Prudence is all well and good and should be practiced by everyone but lacking in prudence in no way mitigates anything when someone else assaults you.
Well, to be fair, I would have gone anywhere to sodomize Little Suzy. I just happened to catch her at the playground. 
[Moderating]
Hi, Kaypea. Welcome to the SDMB. I’ve removed the link to your online petition, as it is a violation of our TOS:
No warning issued. I hope you enjoy your time here.
[/Moderating]
Victim blaming at its finest.
But that’s exactly the point. The judge was lecturing the victim for what she perceived as a lack where there really isn’t one. Hell, even if a woman walks alone at 2 AM in the dark alley at the corner Rape St and Molest Lane while texting her friend, she doesn’t evem remotely deserve getting groped and the criminal deserves the same punishment as if he did it to, say, a woman in a bar, but one could probably benefit from a lecture about being a little more cautious and wary of her surroundings the other, not so much.
That’s the point, if this sort of lecture were given to the woman mentioned by Cat Whisperer along the lines of “hey, if you’re gonna be in your car alone at night, lock the doors in the future. Better yet, the text can wait until you’re indoors.” If that were the case, I don’t think anyone would really feel it’s out of place. That wasn’t prudent behavior; there’s nothing particularly imprudent about a woman going to a bar, yet the judge gave her the lecture as if there were.
I would. A judge is a legal expert, not a school marm. What adult doesn’t know that it’s safer to lock one’s doors at all times, for instance? Sometimes people make mistakes or get careless because that’s what people do. I don’t like the idea of judges making it their job to critique what amounts to as run-of-the-mill human shortcomings.
So I would not be in favor of judges lecturing assault victims for texting in their car at night. If anything because the victim has learned their lesson, and any lecturing would be redundant.
“Awareness of one’s situation” is just another way of saying that this wouldn’t have happened if the victim had done something different in the situation.
Being completely 100% aware of one’s situation at all times does not change the fact that other people’s behavior is out of one’s control. If I go into a bar, I am expected to sit with my back against a wall, continuously watching every other patron to make sure that none of them get close enough to me to touch me without my consent? That expectation of hypervigilance and paranoia continue to put the onus of safety on the victim.
Are you serious, or is this subtle sarcasm? Ever since that shameful thread on this board about the 11-year-old girl who was gang raped and all the usual cockroaches crawled out of the woodwork to drop their “I’m not victim-blaming but…” shitposts in, I can’t make any assumptions.
The last time I checked, a single woman going into a bar was not in any way whatsoever illegal.
That’s like telling a rape victim “Well, if you hadn’t been wearing those tight jeans…”
I’m not blaming the victim; I’m advocating empowering victims. Do what you can to prevent victimization - why would that be a bad thing?
The victim in this instance went to a bar with a friend to watch a local band. The perpetrator walked up behind her and put his hands up her skirt. Exactly how could she have prevented that - not watch the band, but watch all of the other patrons? Not wear a skirt? Not go into that bar?
While it’s nice (and true) to say “be aware of your surroundings, that’ll reduce the likelihood of victimization!,” such statements still contain an implication that ALL victimization is preventable if the victim is just vigilant enough.
Apparently this guy drove drunk to the bar, flashed his badge to get in without paying the cover charge, and had already pinched another woman on the butt. This was just one more thing that he was doing wrong on that night.
Because “what you can” apparently means never leaving the house. But wait, what about all the people who are raped by family members, spouses, or friends, in their own houses? I guess those people should have left the house.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Just because a judge has a thought doesn’t mean that it is wise to let it loose in a courtroom. Judiciousness is knowing what not to say.
And, aw shucks, now he won’t be able to go huntin’ no more.
Poor sap.
I can’t believe you think those lines of condescending bullshit is empowering.
And it damn well is placing blame on the victim, even if unintentional and only a small amount. What if a woman follows 100% of all the “empowering” tips she’s been given* and something bad still happens? Then does she get 100% of your sympathy and pass muster?
“Advice” like yours comes from people who truly mean well, I understand that (really). But all it is is an attempt to make the person giving the advice feel safe. It’s terrifying to know that you cannot control any situation 100%; no matter what you do, bad things can still happen. Listing the things someone “should” have done is just a way to reassure/delude yourself that it’s ok, that won’t happen to me because I can do these things. Comforting thought, but false and ultimately does more harm than good.
- Be aware of your surroundings! Don’t wear short skirts! Don’t show cleavage! Don’t wear a lot of makeup! Don’t go out alone at night! Walk with your keys poking out through your fingers at night so you can attack if need be! If you need to get to your car in a parking lot, look under the car to make sure no rapist is hiding underneath to grab your ankle!
Where is that darned middle? Oh no, it seems to be completely excluded! I’m a woman, too, and I live with the same situations as all of you, making the same choices with the same risks and consequences. Thinking that there are things you can do to try to make your life safer is not the same as saying that if you do those things, you’re guaranteed to be safe, or that people who didn’t do those things deserved to be victimized, and I’m not sure where some of you are getting that.
As for the woman in the OP, no, she did not deserve to be groped in any way. The guy who did it is a Grade A Asshole, and so is the judge who said such stupid things about the crime the groper committed.
The point is that bringing up the “there are things you can do to reduce your chances of victimization” when in this particular case, there was nothing that the victim could have done short of 1) not wearing a skirt, 2) not watching the band but instead watch all of the other patrons, or 3) not gone to the bar, is condescending and unnecessary. It’s a deflection from the real issue, which are in this case a judge who is victim blaming.
It is ridiculously easy–and totally unhelpful–to play Monday morning quarterback on someone else’s situation and conclude that if they hadn’t done X, then Y wouldnt have happened. You’re missing the point if you really think this is a case of excluded middle.
To go back to the texter who was attacked in her car. Do you really think someone brazen and evil enough to sexually assault somebody would be above coercing her at gun point to open the car and let him in? Do you really think he was just strolling along, minding his business until he saw that her door was unlocked and then suddenly got the idea to bust in and rape her? It strikes as much more likely that he saw a woman alone, got the urge to rape, and lucked out by finding her door was open. You nor anyone else is in the position to say that her failure to lock her car door was why she was attacked that night.
In a way, the judge’s remark is so egregiously offensive, it’s a poor example of the victim blaming that is most irksome to me. Looking for any and every deviation from perfect conduct as a means of saying “look, you need to be responsible for your actions too!” reinforces the idea that women’s stupidity and carelessness makes them vulnerable to victimization, rather than their proximity to someone hellbent on attacking them.