There was an ad displaying the exploitation of Denim Day that came across my feed on Facebook a few weeks ago. At first I was more confused than offended. I knew Denim Day was associated with SAAM and sexual assault awareness in some way, but everything I had seen about it didn’t share the real reason behind why Denim was so important to the cause. It didn’t especially stand out since most women wear Denim as a casual fashion choice, so choosing Denim seemed like a weird choice to bring awareness to anything.
I did a little digging into the event and found that in the late 90’s a young Italian girl was assaulted, her assailant arrested, tried, and convicted but the conviction was over turned at the judges discretion based on the personal opinion “her Denim jeans were too tight, and she would have had to help her attacker take them off, which would imply consent.”
In response to this outrageous decision all of the women in the Italian Parliament showed up to work the next day in Denim jeans, showing their solidarity for this poor girl. The event was international news, and once it reached the US, it started with our own women in government on the West Coast eventually spreading to a nationally organized awareness day.
It kind of knocked the wind out of my sails there learning the origins of the event. It also really surprised me that it wasn’t more widely publicized. The event itself is all over the place, but the origins aren’t widely discussed. I guess when it’s been ten years people would just assume that everyone already knew or remembered what happened.
It also made me very angrad. I’ve made up my own word to describe the feeling between angry and sad. I was sad because while the intentions of Denim Day are good, the beginning has been lost after so many years unless you take the time to research as I did.
I am angry that a high ranking legal official could make such an outrageous claim that this poor girl had to help an older adult man remove her jeans and allow him to assault her. Or that the removal of her clothing at all some how implied consent.
In my own personal experiences my pajama pants were removed once, and during the second assault none of my clothes were completely removed at all, merely pushed aside. That right there should have been the biggest indication that the second assault was completely intentional, not a semilucid case of mistaken identity. I guess it was fairly obvious to everyone else except myself clinging to my attackers lies for dear life until I was ready to accept what really happened.
I wish soceity would just drop this “what where you wearing” bullshit already. In Islamic countries where women are covered from head to toe rape is still a prevalent crime. It has nothing to do with clothing of any kind, anywhere! The crime of rape is committed when a predator makes the decision to put their own sick pleasure and gratification ahead of another person’s humanity. Gender is irrelevant. Men can be sexually assaulted and raped too, by other men or by women.
In the mind of a predator, a burlap sack could be seen as provocative, because they don’t see another human being before they attack. They only see themselves and how good it will feel, or how their sick sexual urges will be satisfied. That is the true root of this issue. I’ve said it before once this month and I’m going to say it again: it’s predator vs prey. Not man vs women, or man vs miniskirt, or woman vs man, man vs man, women vs woman no! None of that. It’s personal responsibility. Clothing is just a convienet scapegoat used by those too ashamed, or cowardly to face up to their own actions.
Think about that today, Denim Day 2017, before you put on those jeans.