The Difference Is...

[woodwardiocom]

Three parallel situations:

• "You didn't have a bike lock? No wonder it got stolen, you doofus."
  
• "You walked through that part of town at midnight waving around an expensive cell phone? You idiot, no wonder you got mugged!"
  
• "You were dressed like that when you were sexually assaulted? You kinda asked for it."

My social circles regard the first two as appropriate replies, and the third as absolutely not. I agree with that, but on analysis, am having trouble articulating the relevant distinction.

Edit: Many thanks for the answers thus far. They've helped.

Comments

[spoothbrush.livejournal.com]

I think that for me the first one may be an appropriate reply, but the 2nd and 3rd are both not -- and I think it has to do with the presence or absence of an owner. When someone is carrying a cell phone, they're clearly in possession and asserting ownership of it. Someone who's "dressed like that" is still in possession of their body.

But an unsecured item with no identifiable owner, especially in a public place... I mean, if I found $10 on the ground with no evidence of ownership, I wouldn't feel like it was inappropriate to make it my $10. (In a dropped wallet, there's identifying information that suggests ownership, and if I saw it fall out of someone's pocket, again there's identifying information.) With the unlocked bike, it may be highly unlikely that someone's just abandoned it, but it's not impossible. The cellphone that I'm using, though... clearly not abandoned property.