Rape of woman in skinny jeans 'not possible'

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

Hehe, make that 4 pages now. All full of people so convinced of the guys guilt while not being in possesion of half the facts and automatically siding with the "petite" (as if that has any bearing on anything) woman against the big, nasty man... Oooh...

Are you serious? So you think a woman being much smaller than a rapist wouldn't make it easier for him to overpower her? Of course size has a bearing on it.

reply to post by stumason

and, what you say may very well be true, but I think what most of those here are reacting to is the idea that the "tight jeans" in anyway has any bearing on the case whatsoever!

it doesn't!
and it shouldn't!

let's say over half the rape cases are just women lying (I think I am being nice to the male population with this assumtion), and let's say that that carries over to those rape cases that involve women in "tight jeans"...or "slutty dressed" women....
to set a precedent that the way a person dresses like this would well, it is not seeking out what is just! it's more like saying we don't want to to go through the hassle of finding out the facts, the person had tight jeans on and we all know how hard it is to get those off, or slutty clothes begging for her to be raped or whatever...
well, well, that would tip the scales of justice, letting the the rapist go free.

and I will tell ya something, it also does the male population of this country a great disservice itself. I am pretty sure my husband could pass any girl on the street dressed however she want, or nude even, and have the self control not to rape her! what the oh, but she was dress....lines seem to do for me is to say...
oh, but look at how she was dressed!! the poor guy couldn't help himself!!
which, is complete bs! and demeans men almost as down to animalistic levels....
so don't give the the crap guilt trip about how I am casting all the males as rapists!

and, um...correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the law enforcement community kind of encourage women not to fight the evil doers too hard to begin with....ya know, ya teach the a little self defense but let them know, it's better to lose your purse of you virginity than to lose your life??





[edit on 1-5-2010 by dawnstar]

reply to post by riley


Injuries much?

Besides, just because someone is smaller, it does not automatically follow that someone bigger can overpower them. Some people have tried to use that philosophy when I've been out on the town and it didn't work out too well for them! For all you know, she could be an ultra fit athlete and the chap could be someone who finds running more than a mile a challenge.

I've noticed some people try to link the fact he is a Navy cook to him being much stronger, but that also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In the Royal Navy, for example, once you've done your basic training, fitness is not that high a priority. As long as you can fit through the door on a ship, they will leave you alone as long as you pass the basic fitness test which any moderately fit person can do.

Again, this is all pointless speculation. It went to trial, both sides presented their case and the prosecution case was weak as piss, which is why it would appear he got let off due to the jeans but in fact the prosecution case must have been pretty feeble and relying on two people's word against each other.

Had their been any other evidence pointing to a violent assault then this point about the jeans would be quite moot.

reply to post by dawnstar

I am pretty sure my husband could pass any girl on the street dressed however she want, or nude even, and have the self control not to rape her!

Exactly.
A female friend of mine, who is severely bi-polar, couldn't stand the way the anti-psychotic drugs made her feel. She would go for weeks without taking them. One day, while in full manic phase, she was hit by a wave of religious fervour and decided to hop on her bicycle, stark naked. She ended up happily pedaling round and round a roundabout in rush hour traffic. Not one out of control male jumped out of his car, knocked her off her bike and tried to rape her, with other motorists valiantly tackling him and dragging him off her. Not one. Instead, a man approached her calmly, did the best he could to cover her up with his jacket and stayed with her until the police arrived.

The way a woman is dressed is an excuse, not a cause of rape. Rapists choose to rape, no matter what a woman is wearing; women could go around dressed in an igloo-tent, there would still be a chance they crossed path with some guy who gets off on forcing himself on them.

So the decision was based on the clothing worn by the victim?

I would think regardless if she was standing there naked, or she was wearing the Mitchelin Man suit - that the case was taken off track - the onus should be on the facts, and if it was not consentual, it was rape - skinny jeans or not!

Basing the conclusion of rape being consentual on what clothing she was wearing, and whether it could it have been taken off for it to be consentual, is an 'inconsideration'.

This should never have been considered as part of this trial - and where was the lawyer defending the victim on this?

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Let me answer by saying
if it wasn't possible to get skinny jeans off a woman my wife and I wouldn't have had 4 kids!

Of course the wife wasnt struggling

[edit on 1-5-2010 by DaddyBare]

dont act like all you females just slip right in and out of those things...

i know in my lady's case she has to lie on the bed and wiggle them on, and coming off requires several phases of pulling one of the legs from the bottom, then scooting down the rest...it can take 2 people.

i dunno maybe its a certain style or brand or something, i just know sometimes its hard to get them off even working together, and my ladys 110, i dunno what that is in kilograms or if the weight makes a difference.

but from just looking at them you can tell they were designed to shape to certain curves, and it can be difficult if those places are filled in.

and contrary to popular belief, not every guy can turn into the hulk and just "rip" them off like a candy-bar wrapper.

and where im from, way more girls cry rape than actually get raped. i dont know if theres an actual statistic behind that or not but in my own recollection it seems whenever there would be a party or something anytime somebody said they were raped it was either because they had way too much alcohol to remember anything or because the guy didnt want to have anything to do with them afterward. and it would always be way after the incident...

im not saying it doesnt happen, or that it isnt to be taken serious. but lets not pretend that theres never been a case of "the girl who cryed rape"

riddle me this ,

how does rape occure or present it self in the animal kingdom ?

why does not both parties of the human genus need to "come" inorder for for child to be made ?

is there even such a thing as "normal sex" or is all miss translated means of reproduction ?

reply to post by LurkerMan

your lady is probably damaging her body by wearing something that tight??

"women who cry rape"

like I said, lets say that's 50% or the rape cases in general and that is carried on down into those cases involving "tight fitting jeans"..
so we allow the idea that the jeans are too tight to take off without a big enough hassle to discourage the male, and then well, you would have 50% of those men being left off the hook, based on not much of anything except what the women was wearing.....
the women have been verbally knocked down in this thread as being prone to thinking that they are all rapists! and yet, some seem to think that all the women who aren't wearing good wholesome clothing are lying cheating whores!!
I would suggest that neither is true, and that the courts and investigators before them should be concentrating on other aspects outside of what the women was wearing...
that's if there's is any interest really in obtaining justice!!

let me ask you guys something, some of you I imagine have daughters, some of yous don't, well, imagine you did for awhile here.
and that daughter just came down with the tightest fitting jeans she could possibly wear....what are you gonna do?? tell her how much you appreciate her taking the extra care to prevent rape, or tell her to go take them off, she looks like a whore and is setting herself up for a rape??

reply to post by dawnstar


i never said it should be considered in court or allowed to dismiss responsibility by any means. and i agree they do look whorish. but alot of girls seem to like them or they wouldnt be so trendy.

im just saying dont pretend to not understand the arguement.

in a hypothetical exaggerated case, i could see a skinny frail dude standing before a girl bigger than him saying "are you serious?"

lets not throw out common sense, if the girl had figure and a little meat on her, and the jeans were skin tight, it would be difficult to get them off...

if that throws a wrench in her story (i dont know her story) then i guess it could be important enough to present in court.

Originally posted by jeanvaljean
A female friend of mine, who is severely bi-polar, couldn't stand the way the anti-psychotic drugs made her feel. She would go for weeks without taking them. One day, while in full manic phase, she was hit by a wave of religious fervour and decided to hop on her bicycle, stark naked. She ended up happily pedaling round and round a roundabout in rush hour traffic.

What your friend did was idiotic and irresponsible. She is very lucky she did not find harm after taking part in such stupid behaviour. I don't want to be too hard on her because she suffers from bi-polar, which can make people do irrational things.

Not one out of control male jumped out of his car, knocked her off her bike and tried to rape her, with other motorists valiantly tackling him and dragging him off her. Not one. Instead, a man approached her calmly, did the best he could to cover her up with his jacket and stayed with her until the police arrived.

How does this relate to the thread exactly? The accused and his lawyer are arguing that the victim was wearing skinny jeans and therefore could not have been raped. This is an utterly ridiculous argument. If sex was forced upon her without her consent then it is rape. Does not matter if she was wearing plated armour...

The way a woman is dressed is an excuse, not a cause of rape. Rapists choose to rape, no matter what a woman is wearing; women could go around dressed in an igloo-tent, there would still be a chance they crossed path with some guy who gets off on forcing himself on them.

Who do you think has a higher chance of being sexually harassed or raped in a public area - a woman wearing clothes or one that is naked?

You know, I don't really believe that jaywalking has anything to do with getting run over by cars. After all, people can get run over by a driver even when they use pedestrian crossings! I guess that means it is unnecessary to encourage others to use pedestrian crossings because there is a chance they can get run over even when they do.

[edit on 1/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by LurkerMan
dont act like all you females just slip right in and out of those things...

I dont find skinny jeans any less difficult than normal clothing becasue skinny jeans have a percentage of 'stretch' in them - some skinny jean fabric is as elastic as leggins or thick stockings - and yes, they are cotton based and look wear and act like full cotton jeans which dont stretch.

i dunno maybe its a certain style or brand or something, i just know sometimes its hard to get them off even working together, and my ladys 110, i dunno what that is in kilograms or if the weight makes a difference.

110 pounds = 49.8951607 kilograms
The woman was 45kgs which is just ovewr 99lbs

Then possibly this is just another thing the jury didnt expand on when they decided skinny jeans were the issue - the type of fabric.

but from just looking at them you can tell they were designed to shape to certain curves, and it can be difficult if those places are filled in.

So are 'Y' fronts.
If your point refers to following the form and shape of the female body - thats what clothes do - tight or loose - so is your point more related to exhibition or 'the way people dress?'.

and contrary to popular belief, not every guy can turn into the hulk and just "rip" them off like a candy-bar wrapper.

there is too little explaination in the report to actually say how they came off - that part isn't clear.

and where im from, way more girls cry rape than actually get raped.

The article relates to a case that has gone through the courts - it relates to an actual person being charged and it going to trial - not the amount of town-talk, rumours, assumptions, judgements and inuendos thrown about.

im not saying it doesnt happen, or that it isnt to be taken serious. but lets not pretend that theres never been a case of "the girl who cryed rape"

No one is pretending - but this is a case where using the womans clothing type (without scrutiny and further examination) as evidence that the sex was consentual is misappropriation - it should not have been considered to decide the outcome. What if she had taken them off? Its not rape. The Rape part obviously was after that - this is just testimony of what happened leading up to the event - but it is not the event.
Rape is about Power.

I don't wear tight fitted jeans, never have, so I really can't say just how hard they are to get on and off...but...
well, I do know that I can go to work wearing snug fitted jeans and by noontime, those jeans would be about falling off of me if I didn't have a belt on!!!
yes, my weight and size varies that much through the day, maybe there is a health issue causing it, or maybe it's just something that is brought on as one ages, but, well.
I can also see how something could be extremely tight fitting at one time, and not be so tight fitting at another....at least for some people....
it's my experience!!

so well, who is to say weather or not these jeans were too tight to take off or not at any given point of the day, or month?

just another consideration...

In the UK, just about every political party say they want to increase the conviction rate for Rape offences, as they all deem the current low conviction rates as unacceptable. This worries me, how can you increase a conviction rate, they're either guilty or not! What also bothers me is the fact that there is such a low conviction rate in the UK, so, the majority of suspected rapists are actually found innocent, for whatever reason. Think about that, what does that mean, it means the majority of women who cry rape either can't produce sufficient evidence in court, or must be lying! As brutal as that sounds, I can see no other explanation for the so-called "unacceptable low level of rape convictions". Many women have cried "rape" after being caught sleeping around by their husbands/ boyfriends, waking up the next morning with mr not-right, etc etc.
Unfortunately rape is a very real crime and the way that some women use it as an excuse for regrettable sexual encounters, revenge etc, they just make it that much harder for women who really have been raped to make their case!

To all the women who have cried false rape in the past.......... shame on you

To any ladies that have suffered this type of atrocious and horrific assault, I can only extend my most heartfelt sympathies and wish all of you a brighter and happier future.

Respect

Peace

Jezus....what a BS! Hell, even I were to be covered in plastic foil all over my body mummy style, if somebody threatens me I take it off!

In response to the title and the OP case as presented, I have to say that the statement which forms the title of this thread is absolutely false, and has literaly no scientificaly supportable truth to it.
First of all, in a general case, now I am asked to , I can think of several ways that skinny jeans could be removed without consent. Some of those ways involve putting the potential victim in fear of thier lives, enough to perform the manouvre themselves, and others involve incapacitating the hypothetical target before attempting trouser removal, possibly rendering the victim unconcious . This would have the effect of allowing gravity to assist the perpetrator, by altering the dynamics of the flesh beneath the clothing, making it easier to get at, and move.
On a more personal note , when you get home from a club, and your freind has vomited on her jeans , you learn how to take them off, no matter how much fight you get out of her (You cannot let a good freind sleep in vom trousers).

reply to post by Dark Ghost

What your friend did is idiotic and irresponsible. She is very lucky she did not find harm after taking part in such stupid behaviour. I don't want to be too hard on her because she suffers from bi-polar, which can make people do irrational things.

Sometimes, a person with severe episodes of mania or depression has psychotic symptoms too, such as hallucinations or delusions.

nimh.nih.gov...

It would have been idiotic and irresponsible if she had been in full control of her faculties. The point is that she was delusional at the time.

How does this relate to the thread exactly?

It relates to a point made by a poster in this thread.

Who do you think has a higher chance of being sexually harassed or raped in a public area - a woman wearing clothes or one that is naked?

Again, my reply was to the post made by Dawnstar who made the very valid point that men are not out of control beasts who would rape a woman at the mere sight of naked flesh.

You know, I don't really believe that jaywalking has anything to do with getting run over by cars. After all, people can get run over by a driver even when they use pedestrian crossings! I guess that means it is unnecessary to encourage others to use pedestrian crossings because there is a chance they can get run over even when they do.

What?
You seem to be saying I'm advocating for all women to toss all precautions to the wind and walk around naked or in skimpy clothing in dark alleys. I'm well aware of the difference between an ideal world ( mutual respect between men and women, sexual interactions based on consent) and the real world where women wearing revealing clothes run the risk of attracting the attention of the type of rapist who feels entitled to rape women dressed this way.
Yet, if all women were to dress 'modestly', this particular type of rapist would still go on raping - because clothes don't cause rape. The intent to rape causes rape.

Originally posted by jeanvaljean

Sometimes, a person with severe episodes of mania or depression has psychotic symptoms too, such as hallucinations or delusions.

nimh.nih.gov...

It would have been idiotic and irresponsible if she had been in full control of her faculties. The point is that she was delusional at the time.

For the record, I am very aware of the symptoms and effects of manic-depression. Secondly, it is only because she did not suffer harm or harm others that you are excusing her behaviour. What if she had got behind the car and run over an elderly lady. Would you still be saying that her condition is an excuse? Like I said I have sympathy for her because I understand the illness she has.

Again, my reply was to the post made by Dawnstar who made the very valid point that men are not out of control beasts who would rape a woman at the mere sight of naked flesh.

No they are not. But what kind of message is a woman sending if she wears very revealing clothes? Do you think most women are saying "I am an intelligent person, with dignity and pride" or "Please look at my hot breasts and beautiful thighs!"

The way we dress can speak volumes of our intentions and goals. Do you think that me attending a job interview in my PJs will have no effect on my chances to get a job? What if I intend a business-meeting in my bathers?

What?
You seem to be saying I'm advocating for all women to toss all precautions to the wind and walk around naked or in skimpy clothing in dark alleys. I'm well aware of the difference between an ideal world ( mutual respect between men and women, sexual interactions based on consent) and the real world where women wearing revealing clothes run the risk of attracting the attention of the type of rapist who feels entitled to rape women dressed this way.

I am glad you see the logic behind it. This is not about getting women to walk around in tents. There are obvious dangers that women face. I have and will continue to advise all the women in my life to take precautions and look after themselves. There are bad people out there. We have both established that we cannot stop the intent of rapists, but we can sure decrease their opportunity to act on that intent.

Yet, if all women were to dress 'modestly', this particular type of rapist would still go on raping - because clothes don't cause rape. The intent to rape causes rape.

Yes, that type of rapist would still take part in that behaviour, regardless. But what about the opportunity factor? Rape, like most crimes, strives on opportunism. It will still take place for other reasons regardless, but its occurrence can be greatly reduced by taking basic safety measures.

[edit on 1/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

my wife and i always wore skinny jeans back in the early 80's and believe me it was easy as hell for us two 16 yr olds to get our jeans off for a quickie when the opportunity arose ( cough )

Whether the victim in this case is innocent or not isn't relevant.

What's relevant, is how the jury is questioning the notion if someone with skinny jeans can get raped. How ridiculous.

EDIT: for clarity, and so no one misunderstands me, I'm appauled that this is even a question for the jury. Of course a girl can get raped in skinny jeans, a girl could get raped wearing an Iron Man suit. Christ.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by ProUSA]