Skinny Jeans: The New "Get Out of Rape" Card
An Australia woman was acquitted of robbery Friday when a jury ruled there had to be "collaboration" to remove the man's wallet from his tight skinny jeans.
Oh, wait that's not at all what happened:
An Australia man was acquitted of rape Friday when a jury ruled there had to be "collaboration" to remove the woman's tight size six skinny jeans.
...
The skinny jeans defense has become more common in rape trials all over the world.
In 2008, a Seoul, South Korea jury overturned a rape conviction for the same reason.
An Italian jury upheld a rape conviction in 2008 when lawyers brought a skinny jeans defense, saying "jeans cannot be compared to any type of chastity belt."
posted by ema @ 1:56 AM
2 comments
![[logo]](http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:me2GMPeOIa_I_M:http://tcoyp.com/images/squares.gif){kind=small}
Books
2 Comments:
A woman cannot win, whatever she wears. If she wears clothes that are too easy to take off, she was asking for it. If the clothes are to hard to take off, she must have been complicit in it. Either way, her right to deny consent to sex is invalidated by her clothes. I guess we should all actually get chastity belts, so that our clothes wouldn't be held as evidence against us. But people would still come up with whole sets of arbitrary rules and requirements that we'd have to satisfy to be able to claim we denied consent... we'd never be able to satisfy them all.
That reminded me, a while back (o.k. 20 years or so, but there are obviously still people who think this way), a politician around these parts (Germany) basically postulated that women were not raped because a woman can run faster with her skirts hitched up than a man can with his pants pulled down.
Nope, can't win. I'm waiting for: "Well, you were wearing non-figure-revealing clothes covering you from head to toe, that made him so curious that he just had to tear them off you. No wait... you must have been complicit, too much clothing. Why were you outside of your abode anyway?"
Don't get me started on the local court case (also about 20 years ago) wherein a woman was declared to be partially to blame for the husband repeatedly raping the daughters. Why? Not because she perhaps knew of or didn't report what was happening, but because she wasn't having sex with him. Never mind that the court also declared him to be disgustingly filthy and violent, a wife just has to have sex with him, otherwise the husband might be partially exculpated for the crime of raping his daughters.
Yeah, a bit off topic, but it all bubbled up from memory in one blob. Around the same time there were discussions going on as to whether rape could even occur within marriage. They have decided "yes" in the meantime. So something has changed.
Post a Comment
<< Home