't think the reality in a club is that you are looking for a particular person, is it? The only people I know who have had drinks spiked had no idea who had done it. It could have been anyone at all.

The purpose I assume is to test the drink if it has been out of your sight at all.

But a drink doesn't have to be out of your sight for someone to drug it manly. All you have to do is look away for 30 seconds and it's done. If you feel the person next to you is trustworthy testing your drink won't be on your mind. You might even ask the person who ends up drugging you to look after your drink while you go to toilet.

I don't know. I just don't think you would need to be particularly suspicious to occasionally stir your drink with your finger.

I think they've done it to coasters as well.

I think it would put men off spiking drinks if they could be caught by random spills, stirring drinks etc.

Having worked in nightclubs I'm going to go against the vein here and say I think it's a great idea.

If someone sees their drink has been spiked by the change in colour they can alert the door staff/bar staff/club manager and cctv can be checked immediately and hopefully, the culprit caught.

You'd be surprised how much ground those cameras in clubs actually cover.

A decent establishment will take this very seriously.

Ready, that's what I was trying to say: the staff can be alerted. I hadn't thought as far as CCTV though.

I do agree that the onus shouldn't be on women, but on everyone. But should I advise my student daughter not to carry a rape alarm for that reason? Or not do a self-defence course?

Yeah Ready - but even if you agree with the principle, it isn't going to be enough to check a drink is it? you are going to have to check every single time you take a sip.