Skinny jeans means rape couldn't happen

hahahaha

The things we do for fashion!

 

That's straw man argument, and one I hear way too fucking often. The question here is not whether she deserved to be raped, but whether she was raped at all. You know that very well. No one deserves to be raped, and I think we can all agree on that. How you could even manage to construe this as 'blaming the woman,' I have no idea. But I will say this: false rape accusations are just as bad as committing a rape. Personally, I'd rather be raped than spend years in prison because some girl had it out for me. With the number of them that occur all the fucking time, this 'guilty until proven innocent' thing really has to go. Maybe you should learn some reading comprehension, or else stop twisting people's arguments. Sorry for the rant, but this happens way too often.

 

Okay this thread has gotten way out of control. I can't believe these stupid comments! The argument is whether or not the jeans could be removed. Then someone stupid comes in and makes a comment about about a guy getting raped. Rape is rape it doesn't matter the gender! Oh and last time I fucking checked No means no!

Oh and just because penetration isn't smooth doesn't mean it happens. And there is tons of evidence if you look at the women's vagina! And if someone points a knife or a gun in your face are you gonna resist?

 

A women can still be raped and take the jeans off herself. She could fear her life was in danger! She could be forced to grab his dick and shove it in.. it's still rape.

 

The first thing I thought was What The Fuck.

I agree... are feminists sleeping?

 

Yes, because I was told that, being a man, I couldn't understand the gravity of rape. What is all this crazy bullshit? It's like if you voice any doubt then you're automatically totally backwards and blaming the woman for being raped. I never said anything of the kind, nor did anyone else that I can recall. It's fine if you just want to play Ms. Superior, but maybe you could consider actually reading what was posted and putting some thought into a response, rather than just quoting the standard sound bytes that are guaranteed to shut people up. I wouldn't want to look like I was condoning rape, so I'd better not argue the point, right? It's one of the lowest things you can do in a debate.

 

Good point!

I mean, I know I would rather be raped than be dead, so if I was being held at knife or gunpoint then I would take off the jeans if he needn't help. I wouldn't want to, but I wouldn't want to be dead either.

So the argument is just completely stupid... it is obvious to me that she could still be raped even if she was wearing skinny jeans.

 

Exactly the point i was trying to make, im not about to get killed or beat senseless over it, it's not about sex anyway..

As for the girl in the skinny jeans, those jeans didn't have to come all the way off, getting them down over her hips would be enough..

 

Rape is Rape. plain and simple. People that dont understand it, whether the girl had tight pants, had a skirt, whatever she was wearing, doesnt mean shes inviting rape.... idk your right, this thread is outta control lol...

 

No one ever said she was inviting rape. But you're right: this thread is out of control. You're all insane.

 

Took me a while to get there and some hard work....

 

I did read the comments so I posted my opinion if you don't like it tough shit!

 

It was more your argument tactics that I took issue with. You didn't respond to anything that was said, instead pretending that other (much easier to argue) things had been said and responding to those. I don't know if you can grasp this, but I don't appreciate being told that I support rape. That's your own little head trip, and that's fine, but just don't drag me into it.

 

Perhaps the whole point is not if you agree that there was a rape.

If I am standing buck naked and say no, it means no. Period, end of story.

The point is the ruling that allowed this to happen. It is a step backward, as usual. We are back to what a person was or was not wearing. It has no bearing at all on rape.

That is the problem with the ruling.

 

But it does have a bearing on rape. The question is, 'could this have occurred the way she said if she was wearing these jeans?' The question is not so much whether rape is possible in this case (clearly it is), but whether the story she told was true in light of that.

 

It does not matter if it was or was not true. This decision not only has a bearing on this case but all future cases as then it can be cited as precedent. Do you not understand that.

I do not care if she was wearing nothing, a gunny sac, or a push up bra or tight jeans. Rape is rape.

To have this ruling handed down is another slap in the face for anyone who is raped. How many times and ways does anyone have to prove they are raped.

It is not this case, the implications are further reaching than one case.

This decision should be overturned. It is a rape of the judicial process in my opinion.

 

You're obviously stark-raving mad. You're saying a possibly innocent man should be sent to jail and stigmatized the rest of his life to avoid setting a precedent?

I agree that 'rape is rape.' However, determining what is in fact rape to begin with, and what is a lie, comes prior to that. I see a lot of people suggesting that we should never doubt a rape accusation, as if it's somehow disrespectful to expect some proof. The victim's word isn't enough to convict someone of any other crime. We can't honestly put people in jail every time someone accuses them of a rape. There has to be a process which consists of more than pussyfooting around the issue and trying not to offend anyone.

 

What the hell is your problem ????

 

I am not going to argue with you. You simply are not receptive to thoughts nor can you do more than linear thinking.

It has nothing to do with this case, the issue is the precedent it is going to set.

 

It seems pretty obvious to me that the issue is the precedent the case will set, not whether this particular person is guilty or not. The reason given for why he is innocent is fucking stupid and complete bullshit... and THAT is the issue. He may or may not be guilty, I have no idea, but he is definitely not just automatically innocent because she was wearing skinny jeans.

Just imagine how one would feel if they were raped and then it was declared that you couldn't possibly have been raped because of what you were wearing. It's just a ridiculous reason.