By J. DeVoy
Apparently juries have a problem convicting men of rape when their alleged victims are wearing skinny jeans. The pants are so narrow and hard to get on or off that reasonable minds believe “collaboration” is necessary for their removal.
An Australian man was acquitted of rape Friday when a jury ruled there had to be “collaboration” to remove the woman’s tight size 6 skinny jeans.
Nicholas Gonzales, 23, admitted to having sex with the 24-year-old accuser, but insisted it was consensual.
The woman said Gonzales pushed her on his bed and held her down against her will, the Daily Mail reported.
“I struggled to try to get up for a while and then he undid my jeans and he pulled them off,” she testified.
Gonzales’ lawyer pressed her, saying it would be “difficult for skinny jeans to be taken off by someone else unless the wearer’s assisting, collaborating, consenting.”
[...]
The “skinny jeans defense” has become more common in rape trials all over the world. (Source.)
By Email
By RSS Feed
Puzzled. Even skinny jeans are wider at the top than at the bottom, and therefore, they become progressively easier to remove after the first half-inch. I would think that if the woman was lying down and the man grabbed the cuffs of the jeans (after undoing the waist of course) they would come right off. Not that I am arguing from first-hand experience of course. But I strongly suspect that skinny jeans are only hard to remove if you try to pull them from the top inside of from the bottom.
So glad there is a law blog where one can discuss this kind of issue.
The pairs I own aren’t form-fitting like girls’ are, but they’re still difficult to remove from the top without pulling them inside-out — something that becomes a near-impossibility if there are objects in the pockets. Pulling them off from the cuffs at the bottom also is problematic even with perfectly straight legs. Considering that a woman’s jeans would be tighter fitting and there presumably would be some kind of struggle getting them off (depends on the facts of the case), I can see there being some merit to this defense. I don’t think it’s a panacea, though
The real crime is that anyone thinks skinny jeans makes them look better. Fashion is like a contest where everyone tries to look as stupid as possible, and the prize is validation of that goal for some reason.
I respectfully disagree; skinny jeans REALLY help out girls with narrow waists, but that may just be personal preference. But if these cases continue, the trend may die down.
On my campus it seems like half the women wear stretch pants instead of jeans, which is basically equivalent to being naked. There’s something to be said for leaving something to the imagination…
Yeah, its a damn shame that that part of the 1980s had to make it back to the fashion runway.
No, the real crime we should be discussing is skinny jeans on guys. I agree, removing skinny jeans clearly must be a collaborative effort. And sometimes the liberal use of a lubricant. Here is proof
And oops, sorry for the run-away long link. And typo word omissions. Dyslexia strikes again.
setting aside the argument of whether or not it’s possible to remove a skinny jeans without the female’s assisting and collaborating (I myself wear petite XS clothes and junior section skinny jeans, so can’t really be the judge on this particular point), even if the female consent to removing the jeans does not mean she consent to the sexual act itself. the matter is, even if she only changed her mind after her jeans has come off, it could still constitute rape… I haven’t read the full decision, but I feel the news article is a bit misleading. skinny jeans can’t be the only or determine factor in the decision.
Like I noted in the comments, it’s fact-specific. If she’s claiming no consent at all, then the pants would have been forcibly removed, leading to the issues discussed in the article. If, as you note, she consented to some activity but not all, and helped take her pants off, the inquiry becomes more difficult.
Her own testimony is that he forced her pants off. Not that she said “no” after they were off.
“The woman said Gonzales pushed her on his bed and held her down against her will, the Daily Mail reported.
‘I struggled to try to get up for a while and then he undid my jeans and he pulled them off,’ she testified.”
Um, HELLO!????!!!
The REAL CRIME would be that some dude just got acquited for rape BY CLAIMING THAT HE COULDN’T HAVE RAPED A GIRL WEARING SKINNY JEANS!!!!
BUNCHA GODDAMN IGNORANT FUCKS, WORRYING ABOUT THE GODDAMNED FASHION POLICE!!!
If he got acquitted, is it really a crime? The jury found reasonable doubt. We don’t know the facts of these cases — just that it’s an emerging trend.
You know, hate to say it but a girl has a right to say “no” even after them skinny jeans are off. For instance, she might be petite and he might be, whats the word, armstrong (not the guy).
I live in China and my American friend sits in Jail for 3+ years now just because a Chinese girl tried extorting money out of him. She said “money or I claim rape” – he said F’off and she went to the police as a “motivator” to pay. Unfortunately police said “you going in hole for long time”
He gets out this year in December.
Another fellow I know kicked this party girl out because she didn’t want consensual sex, but more of a “paid” arrangement. He was nice enough to let her sleep the night. Unfortunately by morning, she stole his dog and called him up saying to bring $3,000 USD or we send you the dogs head. Only in China, where you can negotiate with ransomers and get your dog back for around 1/3 the price. Though he did have to go through a narrow dark alley with 3 guys at the end :-(
Don’t get me wrong, China and the people here are not that bad. But I also never said those were my only stories, hahaha
The first sentence of Attila’s post is great.
Is the assumption that once the jeans are off, the prize is guaranteed?
No. But taking one’s pants off and not having sex seems very… high school. That’s not a legal argument, but a common sense/reality one. A girl taking her pants off doesn’t create consent, but I find it hard to imagine a scenario where they come off and she’s still saying “no.”
The defense seems more viable if she’s claiming the entire encounter was forcible and her pants had to be ripped off for the act to occur.
Maybe skinny jeans require removal for third base access. (I think guys wearing skinny jeans is high school [maybe middle], but what do I know.)
And therein, perhaps, is the fundamental difference between men and women. While once you guys are turned on, it’s basically go-time no matter what, for us girls, we can still get plenty turned off even well after the skinny jeans have hit the floor.
lol @ men who blow it after that point.
It is hard not to LOL when that happens, but we try.
“No” means no. But, sometimes it also means, “and please, please never make that face again.”
What happened with the second sentence? And third, and fourth? Did they fall under the greatness meter? hehehe but do forgive me, I get carried away…
Maybe she was expecting a visit from Col. Angus…
I can’t believe no one has seized upon the news that there are RAPE-PROOF JEANS now available on the market. I mean, shit. Forget about those self-defense classes, that pepper spray you’ve been carrying around, the whistle attached to your keys… all you need is a pair of skinny jeans and you are safe from all would-be attackers. Fathers, no more need to worry about your daughters walking alone at night. Just get your precious girls some skinny jeans!
Though, I am a little puzzled that it took us until 2010 to realize the security that these safety-pants can provide today’s woman… (especially since this is hardly the first time this particular pantswear “fashion” has been en vogue).
One word:
Scissors
There’s a little Kafka at play here. In the 80s, when material tech wasn’t as good, club girls’ pants were so tight, they used pliers to get the zippers closed. I’m aware of a couple assault cases that were bounced because wearing such tight jeans was “asking for it”.
Also, I wonder if the fact that I don’t wear skinny jeans (now that I know they prevent rape) means that I’m asking for it…?
Yes. Yes you are! HARLOT
Ok, ok. Fair point.
So why is it that when a person is robbed, and feels so threatened by the mugger that s/he assists in the removal of her/his watch or takes her/his wallet out of her/his pocket, no defense lawyer uses this to argue that the perosn “wanted” to be robbed?
Inapt analogy. When you assist a robber, you’re cooperating because you value personal safety over property (cash, credit cards, etc.). The crime in that case is that the robber took the property.
The crime in a rape case is the nonconsensual act, and it necessarily implicates bodily safety. If a victim assists the attacker, it muddies the water regarding consent. I know, I know: “No means no,” but from an evidentiary standpoint and the jury’s perspective, it does not look good for someone to claim rape and then help his or her attacker remove articles of clothing, etc.
Yes and no.
In a date rape scenario, probably it matters, and how much it matters will depend greatly on the skills of the attorneys involved and the credibility of the testimony given. Its more than possible for a woman (or a man, frankly) to initially consent, and then change their mind. Nonetheless, in a date rape scenario, the initial consent does muddy the waters.
On the other hand, if I have a gun pointed at your head, and tell you to strip… you see my point. Or, if you hire me to pose as a, say, nude model for a painting, and therefore undress myself and then you rape, etc. etc.
By the by, in this case in particular (the one in your story, which was a date rape situation), the woman admitted on the stand that it would indeed have been difficult in those specific circumstances for the accused to have removed her jeans without her assistance. I think that admission, more than anything else, tipped the scale for the jury.
I have a hard enough time getting a girl’s clothes off when she’s cooperating, so I find this story to be pretty reasonable.
Given that your legs are the strongest part of your body, and you can’t just work on removing the pants from one leg and then the other – you have to get both at the same time, even wide-leg jeans would be hard to remove from a person who was struggling.
There is a teacher at my school (I’m in Year 12), he was a juror on this case. He saw a doctor give testimony that the woman suffered from 5 vaginal tears, and 2 anal tears.
That sounds very consensual to me.
P1E2
Even if that’s true, I have two words:
Wild sex.