You Can’t Get Raped In Skinny Jeans, Jury Says

[JI7]

An Australian jury acquitted 23-year-old Nicholas Gonzales of rape because it refused to believe the alleged victim’s skinny jeans could have been removed without “collaboration.” Gonzales and the alleged victim, a 24-year-old woman, met for drinks in April 2008 and then returned to his house to listen to music. Gonzales claims they had consensual sex together; the victim says she was raped and “I struggled to try to get up for a while and then he undid my jeans and he pulled them off.” But defense lawyer Paul Hogan said he thought it would be “difficult for skinny jeans to be taken off by someone else unless the wearer’s assisting, collaborating, consenting.” And the jury believed him.

Is it seriously up for dispute whether or not a rapist could pull a pair of jeans off? Who the hell is on this jury? Any clothing — even tight skinny jeans — can be removed if someone tries hard enough to take them off. (Just ask firefighters, EMTs and other rescue personnel who have to remove people from their clothes in emergencies.) In fact, it’s probably more painful for the victim when tight clothing is forcibly ripped off. For all we know about this particular case, the alleged victim was drunk or on drugs and she wasn’t able to put up much of a fight while her jeans were peeled off. Or maybe, like many victims of sexual assault, she was just in shock about what was happening.

Apparently this jury is focused on whether or not the alleged victim removed her own jeans. But in a more general discussion about consent and sexual assault, let’s not forget that even if a woman did remove her own jeans, she still could have been raped. Going back to his house, going up to his bedroom, even taking off her jeans are not consent. Consent is consent.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time that the “skinny jeans defense” has been invoked: in 2008 in Seoul, South Korea, a court overturned the sentence of a man accused of raping a woman wearing skinny jeans. The same year, though, a court in Italy upheld a rape conviction involving skinny jeans, ruling “jeans cannot be compared to any type of chastity belt.”

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-you-cant-get-raped-in-skinny-jeans-jury-says/

[Canuckistanian]

1. I'm sorry, "defense lawyer Paul Hogan"?

Is this an Australian version of The Onion?

[Meldread]

2. This sounds like reinforcement of the old line: She had it comin'.

Sexist, pure and simple.

"She had it comin', you know, because she was wearing those sexy skinny jeans. She was just asking for it."

That's what I'm taking away from this story.

[pscot]

4. Actually, I believe it's the old

"she didn't fight hard enough" defense.

[Toucano]

10. She consented when she agreed to meet him for drinks without a chaperone.

Or was it when she left the house with her hair uncovered?

:crazy:

Get thee to a nunnery, Ophelia!

[gratuitous]

14. Yeah, if she didn't want to get raped

Why did she go out of the house with her vagina? I ask you? Arrest my case!

[Demeter]

3. Since I can't Get Into Skinny Jeans

I'll just have to rely on dirty fighting

[pnwmom]

5. I agree with you. Since when does removing your jeans mean you consent to rape? n/t

[Toucano]

8. Delete

Response to wrong post.

Oops!

[ieoeja]

13. Since she said he forcibly removed them, it would mean she lied on that point.

Which would lead to the question, what else did she lie about?


What I would ask the juror who gave this point serious consideration is which do they think is more difficult: removing tight jeans against the wearer's will, or inserting a fleshy penis inside someone against their will? I am of the opinion that the latter is more difficult which would mean that by this juror's logic forcible rape never occurs. Which is obviously ridiculous.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. !!!

[AnArmyVeteran]

9. Greenpartyvoter, not many links are active on your site...

but it sounds interesting...

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. It hasn't been updated in years. I keep saying I will get back to doing something with it but

there's always something else to do. The most frustrating thing is that a lot of those websites attached to the missing links are still out there, but they revamped their sites and so the links no longer work. :(

[AnArmyVeteran]

7. What a jury!

[depakid]

11. You'd have to know what all testimony and evidence showed before blaming the jury

It could well be that there wasn't any corroborating evidence other than two people's word on what happened. Six men and six women on the jury- so it's hard to automatically conclude that the jury "thought she deserved it" or some such thing.

[AnArmyVeteran]

15. Bill OReilly would have blamed her just because she wore tight jeans.

OReilly blamed another rape victim just because of what she wore. He essentially said she deserved to be raped...

But you're absolutely right. Without hearing all the testimony I cannot make a realistic or valid judgement. And the only two people on the planet who really know what happened were the plaintiff and the defendant.