This is an actual heading in the Sydney Morning Herald.
A jury asked for more information about how a woman’s clothes were removed during an alleged rape (I have to say ‘alleged’ because the accused has been acquitted).
During the trial the jury sent a note to the judge asking for more information about ”how exactly Nick took off her jeans”.
”I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration,” the note read.
But you know what, even if she did ‘collaborate’, and I’m not for a moment suggesting she did, it’s rape from the moment she says, “No” or “Stop” or “I don’t want to do this” or tries to get away or gives any of the myriad indications that she no longer agrees to sex. And that’s what this woman says she did. Even before the alleged rapist pulled her jeans off, she struggled to get away.
It’s just a sick version of the “she was asking for it because she wore revealing clothes” trope. Only this time it’s dressed up as being about logic and evidence; she was asking for it because you couldn’t possibly tear those clothes off a woman.
This woman, by the way, weighs a mere 42 kilos. She’s tiny. Why didn’t the jury give any consideration to that in their deliberations?