526309

research-article2014
VAWXXX10.1177/1077801214526309Violence Against WomenWhite and Rees

Perspective
Violence Against Women
2014, Vol. 20(3) 360­–368
Self-Defense or Undermining © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
the Self ? Exploring the sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077801214526309
Possibilities and Limitations vaw.sagepub.com

of a Novel Anti-Rape
Technology

Deborah White1 and Gethin Rees2

Abstract
Despite decades of feminist-inspired law reforms, rape remains highly prevalent.
While many continue to fight for broad cultural and institutional changes, some argue
that more immediate interventions are required. Self-defense techniques represent
a key strategy of resistance to rape, and empirical evidence suggests that women’s
active resistance may hold a number of positive benefits. In this essay, we compare
the aims and objectives of a novel anti-rape technology, known as the Rape-aXe,
with traditional self-defense techniques, focusing upon the potential for both to resist
individual acts of sexual aggression and, more broadly, end gendered sexual violence.

Keywords
rape, resistance, self-defense

In the face of rape and the apparent inefficacy of criminal justice responses to it, many
have looked to alternate means by which to stop this dreadful crime. In the midst of
possible responses to rape, ranging from strategies of ever-vigilant freedom-limiting
“avoidance” to those focused on clinical, therapeutic, and legal possibilities for raped

1Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

2University of Southampton, UK

Corresponding Author:
Deborah White, Department of Sociology, Trent University, 1600 W Bank Dr., Peterborough, Ontario,
Canada K9J 7B8.
Email: deborahwhite2@trentu.ca

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
White and Rees 361

women (Cermele, 2010), it has been suggested that there remain other options, includ-
ing techniques of physical resistance.
Tools of, approaches to, and theories on rape resistance have long existed. Key
among them is a focus on self-defense practices, a controversial subject in feminist
studies and debates over the problem of sexual violence (see, for example, Cahill,
2009; Cermele, 2010; Hall, 2004; Hollander, 2009; McCaughey, 1997). Proponents
contend, and a growing body of empirical research demonstrates, that women engag-
ing in physical (e.g., striking back) as well as verbal resistance toward an assailant
may realize a number of positive outcomes, including benefits to post-assault well-
being. In addition to future acute and chronic physical health problems, “[r]esearch
shows that women who have experienced a completed rape have poorer mental health,
such as more depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts, than women
experiencing attempted rape” (Ullman, 2007, p. 413). Similarly, Brecklin (2008) has
found that women who engage in self-defense tactics have enhanced self-esteem and
confidence in their ability to keep themselves safe (see also McCaughey, 1997).
However, feminist self-defense scholars are also clear that resistance should be an
option, not a requirement or responsibility, available to those targeted for sexual
assault (e.g., Cermele, 2010).
Traditional methods of physically fighting back are not the only examples of self-
defense strategies; carrying pepper spray or using heels as weapons have also been
advocated by law enforcement and security staff to deter an assailant (Rees & White,
2012). In addition, new technological interventions aimed at preventing rape are being
introduced. One such example made international headlines when Dr. Sonnette Ehlers
attempted to promote her anti-rape device, Rape-aXe, during the 2010 FIFA World
Cup in South Africa. Frustrated with exceptionally high levels of rape in her country
and moved by a raped woman who declared, “[i]f only I had teeth down there” (http://
www.antirape.co.za), Dr. Ehlers designed the device as

a latex sheath, which contains razor-sharp barbs . . . [to be] worn in the vagina like a
tampon. When the attacker attempts vaginal penetration the barbs attach themselves to
the penis, causing great discomfort. The device must be surgically removed, which will
result in the positive identification of the attacker and subsequent arrest. (http://www.
antirape.co.za)

Dr. Ehlers failed to generate the financial support necessary to manufacture and
freely distribute 30,000 barbed condoms to women during this event (which she antic-
ipated would see even greater numbers of violent rapes); however, the effort generated
a great deal of media coverage, discussion, and publicity (Rees & White, 2012), which
continues till today.
In this essay, we compare Dr. Ehlers’ aims and objectives with those advocating for
women’s active resistance to sexual violence. Drawing upon the Rape-aXe website
and the literature supporting self-defense techniques, we explore the similarities and
differences between the two forms of self-defense. We critically consider three claims
made by both sets of advocates: that their approaches prevent rape, provide evidence

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
362 Violence Against Women 20(3)

for criminal investigations, and empower women. In doing this, we think through the
utility of each form of self-defense in not only preventing individual incidents of rape
but also in the extent of their value for women. Given that technological interventions
similar to the Rape-aXe have recently been proposed (e.g., Fem-Defense), we believe
this to be a timely reflection on self-defense and sexual assault.

Considering Assumptions and Claims

Prevents Rape
Arguably the primary benefit of active resistance strategies is the potential ability to
thwart a rape. In contrast to passivity, several studies have shown that forceful resis-
tance is related to rape avoidance (Ullman, 2007; see also Hollander, 2009; Ullman,
1997). And, despite the claims of some that struggling aggressively is likely to further
anger an attacker and lead to greater physical harm (Bownes, O’Gorman, & Sayers,
1991), others argue instead that it may cause him to halt his aggression. Ullman (1997,
2007) has found that increased levels of resistance correlate with a greater likelihood
of obstructing a rape (see also Clay-Warner, 2002; Kleck & Sayles, 1990), and that
“when the sequence of attack-resistance-injury has been taken into account, studies
show that fighting leads to less completed rape and no increase or decrease in physical
injury” (Ullman, 2007, p. 414; see also Anger, Ellner, Heyden, & Jackson, 1999;
Ullman, 1998; Ullman & Knight, 1991, 1992). In contrast, a lack of forceful verbal
and/or physical resistance, such as pleading or begging or becoming immobile, is
related to completed rape (Ullman, 2007; Ullman & Knight, 1991; Zoucha-Jensen &
Coyne, 1993).
Similarly, Dr. Ehlers believes that the Rape-aXe will aid “in the prevention of
rapes” (http://www.antirape.co.za), positing that once the penis is trapped by the
Rape-aXe device it will cause so much pain that the assailant will retract, thereby end-
ing the assault. However, we argue that this is a somewhat erroneous and misleading
claim. While the Rape-aXe may interrupt the act, the rape is not prevented, given that
the penis must be inserted into the vagina for the device to become engaged; in other
words, a rape has already occurred.
Beyond her claim regarding rape at the individual level, Dr. Ehlers suggests that the
Rape-aXe could reduce rape more broadly over time. She argues that if the Rape-aXe
were more commonly used, men would be unsure as to whether any particular woman
was wearing the barbed condom and would therefore choose not to risk non-consen-
sual penetration. Although no research has been conducted to determine if the possi-
bility of being trapped by an anti-rape device would act as a deterrent, there remains
the problem that embodied in the design of the Rape-aXe is an understanding of rape
centered solely on penile penetration of the vagina. However, as has been widely
established, both culturally and in the majority of laws worldwide (Du Mont & White,
2007), sexual assault can occur in a number of ways, including unwanted touching and
penetration in non-vaginal orifices using also digits or objects (Du Mont & White,
2007). Clearly, the Rape-aXe would do little to prevent such real-life sexual assaults.

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
White and Rees 363

Self-defense techniques, however, are designed to address a far wider range of

sexual violations, and hold the potential of stopping vaginal penetration before it
occurs, rather than only interrupting the rape once it is underway. Ultimately, what is
most notable about the differences between the Rape-aXe and various self-defense
techniques is that self-defense techniques, unlike the Rape-aXe, apply to resisting all
acts associated with sexual assault, not just penile penetration of the vagina, and poten-
tially also create conditions under which a woman might escape prior to the onset of
assault. Both strategies, however, suggest that rape might be prevented by raising the
risk of immediate harm to the assailant high enough to be a deterrent.

Provides Corroborative Evidence for Criminal Justice

As well as preventing a rape, resistance of any sort may be valuable in helping a
woman’s sexual assault case move through the criminal justice system more effec-
tively. Despite the fact that in some countries (e.g., Canada), the laws regarding the
requirement for corroborative evidence of resistance as an indicator of non-consent
have been abrogated (Parnis & Du Mont, 1999), the legal standard and common prac-
tice there and elsewhere nonetheless remains that there should be evidence of victim
resistance (Larcombe, 2002; Ullman, 2007). For example, rape kit-based forensic
examinations in many jurisdictions attempt to collect biological samples from under-
neath a woman’s fingernails as evidence of struggle, or administer standard questions
regarding whether there was verbal resistance against an assailant (Parnis & Du Mont,
2006). Resistance remains at the center of investigative and legal decision-making,
defense attorney questioning, and jury expectations (Ellison & Munro, 2009; Lievore,
2005; Rees, 2010); some argue that one of the benefits of evidence of resistance is that
a woman may be treated more sympathetically and her legal case handled more seri-
ously (Anger et al., 1999).
This is the second claim made regarding the potential value of the Rape-aXe: its
ability to provide evidence for a future criminal investigation. As the device must be
surgically removed from a penis, the assailant would be required to report to a medical
professional “which . . . [would] result in the positive identification of the attacker and
subsequent arrest” (http://www.antirape.co.za). While this is possible, the reality of
rape is that identification of the perpetrator is not the most common problem in secur-
ing justice. Research indicates that most sexual assaults are not carried out by strang-
ers (Du Mont & White, 2007). Some data suggest that “at least two thirds of rapes are
committed by men known to the victim” (Ullman, 2007, p. 419), and attrition rate
studies report that approximately 1 in 10 are stranger assaults (Harris & Grace, 1999;
Temkin & Krahé, 2008). Hence, the assertion that the Rape-aXe will “aid in the appre-
hension of the perpetrator” (http://www.antirape.co.za) may offer a largely negligible
promise given the realities of the relationships between survivors and assailants.
Furthermore, in cases where the accused is known to the complainant, the defense
will typically argue that the sexual “encounter” was consensual. The issue put forth is
not the identity of the assailant, but whether the complainant consented (Keating,
1995). Were the Rape-aXe to become a standard part of women’s resistance practices,

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
364 Violence Against Women 20(3)

it is imaginable that, especially given the proclivity of defense representatives to

“whack the complainant” (Comack & Peters, 2005), a woman could be accused of
having worn the device to trap a particular man, with the aim of retribution rather than
protection. In this regard, an argument might be made that the woman consented to
sexual intercourse, for sinister purposes (Rees & White, 2012).
Similarly, the presence of injuries on either or both the victim or the accused, even
those from the most violent of attacks, can still be, and often are, explained away by a
defendant’s claim of “vigorous consensual intercourse” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan,
2005) or sadomasochistic play, rather than considered evidence of resistance to assault.
In addition, the documentation of any injuries that do appear can be highly ambiguous
and, as many forensic medical practitioners have attempted to make clear, only the
ways that the injuries were produced can be discerned, not the context in which they
were produced (Rees, 2010). Hence, injuries that do result from physical resistance,
while perhaps helpful in corroborating the use of force, will generally not provide the
conclusive form of evidence for criminal justice that some would believe.

Fosters Women’s Agency and Empowerment

In the section titled, “My mission” on the Rape-aXe website, Dr. Ehlers states,

Governments all over the world still show little commitment to the fight for gender
equality and women’s rights. Women and girls have long been targeted due to their
standing and value in patriarchal societies. Gender based violence appears to be acceptable
. . . My mission is to highlight the plight of these women and give them choice! (http://
www.antirape.co.za; bold in the original)

Through making the Rape-aXe device widely available, Dr. Ehlers believes that
she would be giving women the choice to take action themselves. The notion of
“choice,” however, can be understood in various ways. While it is true that, as with
pepper spray in a purse, a woman could choose to either wear or not wear a Rape-aXe
condom, were it to become a routinized aspect of women’s lives, it would arguably
proffer far less than the freedom associated with real choice. For example, in response
to the question “When would I wear Rape-aXe?” Dr. Ehlers responds, “When you
think that you may be in a compromising situation” (http://www.antirape.co.za).
While this again is based largely on the assumption of a stranger rape, the reality is
that “compromising” situations are often unanticipated. Hence, a woman may feel
compelled to have the barbed tampon-like device inserted almost continuously, which
raises the specter of a number of concerning medical/physiological ramifications and
eclipses any sense of freedom. Moreover, distinctions might well be made between
those willing and not willing to wear a Rape-aXe, For example, extrapolating to the
realities of criminal justice systems, should a tool such as the Rape-aXe be normalized
as a part of the arsenal of defensive devices available to women, there could arise in
courts the expectation that its absence implies a woman was a willing participant.
It should also be noted that the assumptions inherent in the Rape-aXe reinforce
particular cultural expectations of women as “the weaker sex.” Rather than providing

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
White and Rees 365

skills or an empowered sense of self, the Rape-aXe requires that a woman initially be
overpowered before “fighting back” with a technological response. In contrast, the
provision of physical skills that allow the woman herself to resist a man’s assault is the
basis of self-defense training. Of course, it is sometimes the case that peoples’ bodies
(women’s and men’s) are unable to actively self-defend, something that some self-
defense advocates have accepted (Rozee & Koss, 2001; Ullman, 2007); nonetheless,
it has been argued persuasively that new narratives emphasizing that women have the
choice and capability to defend themselves and overcome male aggression are required
(Cermele, 2010). Following the logic of this argument, possessing skills that might be
fruitfully engaged seems a more genuine expression of agency and more likely to reap
the psychological post-assault benefits than merely inserting a trapping mechanism in
one’s vagina.

Some Final Thoughts

Having considered certain of the claims and promises of the Rape-aXe in relation to
the documented realities of rape as well as more traditional strategies of resistance, it
would seem that those physical self-defense options located within Cermele’s (2010)
“middle of the script” (p. 1164) between avoidance and post-assault alternatives and
resources share some commonalities, but more significant differences. While the
Rape-aXe may hypothetically help identify a stranger perpetrator and halt a rape in
progress, more active self-defense approaches offer greater potential benefits, includ-
ing the ability to respond to a broader range of acts, and increased satisfaction and
confidence with respect to having taken a degree of control of the situation.
One overarching commonality between the Rape-aXe and physical resistance/self-
defense approaches concerns a tendency to place responsibility on individual women
in the fight against rape. First, in terms of the Rape-aXe, although Dr. Ehlers’ “mission
statement” begins with a seemingly progressive conception of rape as embedded in
social structures of imbalance and inequity for women, it soon morphs into a divergent
vision: “My aim with the device is to empower women and promote gender equality.
If men can use their bodies—their manhood, as a weapon of attack—well then
it’s time for women to do the same!” (http://www.antirape.co.za, bold in the origi-
nal). Gender inequality is reduced to atomized reciprocal assaults between raping
penises and barbed female condoms.
Further underscoring what posits as the de-politicized nature of this technology is
her response to why she chooses to place the burden onto individual women to protect
themselves:

[w]ho do you expect to protect you? . . . [d]o you have burglar bars and a car alarm? Why
don’t you go out and educate robbers not to burgle? Why do you go to such lengths to
protect your home and not your body? (http://www.antirape.co.za)

We find it difficult to imagine the widespread introduction of such a device as

instrumental, or even mildly effective, in leading to the fundamental social change
necessary to tackle violence against women.

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
366 Violence Against Women 20(3)

With respect to more traditional self-defense practices, the critique of individual-

ization and responsibilization is not new (see Hollander, 2009; Rozee, 2011), nor is the
suggestion that this tendency feeds into the de-politicization of rape (Vetten, 2011).
Moreover, although improved post-assault mental and emotional health is a valuable
effect of resistance, as well as “greater self-confidence, improved body image, a sense
of greater control . . . and changed attitudes about gender roles” (Renzetti, 2004, p.
203), it is, at the same time, important to be cognizant of the ways in which a sole
focus on individual well-being and personal growth not only risks implying that
women can/should change but more broadly signals integration with the growing
“therapeutic state” (Humphrey, 2005; Pupavac, 2004), where “injustice is reconceived
as psychological [and physical] injury” (Humphrey, 2005, pp. 205-206). This focus on
health and healing differs greatly from a political narrative intent on social justice and
ending the ubiquitous sexual abuse of women through an emphasis on not only effects
but also causes.
While the debate will likely continue over whether the promotion of physical self-
defense strategies is problematic in terms of the de-politicization of rape, what we
believe to be unequivocally promising are those current scholarly and activist efforts
intended to situate traditional resistance approaches within a progressive feminist
framework addressing sexual violence such that it does not responsibilize women nor
detract from a collective movement toward structural change (see Brecklin & Ullman,
2005; Cermele, 2010; Hollander, 2009; Rozee, 2011). Key to the appeal of this theo-
rizing (and of the proposed and already implemented programs) is the recognition that
although long-term change must come, in the interim women continue to be sexually
assaulted and efforts must be made to mitigate these violations.
One example of a feminist approach that appears to us to encompass a commitment
to rape prevention, both in the short- and long-term, is that developed by Senn (2011).
Integrated into the sexual assault resistance training in her program are gendered anal-
yses of rape-supportive culture, male responsibility and, in relation to acquaintance
rape in particular, an educational component on “emancipatory sexuality” aimed at
expanding knowledge on sexual desires and options to increase women’s “ability to
seek out sex they do want, and to reject and actively resist that they do not want”
(Senn, 2011, p. 127). Senn herself acknowledges the limits and challenges of this pro-
gram, including the complexity of relating the content to individual women and their
lives while not individualizing the phenomenon itself, as well as the difficulty of
incorporating the complex theoretical understanding of the social causes of rape in a
limited amount of time. We would add to these the need to take into account the reali-
ties of racial and economic differences across the diverse experiences and states of
endangerment in women’s lives (Hall, 2004). Nonetheless, with an awareness of the
historic work of anti-rape feminists and of the de-politicizing effects of avoidance,
therapeutizing, individualizing, and victim-responsibilizing tendencies, we believe
that it is time to propel forward a new collective response to sexual violence based on
a long-term vision of fundamental societal change, strategies for institutional (e.g.,
legal, medical) reforms, and contextualized teachings and techniques of physical
resistance for women.

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
White and Rees 367

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Anger, B., Ellner, T., Heyden, S., & Jackson, T. (1999). Fighting back works: The case for advo-
cating and teaching self-defense against rape. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance, 70, 31-34.
Bownes, I., O’Gorman, E., & Sayers, A. (1991). Rape—A comparison of stranger and acquain-
tance assaults. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 31, 102-109.
Brecklin, L. (2008). Evaluation outcomes of self-defense training for women: A review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 60-76.
Brecklin, L., & Ullman, S. (2005). Self-defense or assertiveness training and women’s responses
to sexual attacks. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 738-762.
Cahill, A. (2009). In defense of self-defense. Philosophical Papers, 38, 363-380.
Cermele, J. (2010). Telling our stories: The importance of women’s narratives of resistance.
Violence Against Women, 16, 1162-1172.
Clay-Warner, J. (2002). Avoiding rape: The effects of protective actions and situational factors
on rape outcome. Violence and Victims, 18, 691-705.
Comack, E., & Peters, T. (2005). How the criminal justice system responds to sexual assault
survivors: The slippage between “responsibilization” and “blaming the victim. Canadian
Journal of Women and the Law, 17, 283-309.
Du Mont, J., & White, D. (2007). The uses and impacts of medico-legal evidence in sexual
assault cases: A global view. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Turning mirrors into windows? Assessing the impact of
(mock) juror education in rape trials. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 363-383.
Hall, R. (2004). “It can happen to you”: Rape prevention in the age of risk management.
Hypatia, 19(3), 1-19.
Harris, J., & Grace, S. (1999). A question of evidence: Investigating and prosecuting rape in the
1990s. London, England: Home Office.
Hollander, J. (2009). The roots of resistance to women’s self-defense. Violence Against Women,
15, 574-594.
Humphrey, M. (2005). Reconciliation and the therapeutic state. Journal of Intercultural Studies,
26, 203-220.
Keating, S. M. (1995). The limitations of intimate samples in sexual offences. Medicine and
Law, 14, 387-395.
Kelly, L., Lovett, J., & Regan, L. (2005). A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases.
London, England: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Kleck, G., & Sayles, S. (1990). Rape and resistance. Social Problems, 37, 149-162.
Larcombe, W. (2002). The “ideal” victim v successful rape complaints: Not what you might
expect. Feminist Legal Studies, 10, 131-148.
Lievore, D. (2005, January). Prosecutorial decisions in adult sexual assault cases (No. 291).
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Government.

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
368 Violence Against Women 20(3)

McCaughey, M. (1997). Real knockouts: The physical feminism of women’s self-defense. New
York: New York University Press.
Parnis, D., & Du Mont, J. (1999). Rape laws and rape processing: The contradictory nature of
corroboration. Canadian Woman Studies, 19(1 & 2), 74-78.
Parnis, D., & Du Mont, J. (2006). Symbolic power and the institutional response to rape:
Uncovering the cultural dynamics of a forensic technology. Canadian Review of Sociology
and Anthropology, 43, 73-93.
Pupavac, P. (2004). War on the couch: The emotionology of the new international security
paradigm. European Journal of Social Theory, 7, 149-170.
Rees, G. (2010). “It is not for me to say whether consent was given or not”: Forensic medical
examiners’ construction of “neutral reports” in rape cases. Social & Legal Studies, 19,
371-386.
Rees, G., & White, D. (2012). Vindictive but vulnerable: The contradictory representations
of women as demonstrated in internet discourse surrounding an anti-rape technology.
Women’s Studies International Forum, 35, 426-431.
Renzetti, C. (2004). Editor’s introduction. Violence Against Women, 10, 203-204.
Rozee, P. (2011). New views of rape prevention and resistance: Enlightening men, empowering
women. Feminism & Psychology, 21, 257-261.
Rozee, P., & Koss, M. (2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
25, 295-311.
Senn, C. (2011). An imperfect feminist journey: Reflections on the process to develop an effec-
tive sexual assault resistance programme for university women. Feminism & Psychology,
21, 121-137.
Temkin, J., & Krahé, B. (2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude.
Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
Ullman, S. (1997). Review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoidance. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 24, 177-204.
Ullman, S. (1998). Does offender violence escalate when rape victims fight back? Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 13, 179-192.
Ullman, S. (2007). A 10-year update of “Review and critique of empirical studies of rape avoid-
ance.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 411-429.
Ullman, S., & Knight, R. (1991). A multivariate model for predicting rape and physical injury out-
comes during sexual assaults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 724-731.
Ullman, S., & Knight, R. (1992). Fighting back: Women’s resistance to rape. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 7, 31-43.
Vetten, L. (2011). Politics and the fine art of preventing rape. Feminism & Psychology, 21,
268-272.
Zoucha-Jensen, J., & Coyne, A. (1993). The effect of resistance strategies on rape. American
Journal of Public Health, 83, 1633-1634.

Author Biographies
Deborah White is an associate professor of sociology at Trent University. Her research inter-
ests include the medico-legal responses to sexual assault, the social production of scientific/
medical and forensic evidence and expertise, and cultural and gender regulation.
Gethin Rees is a lecturer in criminology at the University of Southampton. His interests include
the construction of expert evidence in rape and sexual assault cases, including forensic medical,
sleep, and psychological expert evidence; the treatment of survivors of rape and other sexual
offenses by criminal justice systems; and masculinity studies and the role of men in feminism.

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on March 10, 2015