The myth called ‘perfect victim’
The idea that a survivor of sexual assault must behave in a certain way to be seen as credible persists in court judgments, despite criticism of such reasoning and efforts by the judiciary to address it
On August 6, the Bombay High Court's Goa Division overturned a 2021 trial court ruling that had acquitted Tarun Tejpal. The court convicted Tejpal, former editor of Tehelka magazine, to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for raping a former colleague. The High Court called the trial court's decision "perverse" and criticized the notion that a sexual assault victim must be an "ideal victim" or "perfect victim."
This concept of an "ideal victim" was first theorized by Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie in 1986. Christie outlined five attributes of this ideal victim: they are often female, disabled, young or old, involved in respectable activities, blameless for their circumstances, and attacked by a "big and bad" perpetrator. However, this all-encompassing view of victimhood is prevalent in media, social media, films, and society at large.
Factors like race, class, gender and others shape these dramatic portrayals. The "ideal offender" is framed as purely bad, dangerous, and a stranger to the victim to make it easy for society to dislike them. When there's no "ideal offender," it becomes difficult to sympathize with the "ideal victim." This narrow definition creates a hierarchy of victimisation, with those deemed "undeserving" receiving less sympathy or none at all.
This skewed perception of "ideal victims" can lead to discrimination and disbelief towards survivors who don't fit the stereotype.
Written by urgent.news from The Hindu's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
