Philosophy Now Forum

In a recent article on the Guardian website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -anonymity) the writer makes the following claim:



I'm interested to explore whether there is such a similarity between the celebrity who finds themselves as an object of detrimental media attention and the woman whose choice of attire is blamed for her having been the victim of a sexual attack. I think that if we can establish such a similarity then it brings an interesting new viewpoint in regards to a general right to privacy.

The similarity seems to involve the claim that both parties (celebrity and assault victim) 'knew what was coming to them'. As far as the victim is concerned, we would tend not to accept this claim as assault requires another individual or group, each of whom are as responsible for their actions as the victim is for theirs. Where the celebrity is concerned, we would argue that they brought it on themselves; they wanted to be famous and they shouldn't have expected any different. My question is: what is the difference between these two situations?

I'm still trying to work this one out. I'm working with the idea that invasion of privacy (where celebrity is concerned) is distinct from bodily invasion (as in the case of the assault victim). However, I can't seem to steer away from the possible equivalency of the 'they were asking for it' defence in both cases and am wondering whether the case of the victim can help us to see the case of the celebrity in a new light.

I've heard (better check it though!) that the nature of a woman's attire has no bearing on the likelihood of her being sexually assaulted. If that's true, then the similarity ends.

The issue at stake here is whether the claim can be made in either context, not whether it actually follows from one action that the other will and must follow. The nature of the claim that a celebrity is 'asking for it' or somehow deserves what happens to them by virtue of their behaviour is being claimed to be similar to the same claim in regards to a victim of sexual assault. Put simply, the very relevance and importance of the question "were they asking for it" is what is at stake here.

The celebrity has good reason to anticipate both positive and negative media attention arising from their celebrity status. Given that knowledge, celebrities who encourage and foster media attention can reasonably be said to be asking for the anticipated results of that attention (whether good or bad). The difference is that the informed woman does NOT have that knowledge. Because she can not anticipate sexual assault based on her choice of dress, then how could it be reasonable to say she was "asking for it"?

Of course, if it were accepted that women who dress provocatively can expect to be sexually assaulted more often than more drab dressers, then the charge that they were "asking for it" makes a little more sense. Only a little, since they're not asking, but rather, they're seen to be not taking forseeable precautions. That's my point, if they are not forseeable, the charge of "asking for it" cannot be made.

I'm black and living in a red-neck enclave. I don't want to get anyone into trouble so I make sure I'm never seen. Recently someone put on the internet my address and what I get up to. So I suppose I guess I'll have to take what's coming to me.

John, are you of the opinion that I'm in favour of people 'getting what's coming to them'? I hope not!