It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rape of woman in skinny jeans 'not possible'

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProUSA
Whether the victim in this case is innocent or not isn't relevant.

Ironically put.
There have been alot of people in this thread wanting to talk about the guilt of the rape victim. Last I checked it is not the victims who get arrested.

..yet they are then ones put on trial?




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProUSA
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.


That's the problem with stories such as these. I believe they are purposely put out in the open to make people who question the issue of Rape look bad, even condoning of the behaviour. Since when does examining an issue make somebody guilty of supporting it?

It's like the "rape cannot happen in the confines of marriage" garbage. How many people actually hold this view that a husband has the right to rape his wife? It is insane. Just as insane as the assertion that women who where "skinny jeans" cannot be victims of rape. Surely this is a deceptive tactic being utilised by those who want a gender war to ensue.

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



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 



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?


Yes I would. She was not responsible for her actions. She did not do what she did out of stupidity or recklessness, but from a distorted view of reality.

Hey Dark Ghost. Let's not take this any further off topic.




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Just another symptom of our increasingly morally relativistic society. I have no doubt that everything that was once looked upon as being "bad" will be "good" eventually if it continues down this path.

Unless there is something about this story we are not hearing the jury/lawyer/judge are just as complicit in the crime as the rapist.

Cases like these are still in the minority but for how long. Heart goes out to this lady and her family. The system has failed not only her but the rest of us who now have to potentially live by this guy and people like him.

Supposed "natural law" has no problems with rape. It happens in the animal kingdom all the time. I ll just hope final justice is served eventually even if it is after natural life is over.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Regardless of however small this girl is, they are talkin about TIGHT jeans, not small jeans. If a 500lb man has some tight jeans on, they are probalby a little too big for you, but they are still TIGHT on him. Likewise, she may be small, but that doesnt mean she can't have jeans to small for her. What is she too small to find tight clothes?

If children can outgrow their clothes, this woman can find tight jeans. The fashion nowadays for woman is very tight jeans. I'm getting the impression jeans are a little tighter now adays, because like some others say here, my girlfriend will sit on the bed and wiggle and wiggle for a couple of minutes before she can get her jeans on. It's just as hard to get them off when necessary.

Doesn't mean it's impossible, but is a very hard thing to do with the cooperation of the woman, let alone while shes resisting and fighting you back. Like other's said, it would have taken some physical abuse to get her to cooperate. Which would leave some physical evidence.

Now, nobody is blaming the victim, they are simply asking questions. Many people these days falsely accuse others of rape simply because how easy it is to win the case. It sad, but thats the way things have gone.

The man is innocent until proven guilty, therefore should get his chance to defend himself. How else can we distunguish the real cases from the fakes without asking questions?

Edit to add: I meant to type skinny instead of tight, however i usually refer to them as tight. They are the same thing, however people around my area usually refer to them as tight jeans rather than skinny jeans. Sorry about that.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Good Intentions]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Good Intentions]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


A god damned nude woman saying NO is enough..

Jesus... I don't care what she's wearing, NO IS NO.

arseholes...

makes me sick




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
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...


Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I'm certainly not judging whether the guy is guilty or not. It would be wrong to form any kind of conclusion one way or another without knowledge of the full facts.
I also accept that there's a possibilty that my other opinions may be based on newspaper reports that do not tell the whole story in this case.

What I do find ridiulous is the thought process and rationale of the jury members that thought that the defendant couldn't get skinny jeans off without consent.
If they came to this erroneous conclusion, then they had to find the defendant not guilty - regardless of any other evidence - because this one assumption falsifies the woman's claims.


I'm also more than a little concerned - if this was the exact wording - at their note to the judge; ''how exactly Nick took off her jeans''. Why on earth are they referring to anyone in a formal court setting on first name terms ? Is it really that dumbed down ?
What is wrong with ''the defendant'' or even ''Mr. Gonzalez'' ?

I echo what someone else said earlier in this thread, that the last people I would want judging me were random members of the public. It certainly is a lottery.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not


This verdict disturbs me.

It appears to part of the increasing habit (agenda?) of blaming the victim.




I agree whole heartedly but...


Females really need to watch what they ware or not ware.

NO

I do not condone the actions of a pervert,

Let's be real woman THEY are out there.


Bull, they can 'wear' what they want - if you think that makes it ok for some bloody sicko to rape them, pfft.

I like how you cover your arrogance with a disclaimer tho.




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


....and he said they need to watch what they wear, he didn't say they cannot wear those types of clothing. Sure, they are allowed to wear whatever they want. Unfortunately, what they choose to wear will have an effect on the risks they have of being raped. Is it ridiculous, yes. In my opinion you should be telling this to the rapists, because it is them who are more likely to target women with revealing clothing. In other words, wear at your own risk.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Good Intentions]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Intentions
 


Are you saying she attracted a rapist because she was wearing skin tight jeans or that he couldn't rape her because she was wearing skin tight jeans?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Intentions
 


Not good enough. What about everyone else ? Rich people should be poor, pretty people should be ugly, successful people should be lame.. A woman can wear what she wants, and to say it even remotely falls on her for an attack, is absolute garbage.

This attitude is utterly disgusting.

We live in a crappy world, yes, but with attitudes like that, we only open the door to excuse.

What, put them in a burka to make them safe? "The cat only eats the meat if its exposed?" attitude?

MAN UP.. The blame lies in one place only, and that is on the head of the scumbags who would do this. ENTIRELY.

I'll ask, if you mother was considered still hot, and she felt so and was attacked, do you blame her "Gee mom, why'd you wear those skinny jeans?" or the guttless wonder "Hey, Shes asking for it" who hurt her?

Society needs to damn well step up. Too much blase going on.

jesus...



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by Good Intentions
 


Are you saying she attracted a rapist because she was wearing skin tight jeans or that he couldn't rape her because she was wearing skin tight jeans?


Who knows if that's what was attracting the rapist, I was just stating that it's probly more likely for a women wearing revealling clothing to attract a rapists. I was saying that yes, women can wear whaterver they want, however it increases the risks. I was replying to the other post that stated women are allowed to wear whatever they want. Althought that point is off topic, women should be aware of the risks while wearing what they choose too at the same time.

Also, i didn't say he couldn't rape her because she was wearing skin tight jeans. I said it would be hard to do without the cooperation of the other women, however not impossible. Do I know for sure the truth to this case? I know just as much as you do. Just because she is the alleged victim, doesn't mean she shouldn't be questioned.

However, unless they had the actual jeans she wore during the rape, to show that they were tight and to show if they had physical damage such as tear due to violently pulling, then this question would be irrelevent. She may have had tight jeans in court, but the issue here is the jeans she wore during the rape.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


Didn't say it made it their fault. I said it increases their risks. I'm pointing more towards revielling clothing like cleavage shown, althought off topic, i thought you were reffering to womens clothing in general in your previous post. Do I think women should never wear these kinds of clothing and wear burkas? No, just stating that if you choose to wear clothing that is a little to revieling, you may be at a higher risk.

Doesn't mean it will be your fault, just that those cold hearted rapists will be more likely to see you as a target. As you said, the rapists are the problem. Therefore, what women can do is to try to avoid clothing too revieling that may attract a rapist. It's sad that women can't express themselves freely without worrying, i completly acknowledge that. But to ignore that it may increase your risks in order to express yourself freely isn't worth it. I'm all for women wearing attractive clothing. I'm saying that somwhere between revieling and covered will keep you more in the safe side while still looking attractive, yet not too revealing.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Good Intentions]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Good Intentions]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by soror
 


I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I feel for the friend who had to go through this. I imagine the hosptial seems clinical about it, but it must be done.

I have given birth, you tend to lose all modesty when you are pregnant. IN a hospital setting, every person who can put on gloves, examines you. So I wonder if you have never had children if it would seem more invasive.

I read a statistic once that women of child bearing age, are more traumatized by rape then younger women or older women.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Intentions
Also, i didn't say he couldn't rape her because she was wearing skin tight jeans. I said it would be hard to do without the cooperation of the other women, however not impossible. Do I know for sure the truth to this case? I know just as much as you do. Just because she is the alleged victim, doesn't mean she shouldn't be questioned.

Rape is against the law.. being a rape victim and wearing tight jeans is not against the law so questioning (interrogating) her for that is ridiculous and she should NOT be cross examined based on what kind of jeans she wore. If there is actual evidence that suggests she may be lieing then they should ask questions as filing a false claim is against the law. The only questions they should be asking are relevent facts. How tight her jeans were is not relevent.

Wearing tight jeans is in no way evidence that she lied about being raped so the question should never have been asked. The woman was 42 kilograms.. skinny jeans would probably be "normal" jeans on her. In this case the rapist would have been over twice her weight so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how he was able to overpower her.

Now if she was a normal sized woman ..it would still be possible. Perhaps some of the jurors just have really fat arses and have to use a shoe horn to get into their own jeans.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by riley]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Good Intentions
Also, i didn't say he couldn't rape her because she was wearing skin tight jeans. I said it would be hard to do without the cooperation of the other women, however not impossible. Do I know for sure the truth to this case? I know just as much as you do. Just because she is the alleged victim, doesn't mean she shouldn't be questioned.

Rape is against the law.. being a rape victim and wearing tight jeans is not againast the law so questioning her for that is ridiculous and she should NOT be cross examined based on what kind of jeans she wore. If there is actual evidence that suggests she may be lieing then they should ask questions as filing a false claim is against the law.

Wearing tight jeans is in no way evidence that she lied about being raped so the question should never have been asked. The woman was 42 kilograms.. skinny jeans would probably be "normal" jeans on her.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by riley]


Cross-examination and defense isn't against the law either. In any case, the defandent tries to prove their case by finding faults in the accusations. If the story goes he took her jeans off which, if tight may be a hard task without force, and she has no signs of harm, then yes there is reason to cross examine that.

Skinny jeans are skinny jeans regardless of the weight. Maybe skinny jeans on YOU would be "normal" for her, but thats not the case. If she is wearing skinny jeans, they are obviously sized to her body to be tight, so the weight is irrelevent. Skinny jeans for a 500lb woman would be too big for me. And skinny jeans for this woman would be way to tight for me. Regardless of how they fit on ME, they are tight on the size they are meant for.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Good Intentions]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Intentions
Skinny jeans are skinny jeans regardless of the weight. Maybe skinny jeans on YOU would be "normal" for her, but thats not the case. If she is wearing skinny jeans, they are obviously sized to her body to be tight, so the weight is irrelevent. Skinny jeans for a 500lb woman would be too big for me. And skinny jeans for this woman would be way to tight for me. Regardless of how they fit on ME, they are tight on the size they are meant for.


Sorry, that's absolute nonsense.

A size 8 (Aussie sizes,) friend is so skinny she can only wear "skinny jeans," and although they fit snugly around her bony hips, they are still baggy in the bum and legs.

Coincidentally, this friend also weighs around 40 kilo.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Intentions
 


Ahem, it's time for a discussion about skinny jeans from someone who actually has made and sold clothes for a living. Skinny does not mean "tight". Skinny refers to the cut of the jean being closer to the body itself. Bootcut tends to flare out at the knee. Skinny does not flare out and follows the line of the calf to the ankle. It does not have to be tight on the body. If your girlfriend have to lay down and wiggle to get in the pants it means they are too small for her. She needs to go up a few sizes. Most women would rather squeeze into a 2 than admit defeat but hey, it's their blood circulation not mine.

As for issue of weight, of course they are not the same. A woman who is barely 100 pounds will not fit in jeans the same way a woman who is 200 pounds will. That is why smaller sizes are cut differently and larger sizes tend to be more expensive. The patterns have to be modified.

Jeans will loosen if they are the correct size as the fabric tends to stretch out. Most skinny jeans are made with a different fabric to begin with the includes more stretch. Size 6 AU would be about a 2 american. That's a 24 inch waist 34 inch hip for most american denim lines. For a 99 pound woman? probably a bit too large. I'd be shocked if that woman's waist was 24 inches. Most petite women come in at about 20-22. They wouldn't be that tight to begin with.

Edited cause i hit a 2 instead of a 3.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by antonia]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Okay so because you friend can't find jeans that fit her, that means nobody can? Like you said, aussie sizes, there could be smaller sizes in other countries or companies within Australia. Some girls I know that have this problem, go to the childrens stories such as Abercrombie and Fitch for kids. To say that because she is small, she can't find jeans that are tight on her is ridiculous.

Like i said, children outgrow clothes all the time. What may be tight on a 10 year old, isnt on a 5 year old. Unless of course your saying there are no such clothings smaller then the clothing we wear at the age of adults. It doesnt matter if the woman was 200lbs, 150lbs, or 85lbs, it's the fact that the jeans are tight on this woman.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Being big and strong, I can tell you I'd have no trouble removing this woman's jeans, however tight, by force.

Throw the woman down on her back, sit on her, undo the jeans, then stand up and grab the bottom of the cuffs and lift her up by them. However tight, it wont take much shaking to make her slip out of them.

And there would be no bruises to show for it.

I've held a 6' 8" footballer up by his ankles against his will, and he couldn't stop me. ( I was a footy paramedic for Carnegie, and this big wimp hurt his back in the middle of an important game. This fixed his back instantly. He was delighted afterwards and installed a trapeze so players could stretch their own backs.)

It's all about who's fast, strong, aggressive and determined.

By the way, I'm a woman, and would like to see all genuine rapists dropped into boiling lava from a great height.

-along with those who manufacture excuses for them.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join