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

[desiringsubject.livejournal.com]

I think most of the relevant answers I would have come up with have been covered, but in my opinion the first and third are more different than the second and third. The difference lies in the fact that a lock does offer some substantive protection. Of course, it offers just as much superstitious protection, but I'm comfortable with that. No regular, everyday clothing outfit, from long pants to long skirts to full face covering offers protection against assault, sexual or other. To make the first and third reasonably parallel, we'd have to be talking about tactical gear e.g. certain motorcycle-oriented kevlar-lined, or certain kinds of SWAT gear where you could be relatively certain that guns or knives would not get to you while you were trying to get away. But no one says: "what? You weren't wearing your slash proof shirt and pants with your bullet proof vest? No wonder!" No one is talking about clothing that would be *actually* protective. (Now of course, if we were, it would still be victim-blaming, but the ridiculousness would be clearer. There is no such thing as a rape-preventing bike lock. Neither the cable nor the U lock will do it. And to expect every woman to be "rape-proofed" begins to point to how insane the comparison is.)

On the subject of the second one--we talk about phones getting stolen in muggings when people had phones during muggings. In the 80s, we didn't talk about phones getting stolen, we talked about cash, and then people said "Why were you caring X$ in cash on you!?" But that was never the point. They would have gotten mugged if they had had little cash, but the story wouldn't have been as impressive. My mom got mugged once and they got $18 and her credit cards which she had cancelled before they got a chance to use them. It was the 80s, so she didn't have a phone, new or otherwise. She was in a chancy part of town, but it was the part of town where her dentist was. If it were today (aside from the fact that the dentist is dead and that building is now like million dollar condos, but I digress) she *would* have a phone stolen and the phone might be new, but (as ricevermicelli pointed out a few times here, that's not why she got mugged. It's just what the story is about afterwards.