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.

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.

Life imitates Dilbert?

[kent_eh]

Dilbert already invented Shock Pants almost 3 years ago.

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.