10 thoughts on “You can’t be raped in ‘skinny’ jeans

  1. This is horrendous – even *if* it’s true that to take the jeans off requires some lack of struggle on the part of the wearer, surely the judge had an obligation to make clear to the jury that a lack of physical struggle in no way implies consent or a lack of coercion…?

  2. Some skinnies have so much stretch they fall down on their own, gravity only, no help from human hands. And 42 kilos is tiny! Unless the woman’s a blackbelt, my daughter could probably pull the poor thing’s pants off. Not that she would–just a size comparison.

    I’m sure the guy outweighed her by at least 30 kilos?

  3. it’s just such a weird thing to think, anyway. it sounds like the juror(s) thought ‘it would’ve been really difficult to take those trousers off, so i bet he didn’t do it’, as if it’s implausible to think that a rapist went to any trouble to commit the rape. as if they only go for it when it’s easy?! (but then i bet when it’s easy, it’s not rape because it’s her fault for making it easy!)

  4. Right, when we’re confronted with an attacker, we’re supposed to pound our faces off his head a few times to demonstrate by our bruises that we’ve struggled?

  5. To Xena – yes, exactly. In some states, including my own, first degree rape can be charged only when there is evidence that the woman resisted and your description is exactly what is required – injury. I have a newspaper clipping from within the past 10 years where three young men were no charged with gang rape because the girl showed no injury. My question is always this: is this the kind of rape law women would enact?

  6. I think people are missing the point of this. Neither the defense nor the jury were claiming that once you have taken off your pants, that constitutes consent. Rather, the woman testified that the defendant ripped of her jeans. If this was, in fact, and impossibility, then the woman lied in court and her testimony in general should be called into question. I am not claiming, of course, that lack of struggle constitutes consent, or even that removal of clothing constitutes consent, simply that if the woman stated that her jeans were ripped off and this was an impossibility, then she was lying and the jury were right to acquit.

  7. Hi Anon, you’re right that that was the issue in the Australian case, and perhaps people haven’t picked that up in the comments. But if you read through the whole article, you’ll see that the question of whether or not one can be raped at all in skinny jeans has come up in two other court cases in Seoul and Italy. So, there does seem to have been some attempt to use the wearing of skinny jeans as a defence in itself.

  8. Anon- that’s actually what I was referring to. As someone who wears skinny jeans regularly, I think if someone believed it was impossible for them to be taken off unwillingly, there’s a good chance they believe that because that’s what they wanted to believe. I don’t find them anymore difficult to put on or take off than straight leg jeans, and the woman in the story is smaller than I am, so I can’t imagine she would have anymore difficulty than I do.

Comments are closed.