Rape of woman in skinny jeans 'not possible'

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


That's why the only conclusion that I came to was the fact that her clothing should not play a role in the rape trial. I'm not going to try and second guess whether he is guilty or not, because I don't know the facts. But you can't assume that she's lying because she went to his home, or his room.

reply to post by LordBucket


Lack of consent does NOT equal consent.. if a man knows on some level that the woman does not want to have sex with him and he goes ahead anyway IT IS RAPE.

reply to post by LordBucket


LordBucket…..

Our society has at least as strong a habit of always siding with women and holding them blameless regardless of circumstance

I’m not so sure about that. I think it’s a variable situation.

It's the male protective instinct. Rape? Oh, better protect the sweet innocent girl!

Well…..that’s not all bad.

No, sorry guys. Sometimes women aren't innocent.

That’s true…..sometimes they aren’t.

there's also the opposite scenario, where a girl has sex and the morning after remembers that "Oh, yeah" she has a boyfriend. Why are you pregnant? Oh...umm...I was raped.

Unfortunately, that happens……& some men have been severely damaged by such false claims.

Truth isn't always as simple as "her good, him bad."

I agree.

Always blaming the man isn't better than always blaming the woman.

I agree

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by LordBucket

 

Lack of consent does NOT equal consent.. if a man knows on some level that the woman does not want to have sex with him and he goes ahead anyway IT IS RAPE.

Riley....

When you say.....

".....on some level....."

.....I guess that's where it could get tough to know exactly what's going through the mind of a girl at that time, particularly if for some reason she isn't thinking or communicating clearly due to emotions, alcohol, etc...

That's why an extremely careful, caring approach should always be in the heart of a man in such relationships, no matter how transient those relationships might be.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by chise61


The jeans thing is more of a story thing to get readers, if it was anything even close to a trial tight jeans is just one among many evidences that there were. And I can't assume that she is lying because she went in his room. But I can assume that it's more of a consent on both parties that they ended up drunk in his room, unless she was forced there this is a non issue. The skinny jeans seems to be the thing that the writer of the story one Bellinda Kontominas latched on to.

reply to post by riley

Lack of consent does NOT equal consent

But lack of objection does equal acceptance. A man will go after what he wants. If he does, and meets with no resistance, why should he stop?

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


its hard to get those things off, but if the suspect is a random person and not an ex boyfriend; than he's guilty.

girls would only take it to court because its real or to take down someone who hurt her enough to act a little...crazy. i know girls who say that when someone hurts them, but hell; discussing rape in public is pretty embarassing to the victim.

i know a guy who got in a lot of trouble for rape; but he definitely didn't. she just got hurt terribly by him and that was enough to push that he did it.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by riley

 

Lack of consent does NOT equal consent

But lack of objection does equal acceptance. A man will go after what he wants. If he does, and meets with no resistance, why should he stop?

LordBucket.....

What if the girl is too scared to offer resistance?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by LordBucket

 

Lack of consent does NOT equal consent.. if a man knows on some level that the woman does not want to have sex with him and he goes ahead anyway IT IS RAPE.

Riley....

When you say.....

".....on some level....."

.....I guess that's where it could get tough to know exactly what's going through the mind of a girl at that time, particularly if for some reason she isn't thinking or communicating clearly due to emotions, alcohol, etc...

That's why an extremely careful, caring approach should always be in the heart of a man in such relationships, no matter how transient those relationships might be.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Well said and agreed.

I did consider editing the way I phrased it but when it comes to the crunch a man knows if a woman does not want to have sex. Some men think if you get a non consenting woman blind drunk and then have sex with her it's okay. I have even seen people defend having sex with unconcious women as "not counting as rape" because she doesn't remember and isn't awake. Some people say "if she didn't say no" it's consent. Some people say "if she didn't say no loud enough" it's consent. Alot of people think a woman not fighting back is consent when the fact is some women can't. Sometimes they're too afraid or do not realise it's an option. I had a friend who got raped by her school's gardener. She was always a big girl and developed early.. she was also very passive; dosile. We were trading virginity stories and I actually had to tell her she had been raped. She said she said no, kept saying cried but she didn't know she was raped as she didn't fight back. I asked "So why didn't you hit him?" and she said "oh I could never hit anybody." She seemed to be very relieved when I told her it wasn't her fault.. she had been carrying that shame for many years. Not for just being raped but for not fighting back.

I remember my exes nephew telling a "funny story" to his father and uncle about how he and his mates got a chick so drunk till she was passed out and all took turns and then drew all over her with textas. He was not happy when I told him it was rape.. he went pale, was shell shocked and ashamed. I felt bad for saying it as he had been a good kid till then but he needed it.

I was in the doghouse for a while after that but it was worth it and hopefully he didn't do it again. What disturbs me most is he had no idea it was wrong. It was as though he and his mates thought getting girls drunk made them morally "fair game". Pack mentality.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by riley]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

What if the girl is too scared to offer resistance?

"Resistance" does not need to take on the form of gouging someone's eyes out. A simple "No, this isn't ok with me." should be enough.

If a girl is incapable of communicating her desires, how can she expect them to be fulfilled?

Let's take two scenarios:

Guy picks up a random girl off the street, throws her in the back of his truck, holds a knife to her throat and screams at her that if she moves he's going to cut up her pretty face. She's scared, so she doesn't act.

Now let's consider a different scenario:

Girl meets a cute guy at a party, and they end up talking privately in a bedroom somewhere. She starts taking off her clothes and she starts worrying about what will happen. She's scared she might get pregnant, but she's also scared that if she rejects him he won't like her anymore. So...she does nothing.

Do we see how these scenarios are different?

Ultimately this is a communications issue. "Girl is scared" does not automatically equate to "guy understands that girl wants to not have sex right now." If John intends for something nice to happen, and Susan fails to communicate that it won't be nice for her, how can you blame John for going ahead?

Apply this to all of life, not just sex. If you passively accept things that you don't want and willfully choose to do nothing to prevent them, you can expect to lead a miserable life.

Imagine having dessert with friends. There's only one brownie left on the table. You really want it. But instead of taking it, you sit there and look it it, passively wanting it. And somebody else reaches out and takes it. You do nothing. Did they "steal" the brownie from you? No. Of course not.

This is basic energy exchange. Sitting around being unhappy that you didn't get what you wanted after refusing to take any action to try to make it happen is dumb. Bemoaning how horrible it is that someone did something you didn't want after refusing to take any action to stop them is a recipe for unhappiness.

It is basically reasonable for people to try to get what they want. But you're people too...and it's reasonable for you to try to get what you want too. When two people want things that are mutually exclusive, it's up to them to resolve that. When conflicts of interest happen, the person who passively accepts somebody else's intent contrary to their own desire is probably not going to get what they want.

It is not a violation of free will to do something to someone who in full awareness chooses to accept your actions.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by LordBucket]

reply to post by riley


Riley.....

I think you have expanded on my commentary & expressed things very well.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by LordBucket


LordBucket.....

We appear to be continuing to say similar things in a slightly different way.

I think we are both saying that people should be extremely careful & extremely considerate under such circumstances.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


And there is a very good reason that she latched onto that part of the story and brought it to people's attention. And that is the fact that the jeans should never have been a factor in that trial, period. Unless of course they were, or had some kind of evidence on them.

Reading through most of the replies in this thread, it is unsurprising we live in a man=evil and guilty, woman=good and innocent society. I guess Rape is one of those taboo subjects where researching ways to prevent it from happening gets hampered by the politics of the "who exactly are you blaming!" question.

News Flash: Forcing sexual advances on somebody against their will is rape and this is NOT the idea being debated. Finding ways to reduce rape from occurring and giving potential victims advice on how to reduce the chance they are targeted is what needs to be discussed. Why is it that examining ways to stop the crime from occurring is associated with blaming the victim? It is not!

[edit on 2/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

A concern I have lies with the jurys ASSUMPTION which lead to the cross examination

During the trial the jury sent a note to the judge asking for more information about ''how exactly Nick took off her jeans''.

''I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration,'' the note read.

The jury made made an assumption (predetermined doubt) about the jeans and how easy or not they were to remove -

The girl in her defense, when questioned said:

Under cross-examination from defence counsel Paul Hogan, the woman said she weighed 42 kilograms and did not find it hard to squeeze in and out of her jeans.

''I'm suggesting it's difficult for skinny jeans to be taken off by someone else unless the wearer's assisting, collaborating, consenting,'' Mr Hogan said. ''I would disagree,'' she replied.

If this case was determined in the mind of the jury, as it sounds as if it was to a degree because of their 'doubt' - it seems that they had already had made unsubstantiated deductions' about the skinny jeans prior to the woman answering the question under cross examination. Then they have made a jury decision - they should have not considered the skinny jean issue as proof of consent -
the cross examination expanded with the words 'assisting, collaborating, consenting' ... these words dont equate to assisting, collaborating and consenting to the case in hand which is the rape. Even after the woman said she had no problem with her clothes - it sounds as if it was not believed or considered.

He also removed her knickers at the same time.

...had allegedly pushed the woman on to his bed, ripping off her size six skinny jeans and underpants before the attack.

What is in question here for me is not the verdict - it is the jurys assumption prior of what they 'believed' about skinny jeans prior to the cross examination - and ultimately taken that into consideration as 'consent' in the verdict.

Look it is just a sensational story written to make you think the guy went free based only on the skinny jeans angle. We don't know that. Rape usually is accompanied by injury or evidence or something. This sounds like the girl was drunk and regretted her decisions. Or in the very least it is the chance case when a guilty guy goes free because there just isn't enough evidence to convince the jury. We don't know.

reply to post by chise61


Unless in this case the female is drugged or unconscious or forced to do it when they were doing it in his room, then she most likely consented to the act. With how the law is all she would have to do is show a picture of a bruise and say rape, and the guy is *SNIP* for the rest of his life.

Only a real rapist would take that chance and most likely they would use drugs on a random incounter so the victim is unconscious and would remember little and have no clue to were the rapist actually is, no name, no picture id, no clue were he lives or stayes, if he is even in the state or country, if she lives to report it that is.
But in the story they know eachother it says she is friends with his ex, why would he rape her if the next day he would have to deal with cops at his place. If this guy forced her after she said no, then get rid of him bye bye have fun in prison.
But if not then its a passion crime, there is probably more to this story, and if the jury and judge went off of the skiny jeans are impossible to get off, then the system failed. A story abouth jeans is not enough info to judge anything.

And I dont understand this logic were a chick goes to bar gets drunk with random guy then goes home with him, goes in to his room they get naked then she changes her mind, but says nothing.
Then later cry's rape, I mean what the hell do those females even exist I have never seen such a thing. But if they do exist thank the gods that I havent, thats a headache in the making. Learn to say no it's not that hard. Or buy a gun and learn how to use it.




[edit on 2-5-2010 by alien]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


so.....
you're an advocate of tight jeans, think every women should wear them, since it's oh, so impossible to get them off to rape the girl??
you make sure you daughter never leaves home without them??

reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire


that is just an assumption on your part...
the case in italy in 1999, the lower court found the man guilty of rape, it then went to the higher court, where well, the judge decided that na, it couldn't have been rape, the jeans were so tight, no one could have taken them off without the wearers help! this set off an uproar THAT STARTED WITHIN THE PARLIMENT. the female legislators all began coming to work in tight jeans and encouraged the women of the country to join them, and many of them did. even the prime minister of italy unofficially stated his support for the women!
now, let's see in this case....
the man was guilty until the tight fitted jeans were considered an issue by the higher judge....then he wasn't guilty and let go. and it was the legislators that rose up about it....it there was anything to know about this case, I would imagine that these legislators had enough power and connections to dig it up, heck one was the daughter of a dictator!
I kind of remember reading that that ruling was overturned, but I went back searching and didn't find anywhere where it had been, so I might be wrong there. but, they still have a worldwide skirt strike annually to bring attention to rape victims and the inequality that they often encounter within the courtroom.

so, well, the "well, those jeans are too tight, it would have been impossible" argument has been used before, and it seems to have been the sole justification for letting the man go at least in the Italian case!

now I would propose that those who actually believe this about those jeans, well, you should promptly make sure all the women you care about squirm their way into a pair today!! sounds like it's the best protection against rape around!!

really, I wonder if this isn't what the people who make such decisions in courts want, all those cute little butts in those tight jeans walking down the sidewalks for them to enjoy!! but, what the heck!! best protection there is! Supposedly!

Originally posted by dawnstar
so.....
you're an advocate of tight jeans, think every women should wear them, since it's oh, so impossible to get them off to rape the girl??
you make sure you daughter never leaves home without them??

Care to rephrase? I do not understand what you are trying to say.

I already stated the Defendent's argument of "she was wearing tight jeans, so she could not have been raped" is a ridiculous one. Why are you purposely misrepresenting my statements?

[edit on 2/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]