Rape of woman in skinny jeans 'not possible', page 7

reply to post by antonia

---

Antonia, thanks for clearing that up for me i just assumed they were the same thing. I therefore admit I am wrong on everything I said about skinny jeans. However, jeans that are literally tight is a different story. Maybe what the jury meant was tight jeans? I mean, if your not educated, they seem like the same thing, althought now I understand they are different.

If they actually meant skinny jeans, then it makes no sense to bring that up. But if they meant tight jeans, and just used the wrong term, then i still stand by their question. It seems like that is the case because they did bring up how it would be hard to take off easily. That point would only make sense if they were referring to "tight" and not "skinny" jeans.

Originally posted by Good Intentions
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.

You don't get it. "Skinny" is a type, a label, like flared or extra long.
The fact that she was wearing jeans labelled skinny does not mean they are tight on her.

Besides, tightness is irrelevant. Undo tight jeans and hold the victim up by the cuffs, and they will fall out of them.

Like you said, aussie sizes, there could be smaller sizes in other countries or companies within Australia.

There are no other countries within Australia.

reply to post by Kailassa

---

Read my post to Antonia, I thought skinny and tight were the same thing, sorry about that. And i meant companies within Australia, although it does look like the word "within" applies to both the words countries and companies. Apologies for a stupid mistake.

reply to post by Good Intentions

---

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.

Really ? So the less revealing your clothes are the less likely you are to be raped ? Clothes have nothing to do with rape, it has to do with a sick mind.

When I was 16 and walking home 2 blocks from babysitting I truely doubt that what I was wearing influenced the 6'7' man that attempted to rape me. I was wearing a T-shirt, a hooded sweater, flare legged jeans, black suede shoes, and a leather jacket. My that sounds highly inticing doesn't it ? Even though I was wearing nothing that could be considered in any way, shape, or form revealing at all that did not lessen my chances of being raped.

A woman should be free to wear whatever she wants without living in fear that some sick, deranged, pig with an inferiority complex, that wants to prove his power over her is going to attack and rape her.

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by Good Intentions

---

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.

Really ? So the less revealing your clothes are the less likely you are to be raped ? Clothes have nothing to do with rape, it has to do with a sick mind.

When I was 16 and walking home 2 blocks from babysitting I truely doubt that what I was wearing influenced the 6'7' man that attempted to rape me. I was wearing a T-shirt, a hooded sweater, flare legged jeans, black suede shoes, and a leather jacket. My that sounds highly inticing doesn't it ? Even though I was wearing nothing that could be considered in any way, shape, or form revealing at all that did not lessen my chances of being raped.

A woman should be free to wear whatever she wants without living in fear that some sick, deranged, pig with an inferiority complex, that wants to prove his power over her is going to attack and rape her.

I'm sorry if i offended you. I didn't mean that was the cause to all cases. I feel that it just may increase the chances a little. While it all has to do with a sick mind, it doesn't mean clothes don't have ANYTHING to do with it. They may have influened some cases, and may have nothing to do with other cases.

The bottom line is these people are sick people. I too think that a woman should be able to be able to be free with what she wants to wear, but i also think alot of other things in this world should be certain ways. I am not saying a woman should not express herself, but expressing yourself too much such as showing too much cleavage or thighs, is going to arouse some people. Now, does this not increase the chances of the wrong person being aroused? Does that suck? Yea, but what can we do? We can't find the rapists before they commit the crime, but we can do everything in our power to prevent it, even though it won't always work.

There is nothing in that article that says that there was no physical evidence, nor in any of the other articles that I have been able to find.

They all say the same thing, the only thing they discuss is the skinny jeans and how the jury questioned his ability to remove them from her. As may have pointed out, it's not that hard once he has opened them, just grab them by the ankle hems and pull them off. It's not very hard to believe that a man could do that to a woman that only wieghs 92 lbs.

And the reason that the articles focus on that is because it's absurd that her jeans should be an issue in determining whether or not she was raped. There are very few prosecuters that would take a rape case to trial without physical evidence.

I seriously doubt that a size six jeans would be extremely tight on a woman that only weighs 92 lbs. If anything they were probably be at least slightly loose on her.

He had pushed her on to the bed, placing his torso on top of her.

''I struggled to try to get up for a while and … then he undid my jeans and … he pulled them off,'' she said. The woman alleged he then raped her.

Maybe when he was laying on top of her it made it difficult for her to breathe. And she says she struggled, perhaps she became exhausted from struggling with someone laying on top of her that she could no longer fight hard enough to prevent him from pulling her jeans off.

I'm not saying that he's guilty or not as I don't have all the information. I'm just saying that to say he isn't guilty because it wouldn't have been possible for him to remove her jeans without her help is absurd. That her clothing should never have even come into play regarding the jury's decision.


www.smh.com.au...

Edit because I forgot to include link.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by chise61]

reply to post by chise61

---

92 pounds! Goodness, i have to assume she was on the shorter side but, I'd be shocked if her waist was 20 inches now. An AU 6 wouldn't be tight on her at all.

reply to post by antonia

---

That's what some aren't taking into consideration here is just how petite she is, and the fact that a size six couldn't possibly be so tight on her that they'd be hard to get off. I'd have to say that they would in fact be slightly loose, no mater what the cut. Not to mention the fact that as the day goes on your jeans become looser on you.

And we also have people talking about their girlfriends having to lay on the bed to get their pants on, that means they're too tight on them. Also if if makes it easier to get them on when you lay on a bed, doesn't that mean that it also makes it easier to get them off ?

reply to post by galadofwarthethird

---

And I know of no female that will go to a bar get drunk then go home with the guy, listen to music then go in his room if there wasent going to be some sort of sexual encounter.

Just because she went out for drinks doesn't mean that she went with the intention to get drunk.

It says they went to his room so he could play his drums. Maybe she was friends with him also and had no reason to mistrust him.

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by antonia

---

And we also have people talking about their girlfriends having to lay on the bed to get their pants on, that means they're too tight on them. Also if if makes it easier to get them on when you lay on a bed, doesn't that mean that it also makes it easier to get them off ?

it should actually make that easier. The stomach tends to move in and inch of two when one lays down. It's one of the reasons you always take someone's measurements in a standing position. When you sit your waist will expand, when you lay down it will go in a bit. This is why women with overly tight pants will do that to begin with.

reply to post by Good Intentions

---

I know you don't mean to offend anyone.

There is something that we can do. We can refuse to allow a woman's clothing be a factor in a rape case, especially a pertinent factor.

A women's clothing should never be allowed to be a pertinent factor in a rape case. When they allow that they set us back 30 years.

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by galadofwarthethird

---

And I know of no female that will go to a bar get drunk then go home with the guy, listen to music then go in his room if there wasent going to be some sort of sexual encounter.

Just because she went out for drinks doesn't mean that she went with the intention to get drunk.

It says they went to his room so he could play his drums. Maybe she was friends with him also and had no reason to mistrust him.

Ya maiby and maiby she wanted to see his collection of metallica cds and memorabilia. All im saying there is no information other then jeans are tight and they were drunk and messing around at his place. You have to hear how this thing went down from both parties to come to any conclusion.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

---

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

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

From my own experience, I'm aware of one "friend of a friend" rape story that ended up going to court beore somebody got around to asking if it was rape...why did other people at the party remember seeing the girl on top?

It's the male protective instinct. Rape? Oh, better protect the sweet innocent girl! No, sorry guys. Sometimes women aren't innocent. Yes, sometimes men aren't innocent either. But being "shocked" that somebody would stop to ask how a guy got her clothes off if she wasn't cooperating isn't any more enlightened than "blaming the victim."

reply to post by riley

---

She only weighs 42 kilos
how large was he?

Funny how when we hear "rape" we tend to think a huge man beating some tiny girl until she's unconscious and having his way with her. But 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. Yeah, that's it.

But there's also the middle ground. Imagine a scenario at a party, everyone has had a bit to drink, a girl pulls her shirt off and starts dancing. Some guy starts fondling her, and she's not comfortable with it, but she likes the attention and doesn't say anything. So he takes that as consent and pulls her into a room, where she tries to subtlely and disctretely imply that she's not interested without actually, oh...I don't know...saying or doing anything to stop it.

And then she's crying about it the following day and her friends ask why and she tells them he started touching her and wouldn't stop. To which they get all defensive and immediately jump to rape. At which point it's been set into motion and people are telling her she was raped. She's not going to say no to them any more than she was willing to say no to the guy.

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

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

Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal
  Posted 13 days ago with 79 member flags

Neil Armstrong dead at age 82 - report
  Posted 17 days ago with 63 member flags

Judge orders release of detained Marine veteran
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags

Birds hold \'funerals\' for dead
  Posted 10 days ago with 55 member flags

Russia announces enormous finds of radioactive waste and nuclear reactors in Arctic seas
  Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags

TSA agents swarm Ron Paul\'s plane, demand explosives check
  Posted 11 days ago with 47 member flags

Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags

Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers
  Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: