Rape of woman in skinny jeans 'not possible'

This is ridiculous. If you can get the pants on, then the pants can surely be removed. What a sad day it is when a sorry defense like this can play a determining factor in one's guilt or innocence.

Blaming the victim certainly seems to be popular these days.

If you are walking around at three in the morning you deserve to be beaten in to a coma.

If you leave your door unlocked, you deserve to be burgled.

If you wear provacative clothing, you deserve to be raped.



[edit on 1-5-2010 by Isosceles]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


There are many people like you, you are not alone, so don't take my words distastefully.. It is Saturday night, I'm going out soon, and going to be drunk soon bla bla bla hope no fights, more bla bla blas...

That in mind what do I mean by "people like you"?

Well people like you lack the ability to reflect and see beyond one point of view..

For example is it really bad to blame the victim ? For what ever that maybe? That doesn't allow the perpetrator to get away./shouldn't allow the perpetrator to get away, but does that give the victim immunity?/should that give the victim immunity?

For example, a thief gets robbed, the thief is the victim, does that give him immunity against the law?

Read the links I provided, it should explain more, at this point I'm 100% sure you are lost.. Sorry


By the way, I have one daughter and a son, they are both dead I mean aborted, ohh no, sad drunk coming through.. Yup so we are all dads, in one way or another..

















[edit on 1-5-2010 by oozyism]

Sorry
By the way, I have one daughter and a son, they are both dead

I mean aborted, ohh no, sad drunk coming through.. Yup so we are all dads, in one way or another..

I'm sorry also

I'll pray to the same God you do under a different name.

PEACE

Slay

girl language:
The woman had told the Sydney District Court she and Mr Gonzalez had met for drinks in April 2008 before going to his Surry Hills house to listen to music.

She said they had gone upstairs to his room so he could play his drums. He had pushed her on to the bed, placing his torso on top of her

Guy language:
I was on the piss over the recent break up of my regular girl when her friend shows up at the same bar where they used to drink (She knows because she is this guy's girl friends' confident) at the time when he is intoxucated...She hits on me..telling what a slut their common friend is and how it isnt the guys fault. The guy goes heah we made a connection here, well heis well into his 4-5 th pint of Aussie beer which is what ? 7.5% percent by volume..and says heh I think I've had enough I headed home..She replies (drinking free) ah so early?" guy things hummm..well we can go back to my place for another pint (already paid for in the fridge) "She says Heh thats great.. so two consenting and intoxicated adults go to a private abode to continue imbibing alcohol ....
so he says to her "Want to go upstairs and listen to me beat on YOUR drums....
Please so the girl is totally innocent and the buy is labeled a sex violator ?
Hey Piss off...dont home drunk with someone you've been bull#ing all night if you dont expect to get hit on!
The chick could and should have said "I dont fell comofrtable leaving the bar alone and under the influence//instead of adventurously heading out to an obvoisly vunlerables situation.
If had been my daughter she would of known how to say no...(between his legs with her foot).
No pity for this situation.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by jbmitch]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by jbmitch]

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
This is ridiculous.
If a woman can get her skinny jeans on and off, then I'm sure someone else could with force.
How about if a woman wearing these jeans is knocked unconscious in an RTA and injures her leg ? Surely there must be documented cases of paramedics and surgeons removing these jeans to assess/operate on an accident victim without her ''collaboration''.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

Paramedics, EMT's etc etc have removed clothing off people, however they are not removed intact. They carry scissors. In emergency situations where clothing needs to be removed, the clothing itself is cut off.

reply to post by oozyism


Oozyism.....

You have been coming across quite combatively in some of your recent posts in this & other threads.

I don't want to extend this apparent argument with you because I feel you simply misunderstand me.

In fact, I'm going to go on my intuition here & say that I feel we actually share similar views, albeit it does not appear this is the case "at first glance".

Please cheer up & have a great night.....I hope we can discuss things again very soon.

....& no, I don't usually leap to a "warm & fuzzy spot" like this under such circumstances.

Kind regards & look after yourself.....
Maybe...maybe not

This is pretty crazy actually...

I think this quote form the article sums it up really.

"jeans cannot be compared to any type of chastity belt".

Obviously we don't know all the facts and maybe there is more to it, but to try and say that because a woman has skinny jeans on, that this in some way "Proves" she couldn't have been raped and that she must have consented or whatever is just crazy.

I also don't agree with comments about women dressing a certain way are being reckless and dangerous.... I don't think that women should be blamed for anything that happens to them because of their dress sense.

I know that perhaps people see a woman who dresses like a whore and think that she's cheap and should be disrespected and whatever.... but that is entirely in the mind of the person who is thinking that.
People dress as they please and should be able to do so without the fear of repercussions.





[edit on 1/5/10 by blupblup]

reply to post by blupblup


Blupblup.....

People dress as they please and should be able to do so without the fear of repercussions.

I agree.....

As I said previously.....they SHOULD be able to do that, but in reality they can't.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not




Well at the same time you can't walk down the street without getting beaten up or shot.... you can't drive a car or you'll crash it.

There is an increased risk perhaps... but should everyone just dress in some sort of one-piece grey body suit and all be bald?
That's not aimed at you, just generally thinking aloud

I also think it's something like 7 out of every 10 sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows... so I doubt that the clothing has much to do with it.


It's not true that you Can't walk around wearing what you like, not even remotely true.
I would imagine the percentage of women raped due to clothes worn, and women who dress in revealing/"Provocative" clothing is ridiculously low.

There are many things that we supposedly "Can't" do because it's dangerous or because society has changed, but it's simply not true.
Yes some men are Neanderthals and can't control themselves but They
are the one with issue.

I know what you're saying but IMO people can and do go out wearing what they like, maybe it's different in the Uk compared to the USA but... I dunno.





Some more info here... and the statistic for knowing the attacker is much higher in juvenile's with 93% being known to the victim.


www.rainn.org...



[edit on 1/5/10 by blupblup]

reply to post by blupblup


Blupblup.....

Again I agree.....

I guess we all just have to be sensible & careful.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not




Well the stats say be More careful around people you know as you're more likely to be sexually assaulted by them.




But yeah, I know we agree man.

It is entirely 100% possible to remove a girls skinny jeans without her helping in anyway whatsoever.

If she struggled this would only make things easier because she no longer has her full weight on the jeans and the bed.

If they go on, they can come off too... oh and I know this for totally acceptable reasons

I really can't believe this has become about what she was wearing in the "slutty" context. Why are people wanting to discuss if she was wearing sexy clothes? Women are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Wear a skirt: You asked for it. Wear jeans: You must be lieing.

She only weighed 42 kilograms.

She was wearing skinny jeans because she was really bloody skinny. They would be normal sized jeans to her and would proably not be that tight as anyone who is 42 kilos is a step away from shopping in the kids section.

She is either very short and small boned or has some sort of ilnness or eating disorder. Either way she would be half the size of her rapist so he could probably pin her down with one hand, foot, shoulder or his chest. He was in the navy so would probably be very well built.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by riley]

reply to post by riley


Riley.....

I hope you did not misconstrue my commentary as criticising the lady in question.

That was not my intention.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

don't know if anyone else brought this up, so thought I would....
this isn't the first time a court has made this judgement....
the same reasoning was made in a case in Italy a few years back...
the girl was wearing tight jeans, and it would be impossible to take them off without her cooperation. the women's groups, with I believe Mousilini's daughter (a member of the pariliment or congress whatever it's called there) lead the charge, the organized a "skirt strike", their reasoning, if it was impossible to rape someone with tight jeans, well, they all wanted to be protected!!
I believe the ruling was overturned.

www.cbc.ca...

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Not at all.. I was responding the the "she was wearing skinny jeans so she was probably a liar and a slut" camp. I mean we've even got people posting their own scripts of what they think happened.. they'll be posting musicals next.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by MrWendal
Paramedics, EMT's etc etc have removed clothing off people, however they are not removed intact. They carry scissors. In emergency situations where clothing needs to be removed, the clothing itself is cut off.

Thanks to you and others for clearing that up for me.
I was basing it on my own experience where my trousers weren't cut, but that was probably because my injuries weren't life-threatening and it was just as easy for them to remove my trousers normally as it was to cut them.

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...

There are plenty of examples of woman falsely accusing men of rape. In fact, one such woman was jailed recently here in the UK for having consensual sex with 3 teenage boys (18+) and then claiming they gang raped her. Fortunately for the boys, a 4th friend was filming the whole thing on his mobile, which showed her quite enjoying the whole thing and very much consensual.

It wouldn't surprise me if this "mutual friend" was doing it to either get one back at the man on behalf of her lady friend, or trying to garner sympathy for something.

Woman are NOT the innocent little creatures people like to paint them as. Many I have met in life are manipulative and bitchy, with a hit of bunny-boiler thrown in.

It shouldn't be presumed the accuser is guilty merely because a woman said she was raped, isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial and innocence before guilt?

He was found not guilty in a trial, I expect if any of you found yourself in this situation you'd want a fair trial too?

reply to post by stumason


so, where does the "tight jeans" fit into you defense?? if what you say were true, then there should be evidence out there that his defense should have found and brought forward to the jury, and well...that would have been the justification for letting him go....
maybe the scenario you just outline if true...but, well, the "tight jeans" fit no where in that scenario and shouldn't have held a place in the evidence pool in the courtroom!

reply to post by dawnstar


The tight jeans was a query from the Jury, which they no doubt took into account along with the rest of the defence evidence.

The tight jeans defence is just a sensationalist headline for the article, but I am sure there has to have been other evidence, such as ignorant-ape said such as lack of corroborating injuries.

A rape isn't a peaceful thing, if she was resisting then she would have defensive injuries to back up her claim. It would appear that the prosecution was the one with the weak case, not the defence, as they could have easily disproved the "tight jeans" defence with such evidence.

Again, this was a "fair" trial and as such he was proven innocent. Most of you in this thread have focussed on the sensational headline and not looked at this objectively. Lets hope should I ever fnd myself up for trial I don't get any of you in the jury as you'd see me hang before any evidence was heard!

Or am I to assume that everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent? Remember, the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the other way around and it would appear they failed.