Skip to content

Fashion Refutes Sexual Assault??

May 3, 2010

A court in Australia today acquitted a man of rape under the argument that there is no way a woman wearing size six skinny jeans could have possibly not participated in their removal.

WHAT?

Are you kidding me?

There is so much wrong with this case that it left me momentarily speechless.

Firstly, this again supports the statement that women who wear “provocative” clothing were asking to be raped. However,  is wearing a garment that’s IN STYLE really provocative? Did it ever occur that following trends does not make you a sex-crazed, hysterical woman, but merely one who takes pride in her appearance and likes to look up to date? There is also the double standard that a women who is trendy is somehow better than the woman who isn’t. Yet, being in style somehow permits rape. Women who aren’t dressed in popular outfits are often discounted as irrelevant or confronted with accusations of their “deviant” sexuality. (Oh Ugly Susie, it doesn’t matter how intelligent or genuine you are, your wardrobe makes you look like a frumpy lesbian, which negates all of your contributions.)

Secondly, why did the woman’s size matter at all? A size six is not a giant tub of jiggling lard, but a healthy and normal weight. Women are subjected to impossible standards where they must be both thin and fit, trendy but not shallow, intelligent but not threatening, and sexually active while being simultaneously passive.

Note: I just found out that size six in Australia equals about a size two in the U.S.

I’d also like to point out that skinny jeans can be taken off by another person. It’s not a particularly difficult task to perform. All the other party would have to do is tug at the bottom of the legs, just like the wearer would to remove them. This does not require some special degree in engineering to figure out, but mere functioning intelligence.

Speaking of intelligence, how could a jury of ADULTS be stupid enough to fall for idiotic fashion stereotypes? Yes, some women wear pants that are too tight. However, they’re not a vice grip, just an article of fabric fitted to the body. They do not double as a magical chastity belt and they are not as impossible as current media jokes would lead one to infer. Anyone with half a functioning brain could easily see that humor does equate truth. Idiots.

Ultimately, ridiculous notions about women’s sexuality and behavior completely mock the justice system and perpetuates a society which advocates rape. Even if Nicholas Gonzales had been convicted, he likely would not have received more than a two year sentence, and that only if he had completed the full term. Possession of weed, a crime which has far less serious ramifications on society, has a mandatory minimum sentencing of ten years. Why is violence against women still seen as socially permissible? Anger over this ridiculous criminal justice policy results in women  being called “man haters” or “femi-nazis,” when it is simply the absurd antics of the double standards which permeate into every single aspect of our lives which inspires outrage. Accepting a society which permits this shit is simply impossible.

Advertisements
3 Comments leave one →
  1. May 4, 2010 3:10 am

    Thank you for this. In my post on the topic (http://notanodalisque.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/anyone-for-a-pair-of-chastity-jeans/) I didn’t manage quite the same level of rant. Your version is satisfyingly angry.

    I think the thing with her being size six (which is very small) is that a) it is easy to get the jeans off, because she is small and b) her size implies she is weak. Neither is really helpful, since people buy clothes to fit their size, so hey can still get them on and off (in fact this is a key factor for me when choosing clothes) and “weak” is not objective, but comparative, she only needs to be weaker than her assailant.

    How can a jury acquit on this basis? It makes me angry, too.

  2. May 4, 2010 7:27 pm

    Thank you! I feel with a blog called “The Hating Expert,” all notions of politeness are allowed to be thrown straight out the window.

    Seeing a woman so tiny would actually lead me more towards believing her. Not to say that at that size she would be necessarily weak, but it would certainly make her a more appealing target to a sexual predator who would operate under the assumption of weakness.

    It’s interesting to note that her attacker’s size wasn’t mentioned at all. Even if she was in excellent shape, she’d clearly be at a disadvantage if he was of average male build, simply because she WEIGHS AROUND 90 POUNDS.

    This whole charade of justice is beyond sickening.

Trackbacks

  1. What Does It Mean To Be A Feminist? « The Hating Expert

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: