Australian Man Deemed Not Guilty Of Rape Due To "Consent" Implied By Skinny Jeans

When a jury member was asked why he agreed to acquit a 23-year-old accused rapist, he argued that the victim had been wearing skinny jeans, and he doubted "those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration."

Let's go over that again, shall we? Due to the fact that skinny jeans are apparently impossible to remove by just one person (which is why every pair you buy comes with a personal assistant to help you get them on and off, right?), the jury decided that the woman couldn't have possibly have been raped, as skinny jeans aren't the type of thing that can be taken off by force. Except, as Veronica Wensing of Australia's National Association of Services Against Sexual Assault points out, "Any piece of clothing can be removed with force." Perhaps someday juries will remember that the clothes don't fucking talk, women do: it's not the skirt she "shouldn't have been wearing" or the low-cut top she was "asking for it" in or the skinny jeans "she couldn't possibly have had ripped off of her" they need to pay attention to: it's her mouth, which said "no," which is saying, "listen," which is speaking out as loud as it can over the noise made by stupid fucking people who find it easier to spin stories about inanimate objects than to listen to the stories told by actual human beings.

You're Not Guilty Of Rape: Those Skinny Jeans Were Too Tight To Remove By Themselves [Daily Mail]