Shocking Clothing

harmonics writes "This is absolutely hysterical, it seems a "No-Contact Jacket" has been developed for women by MIT. This thing carries enough voltage to knock you on your duff (80,000 volts), and is decently stylish too. Now to find out how I can get my wife one. Just don't wear it in the rain!" The real question is whether the submitter knew the origin and full meaning of the word "hysterical".

Comments

Wait and See

[First_In_Hell]

Wait until you see the first court case of a failed rapist suing the woman & jacket maker for millions dollars over the physical damage and mental anguish it caused him in his botched rape attempt. Trust me if this thing goes mainstream it will happen.

Also, why is this only for women? Do they think that men don't get jacked up by criminals too?

effective defense

[urbazewski]

Unlike weapons and sprays, the jacket can't be grabbed from a woman and used against her. And it's not as lethal as a gun.

This addresses some important issues in self-defense, like the possibility of being grabbed from behind. More importantly, it overcomes the resistance that many many women have against taking direct action, especially against someone who hasn't actually harmed them (yet).

I remember that the first thing that we did in self-defense class was practice yelling "NO" loudly in a strong tone of voice --- just this was extremely difficult for about half the women in the class. This is why a gun is a poor defensive weapon for most women, you have to be willing to shoot someone who has not laid a hand on you, who is more than an arm's length away. All this device requires is that it be turned on, a clearly defensive action.

Re:Cruel Intentions...

[jmccay]

This is a lawsuit waiting to happen. I can see it now. You're in a crowded subway, and you accidentally bump into a woman wearing this. You get the shock of your life. What if you have a weak heart? What if you have a pace maker? How will this jacket effect it?
You will probably see people sueing women, and even the maker for damages. This is the new equivilant of beating the crap out of someone for bumping into you. Any clothes made with this will be a lawsuit magnet!

Re:Cruel Intentions...

[stratjakt]

This jacket will kill people, and innocent ones at that.

This is the reason tasers, mace, and other "self defense" weapons are illegal in most countries and states.

stun guns are not that effective

[The Tyro]

All this jacket is going to do is make the rapist jerk his hand back for a second... it won't knock anyone out.

Stun guns in general are a poor weapon... people that advocate them instead of more-effective weapons, typically have another agenda. You really need to hold a conventional stun gun on a major muscle group for a prolonged period of time (multiple seconds, sometimes 8-10 seconds) before you can even hope to incapacitate someone. Now, tasers are a very different animal, and slightly more effective, but they are a projectile-firing weapon (darts with wires trailing behind), and are designed to deliver a prolonged shock, at the discretion of the wielder.

Some will even shake off a taser... Rodney King was still game after getting hit twice (not to open up THAT can of worms... just making a statement on the effectiveness of the taser).

Some people push electrical weapons like they are some kind of panacea. Look, folks... there's a reason why cops still carry guns, and it's not because they refuse to use a more-effective alternative... it's because there's NO substitute.

I have to admit though... the jacket is sexy... mmmm....

Re:stun guns are not that effective

[FroMan]

I think one thing this article points out is that you do not want to give the attacker a weapon. A hand gun can be taken and used by the attacker and used against you.

Personally, I am all for an armed populace. But, since we typically do not have everyone on the streets armed, this kind of thing is useful.

You see, if everyone has a gun on them, then even if you are attacked, there is someone else who can cover you, since the odds are if you are attacked by surprise you will not have time to pull your gun.

Cops typically move in pairs if there is something of concern because if one is surprised, the other can help bail them out.

When you are one person, I think a jakect like this is a cool idea, since you have a certain amount of time between when the attacker attacks and when he can re-attack. You can pull out a gun at that point.

So, I guess in combination this is a good idea.

um... Guess chubby women dont need protecting?

[MSenhanced]

"Its small size and narrow armholes are intended to prevent men from using it as an offensive weapon."

um... Guess chubby women dont need protecting?

Life imitates Dilbert?

[kent_eh]

Dilbert already invented Shock Pants almost 3 years ago.

Personal responsibility...

[mcworksbio]

"You might run into some problems if it shocked the person wearing it" (...attorney Margot Barg, a product liability specialist...)

Spoken like a lawyer... If there are inherent preventable flaws in this jacket there will be solid grounds, legally and ethically, for taking the manufacturer/designer to court. I am certain it would happen. I am equally certain that if someone chooses to encase herself in an electrical field she should be prepared for the occassional accidental discharge.

But alas, the jacket will be dropped in the mud, thrown in the washer, dryed in the dryer, its protective rubber cracked, and someone who gets shocked will sue the makers without having truly contemplated the potential dangers of owning the device in the first place.

It is not enough to knock anyone out.

[drinkypoo]

I watched the demo quicktime movie. The guy grabs the model and he jerks his hand away. Big deal. It's not useful unless it puts people on the ground, shaking and twitching. You can still punch the shit out of someone wearing one; If you're willing to rape someone you're probably willing to beat them up.

Re:Cruel Intentions...

[Tenebrious1]

Where the f' are tasers or mace illegal???

Mace and tasers are illegal in New York. Carrying pepper spray is still legal IIRC, but you can't buy it in NY. Carrying a steak knife concealed is illegal as well.

I think the jacket is a good idea. $1000 seems high... guess it depends on how much you value your safety. It'd probably be better if it were an two-part jacket; the shock generating core and different shells with different styles with conducting patches in the right places so they'd have a variety of jackets for different days.

Clever idea. Lousy product. Snake oil.

[Walter Wart]

OK, a bit of background here. My wife and I have been adjunct professors of PE. Published in journals and everything. We specialize in crime prevention and women's self defense. And we test out a lot of self defense products. This critique is by no means exhaustive, but it should give people some things to think about. For more background on where we are coming from look at some of our class notes.

1. It won't work Stun guns have a poor record in police work. Even the manufacturers say that you should hold the stun gun against the eyes, throat or genitals for 4-5 seconds. I maintain that if you can hold a shocker against someone's goolies for the count of four you aren't in a fight. Look at the video on the home site. It doesn't incapacitate. It just gives a little spark.
   
2. It is using an inappropriately low level of force for the threat it is designed to defend against Without pussyfooting what are we talking about? Rape. Armed Robbery. Abduction. Ask any trained police officer - the guys who carry clubs, guns and a lot of training in unarmed tactics - what they would do if a bigger, stronger person was attempting to do these to them. They will mostly say "Shoot him". What we are talking about with this jacket is the equivalent of slapping someone in the face. It doesn't go nearly far enough for what it's supposed to do or what women will buy it for.
   
3. It encourages an attitude of helplessness and dependency The most important thing, in the end the only vital thing in self defense is attitude. The attitude that you will do whatever you need to to keep yourself safe. This sort of device fosters dependency and complacency. The woman is led to believe that her magic jacket will keep her safe from harm. When it doesn't (and it won't) she will be left for vital seconds without an idea of what to do.
   
4. It provides very limited protection Even if this device worked it would provide protection against a very limited range of things - grabs to the arms and torso. Not against strikes. Not against attacks to the head. Not against being dragged down (one of the most common attacks against women).
   
5. Reliability We have no idea about battery life. How long does this work for in active duty? How long does it hold its charge? How well does it work after the normal wear and tear that a real garment goes through? How prone is it to shorts?
   
6. Bad investment This thing costs over a thousand dollars. For that kind of money a woman could get extensive training from some of the best in the world like Awakening the Warrior Within or Modern Warrior, Marty and Gila Hayes or Massad Ayoob with enough left over to buy a nice pistol.
   

I could go on. But you get the idea. This is a clever hack. But it is not the sort of self defense tool I would feel comfortable recommending to most women.

Re:Do we really want this?

[American AC in Paris]

Jim, not an attacker, unseen to Jane, comes into accidental contact with her because of the realities of the enclosed area, be it a subway car, elevator or whatever. Bang, jacket discharges, even though Jane did not intend it. That's passive...I don't know of another personal protection device subject to passive deployment while operating as designed.

So Jim gets a nasty shock. He's completely unharmed; it smarts, but doesn't injure him in any way. Within seconds, the effect is but a memory, albeit an unpleasant one. Remember, this thing is powered by a freakin' nine-volt battery and is designed to deter, not injure, debilitate, or kill.

Sure, you can add in the "Ol' Jim as old man with weak ticker on a pacemaker" variable, but the scenario quickly goes from being practical concern to contrived exception. Bump into Ol' Jim and knock him over, you'd break his hip and give him a heart attack, anyhow. Hell, even just microwaving a burrito would do him in.

Consider mace and pepper spray. Jane's in an enclosed space. Feels threatened. Sees threatening man; sprays him with mace. Jim, Jill, Janet, Joe, the Johnsons, Jasmine, Jerry, Jarvis, and Jack all get a nice, healthy lungful of mace, as they're sharing the same confined space. Eyes water, throats burn, people start screaming. Effects last for quite a while--an eternity if your eyes are on fire and you feel like you can't breathe. Panic ensues, people stampede, people get hurt. People have even been killed in very similar scenarios.

I'd much rather be in a subway car with ten jumpy, nervous women wearing active, crackling shock jackets than in a subway car with one jumpy, nervous person brandishing a can of mace or pepper spray. You may feel otherwise.

too bad they crippled the damn thing

[rifter]

To prevent accidental discharges, the wearer must arm the jacket before it can deliver a shock. A lock on the sleeve must first be opened with a key, and then the charge is built up by holding down a button inside one of the sleeves.

It reminds me of the research into "smart guns" that decide whether they want to fire or not, and "smart bullets" that are designed to cause less damage.

What is the point of giving a woman a weapon with the claim she can use it in unexpected situations without being disarmed and then put on so many safeties it becomes useless? If the attacker can take a gun out of her hand, he certainly can grab the key from her, or stop her pressing the button that causes the shock... criminey!

Re:Cruel Intentions...

[TKinias]

scripsit SuiteSisterMary:

If you say to a buddy 'Hey, man, on your way out, take out the garbage,' nobody will bat an eye. If you say to a femail friend 'Hey, woman, on your way out, take out the garbage,' you're in trouble.

Or, if you happen to be white and in the States, try this: Say to a female African-American friend, ``Hey, girl, can you grab that for me?'' Now say to a male African American, ``Hey, boy, can you grab that for me?'' Talk about a world of difference.

It doesn't have to make sense; that's just the way the language has evolved.

Re:Cruel Intentions...

[Joe Tie.]

Unless anyone can point me to some hard data examining pay in the same job fields betwean men and women, I'm unconvinced of the validity of that 70% salary. I've never looked into it, so have only more myth and hearsay to spread. But as I understand it, the 70% came from woman being paid less combined than men, not being paid less for the same position that a man would receive holding that job. As I understand it, much of that difference came from men working much greater amounts of overtime on average, and on average being willing to take higher paying positions which required moving around the country, or physical danger.

Again though, I'm quite conscious that I don't have any actual facts here either. I would be quite interested if anyone had links to first hand information from where these studies came from.

Snow Crash and Blue Max

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

I re-read recently Snow Crash and..

WARNING: SPOILER!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I re-read actually the part where YT has a dentata. She forgets about it, and, when she is going to have sex with the Aleut, it works. Instead of the mythical version that chews penises , this one had a microsyringe injecting a narcotic into the (dilated) blood vessels of the penis. Now that's a 21st century chastity belt.

Actually a chastity belt blocks the man from having sex but also the woman. William Gibson's version in "Blue Max"(?) was a mind conditioning so that the teen girl would feel panic at the idea of having sex. The result was that, when she is raped, she fainted.

Yes, cyberpunk was today's news.

Lightning irrelevant

[SEWilco]

An 80,000 volt jacket will only generate an electric field able to spark across a very short distance, otherwise the wearer's wrists and neck would have glowing decorations.

Remember a lightning bolt has enough power to jump across five miles of air, a fairly good insulator. With a reach of 25,000 feet, a conductor or insulator in the last few feet isn't going to stop it, although a conductor might tend to guide the bolt. A weak electric field won't matter unless the bolt leader happens to pass very close -- and as standing within ten feet of the strike point of a bolt is double-plus ungood, such a minor influence does not matter.

Noisy visible sparking takes away "shock" value.

[Wargames]

This jacket's noisy sparking takes away its "shock" value. The attacker will see or hear the arcs and know that the jacket is "another one of those shock jackets". How does this thing survive against a loaded water pistol?

A version of this jacket where the sparks and sounds are for show only would make for some swank club attire. You've probably seen those bottles in the stores where you can make the multi-colored-lightning bolts dance around where your finger touch the bottle. A jacket of this type would illuminate bike riders and be fashionable and fun to wear.

I sampled the bottle in front of me and the lobotomy and I recommend the latter.