[hayleymumof3]

A Southern California judge is being publicly admonished for saying a rape victim "didn't put up a fight" during her assault and that if someone doesn't want sexual intercourse, the body "will not permit that to happen."

The California Commission on Judicial Performance voted 10-0 to impose a public admonishment on Thursday, saying Superior Court Judge Derek Johnson's comments were inappropriate and a breach of judicial ethics.

He should be asked to resign that is just disgusting.

[JaneDoe2010]

I read that too. Disgusting.

[stopwhiningatme]

****ing ****. Really, they should be removed from the bench, and then ****ed forcibly to see how their body responds.

[BetteBoop]

Yes, some judges are silly old buggers with archaic beliefs.

On the plus side, the fact that an independent body overruled it 10-0 warms my old cranky heart.

Not too long ago, this judge's opinion wasn't uncommon. So the global reporting on statements like this is proof opinions have changed and it's no longer acceptable to openly blame a rape victim for being unable to prevent the rape.

[Alacritous~Andy]

Whenever I see a comment about the body being able to prevent rape, all I can think of is being able to spray someone like a skunk.

Which would be a nifty ability to have, but I am yet to meet anyone with that skill.

[Lucretia Borgia]

D1ckhead.

[MakeLoveNotBacon]

I really need the Mods to remove the swearing filter to have my say on this one.

[rabbit hyde]

I for one am grateful to have these over the hill men informing woman about their own bodies and making descisions regarding our control over them.

Really puts you at ease.

*This post is dripping with sarcasm if no-one could tell*

[BadCat]

Pfft. I thought dinosaurs were extinct.

I'm with BB here. Not so long ago there would have been no, or minimal, outrage about something like this. I'm glad that he is copping the pasting he deserves.

Doesn't stop me from wanting to shove something rather forcibly into some of his orifices to see if his body sprouts anti-personnel devices though.

This post has been edited by BadCat: 14/12/2012, 07:29 PM

[MammaBee81]

As a senior instructor in martial arts and self defence, I think I would like to weigh in a little here.

My philosophy and teaching is that your aim should always be to try and empower yourself by making a decision to do "something" when faced with such a scenario.

NOW, that "something" can also include making a decision to not fight against what is happening. Your assessment of the situation might be that by chosing not to fight back, you will be preserving your life and minimising the physical damage. This is a perfectly valid self defence mechanism that I believe MUST be considered along with the traditional teaching of mounting a physical assault on your attacker. In making the decision to not fight back physically, I would encourage you to actively to do it with your mind instead - in the way of taking note of features about the attacker (in the case of an unknown attacker) that might lead Police to identify them (such as description, smell, etc), and carefully preserving evidence.

You do what is best for you in weighing up the situation and your life situation. Nobody else can tell you whether that decision was right for you.

And I will challenge anyone who takes the opposing view (!!).

Grr. I think there is steam escaping from my ears...