"She was asking for it"

"She was asking for it" is a phrase that is commonly associated with rape. For example, if a woman wore a bikini swimsuit with a translucent dress over it, she would be "asking for it" if someone raped her while she was wearing it. However, it is fallacious to say that the way a person dresses actually makes a person want to sexually assault him/her.

Case in point

Not to mention that excusing this kind of behavior because "he couldn't help himself" is perpetuating the false and outdated notion that men are, by nature, more sexual beings and literally cannot control their actions. (I say men because female rape cases are more prevalent.)

It is 2014, and earlier this year, a British judge called a man sentenced to five years in prison not the "classic rapist" - "She was a pretty girl you fancied. You simply could not resist. You had sex with her."

No matter how "undressed" a person is or whether or not he/she is attractive, it does not mean he/she deserve sexual assault, or that the perpetrator should be forgiven for "giving in."

The good news is that more and more people are getting to understand that "she was asking for it" is not a valid excuse...only when it comes to physical sexual assault it seems though. I had to write on my blog in early September about the absurdity of blaming celebrities for when their nude pictures leak.

Today, Julie Borowski posted this article and asked for thoughts about this case where a man took photos up the skirts of women in public, and how the judge ruled these pictures legal because they were not a violation of privacy.

Here are some screencaps of comments on this thread. I need to point out that these were some of the top comments.

Here is what I am noticing: victim blaming for women being "stupid" enough to wear short skirts and how this is protected by free speech.

I just finished up a "debate" on Facebook with someone about how this is free speech. (It only ended because I blocked him...he is the second person I have blocked in my eight years on that site, which is saying something.)

Let me clear something up: a lot of women do not necessarily know if they are accidentally revealing more of their bodies than they mean to. Personally, I have had quite a few people come up to me in the past telling me they could see my panties, etc. As I mentioned earlier, no matter how "undressed" a person is, that does not mean people have the right to take advantage of that person.

My friend, Gina Mairena, sums it up well:

"Even though we are indeed entitled to freedom of speech and press, and this is assuming that in a public place, we can take pictures of what or whom we like, I feel like certain pictures ARE a blatant violation of privacy and contradict decency laws. I don't think any dick-bearing human would want a picture of their crotch taken secretly by a stranger. Similarly, I would not want my undies on someone's camera without my knowing and approval.

Aside from the discomfort factor though, by societal standards, there are certain areas that we must maintain covered while in public, usually places containing sexual organs. Regardless of if we agree with this or not, it is prohibited in most places to be naked or to some degree, shirtless/bottomless, depending on where you're at. If it's prohibited for a woman to talk around in just a bra and panties, or for men to walk around in boxers, then it should be prohibited for strangers to take pictures of said body locations too. I feel like it only makes sense. The only time I could see these kinds of pictures being legally acceptable (though still extremely rude if done without permission) is at places like beach areas, where many people do walk around in more revealing/less clothes. At that point, it would be difficult to make such pictures illegal since many people are more exposed and they might be in the background of a lot of pics and such.

At least that's my take on the issue. I think the judge should have correlated decency laws with violation of privacy because these women were most likely NOT trying to be indecent when their pictures were snapped. It was most likely unknowing or accidental exposure, and the only 100% sure fire way to avoid upskirt shots is to never wear skirts. The message this judge is sending is that we basically have to not wear skirts now so that our privacy isn't violated, and that's kind of ridiculous."

The problem I have with people placing what this man did under free speech and expression is not recognizing how terribly invasive it is. As Gina points out, context of where someone is should be considered when questioning legality, if you are to look at this from a First Amendment perspective. She mentioned that it could be legal to take pictures of people in their swimsuits at the beach, while also pointing out that it would be rude to do so.

It surprises me that people can be so quick to jump to "First Amendment protection" when to me, at least, these photographs were harmful to the victims. I could ask the cliche, "How would you feel if you were the victim?" The First Amendment is not an "all goes" piece of legislation - you are not legally protected if your speech or expression causes physical or emotional harm to a nonconsenting person, the latter being more difficult to prove in court.

Whether it be physical sexual assault, stealing private photos from people, or taking pictures of nonconsenting people's private parts, we should not resort to victim blaming for the atrocities committed by the violator.

I considered blocking out the names of the people in the screenshots, but if they are such big proponents of the First Amendment and advocate for pictures of women's crotches to be taken without legal consequence, then surely they wouldn't mind their names appearing on this public website.