So said the ladies and gentleman of the jury:

The jury of six men and six women heard Mr Gonzalez, 23, had allegedly pushed the woman on to his bed, ripping off her size six skinny jeans and underpants before the attack. In his defence, Mr Gonzalez, a navy cook, said the sex was consensual. 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.

Gonzalez was acquitted because the jury didn't believe he could remove—or force her to remove—her pants. Jos at Feministing says...

I think focusing on the skinny jeans is meant to suggest that the survivor was dressed provocatively, which in turn is meant to imply she must have wanted it. I also reject the notion that a rape could not occur even if she did help remove the jeans—this could easily be taken in the moment so that the action did not become even more violent or simply out of fear. The notion someone cannot be raped because skinny jeans are too hard to take off is just absurd, and I'm disgusted that it's ever held up in a court of law.

And I suppose it's possible that the sex was consensual—but the supposed difficulty in removing a particular article of clothing, which the jury seems to have based its finding on, is not by itself proof that the sex was consensual.