The victim is never to blame.BreakfastMan said:QFT. I just do not understand the mentality behind this type of stuff. To me, it makes no sense. The victim is never to blame for the crimes committed against them. Ever.
Unless they do something mindnumbingly stupid.
You don't walk through the ghetto of Detroit in a nice suit and gold Rolex, for perfectly valid reasons. If you got mugged in such a situation, it's at least partially your fault for being stupid. The same is also true in some rape cases (the ones I'm referring to are not the overly violent cases, but more along the lines of date rape, etc). Granted, any situation where someone runs up, throws their victim to the ground and ravishes them is 100% completely and totally the fault of the attacker, regardless of what anyone else says.
If a woman lets a man get her drunk to the point of passing out, goes home with a stranger, or any of a number similarly stupid moves, then she's at least partially to blame for whatever will happen.
I'm not saying that the attacker is in any way justified (personally, I'd like to kill them myself), just that there are some instances where the victim is at least partially at fault. These are almost always the situations wherein the victim could have done something to prevent it. For example, refusing any more drinks or being with friends to prevent a complete clusterfuck.