Day of Blogs

Well look at that — it turns out that this week, that atrocious “tight jeans” rape ruling has finally been overturned.  The ludicrous, demeaning and all around insulting ruling said that a woman could not have been raped because the jeans she was wearing were too tight for the rapist to remove himself.  In other words, the judges believed that the woman must have helped the rapist to remove the jeans, therefore what took place could not have been rape. And the argument has been used to gain acquittals numerous times since.

Julie Bindel writes a great piece at The Guardian about the prevalent attitudes towards rape that still exist today — the kind that I’ve spent my whole day (and a decent part of the last 16 months) writing about.  Seeing this in a mainstream paper is nothing but good.

But I’ve noticed a trend whenever the infamous “tight jeans” ruling is referenced — though it’s derided as ridiculous, misogynistic and so on, I’m not certain that I’ve seen anyone, on feminist blogs let alone in a mainstream newspaper, explain precisely why the ruling is so incorrect.  Maybe we just assume that everyone knows.  I’d love to believe that, but I think it’s a sadly faulty belief.  It’s also important to get through to people, because it’s a mentality that I see a lot of places, particularly lately when discussing oral rape and how it “doesn’t exist.”  So, allow me to explain.

Even assuming that a woman did help to remove her jeans, or indeed took them off entirely on her own, it does not imply consent.  Firstly, threats can easily be used to obtain compliance from a victim.  Threatening a victim with additional violence in order to get her to remove her jeans is not the same as her consensually removing them.  Secondly, an implied threat can easily be used to obtain the same compliance — and feelings of fear and powerlessness are also not the same as consent.  Thirdly, I do happen to know from having consensual sex that when I’m wearing jeans, I need to help out in getting them off.  But this is a comfort issue, not one of absolute necessity.  Because I also know from being raped that a really determined rapist will get his hands anywhere he pleases.

And fourthly — and to me, this is the one that’s most frequently lost — so what if she removed them?  Let’s say that she took off her jeans of her own free will.  So what?  That’s not the same as consent.  If it were, I imagine that women would rarely undress themselves even in the privacy of their own homes.  But most importantly, consent to one sexual activity is not consent to all sexual activities.  A person can consent to dry humping but not penetration, to kissing but not groping, to oral sex but not penetration, to vaginal sex but not anal, to penetration with fingers but not with a penis, to sleeping in the same bed as someone but not fucking.  Any combination of these things can occur, and many more.  It’s exceedingly rare for a person to expressly consent to any and all sexual activity the other partner may desire.  But it’s unfortunately not that uncommon for a person to have those boundaries violated, and to have their consent to one activity used as an excuse to commit assault/rape.  Been there.  And again: had I known that I had the right to consent to some activity without consenting to any and all under the sun . . . the difference it might have made.

As I’ve said, I see all of these same misconceptions very regularly used to excuse oral rape.  “Why didn’t she (or he) just bite him?” or “If I were a rapist, I wouldn’t put my dick where she could bit it off!”  Again: threats and implied threats.  Possible consent to some activity but not to others, and not trying to fight back because of a lack of knowledge about her bodily rights.  And also, it doesn’t matter why she didn’t bite him.  If she didn’t freely express her willingness to do it — that’s rape.