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: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
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.




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
It's absurd and testament to how stupid people are. You never want to put your fate in the hands of a jury if you can avoid it. In this case it worked in the POS's favor. This guy needs to be disappeared and never heard from again!



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
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.


As I said I don't think it's impossible, just quite hard for most people if the woman was resisting. But again i don't doubt it could be done. It's just that most will find it difficult without the use of violence. And yes, all genuine rapist should be dropped into boiling lava haha.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I am really sorry to say this but has anyone considered that she consensually had sex with the guy but when her friend found out she cried rape to save her friendship?

I don't know enough about it and the skinny jeans thing is just ludicrous but as soon as I read the bit about her consolling this guy and then he raped her it just screamed BS to me.

I will probably get flamed like hell for this but it was just my first thought.

Why was there no physical evidence to counter this ridiculous claim that jeans can be too tight?

I also think that if she was kind enough to console her friends ex-boyfriend then she probably knew him quite well. Why wasn't she with her friend consolling her? Does anyone see what I am saying?

OR... He is just a dispicable rapist biting the hand that feeds and got a damn good Lawyer with a terribly gullible Jury.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
I am really sorry to say this but has anyone considered that she consensually had sex with the guy but when her friend found out she cried rape to save her friendship?

I don't know enough about it and the skinny jeans thing is just ludicrous but as soon as I read the bit about her consolling this guy and then he raped her it just screamed BS to me.

I will probably get flamed like hell for this but it was just my first thought.

Why was there no physical evidence to counter this ridiculous claim that jeans can be too tight?

I also think that if she was kind enough to console her friends ex-boyfriend then she probably knew him quite well. Why wasn't she with her friend consolling her? Does anyone see what I am saying?

OR... He is just a dispicable rapist biting the hand that feeds and got a damn good Lawyer with a terribly gullible Jury.


Well that was my first thought too (possibly wrong, but the first thought non the less)

Statistically speaking, id guess that the majority of cases brought to a court would find the balance of common sense riding with the majority of people present.(Theres gonna be exceptions of course)

Also, the tight jeans are just one aspect of the case, he may have been found not guilty simply because her story didnt add up.

Just to clear it up, i feel very sorry for people where there are cases of in-justice.....



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

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.


A consideration here: She knew this guy. He was a friend. At some point there has to be acknowledgement that there was already an established sense of trust between the accussed and the victim, until the alleged rape happened.

This case has hinged on if the jeans - which it should not have done. If the jeans were ripped off forcefully, that in itself is assault - but this was a rape case - not an assault case based on having your clothes removed forcefully.

The definition of skinny jeans refers to the shaping of the leg from the knee down - they are basically a straight cut pant leg - and the leg opening at the bottom can be anywhere from 9 to 20 inches circumference. They are no tighter fitting than a pant of the same manufacturers size as a bootleg with spandex - but they contain more percentage of spandex which elasticises them. If you are a size 10 pant then you dont end up buying a size 8 skinny jeans - because the cut has to do with the leg taper not the waist and thigh size. If anything they are 'form fitting' as opposed to tight - and there is a difference.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
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]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
'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'

This story and the jeans thing it does not give enough info to come to any sort of conclusion. The jeans is a catchy front page line to get people to read it. 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. Unless he druged her or physically forced her to his place I dont see how this is rape. Most females if they are in the same sittuation and didn't like the guy , and wanted nothing to do with him, they wouldn't give him the time of day, much less go to his place to get even more drunk. There is more to this story then skinny jeans.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
What is sick are all the comments here that say he is guilty. You are the ones in the old days who would be the vigilantes and then say sorry after the hanging.

The prosecution failed to prove there case. The man is innocent.

This is why we have jury's not lynch mobs anymore.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
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 ?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join