A few months ago Blue Milk posted But why shouldn’t she take some responsibility too for the rape? (Yes, I’m behind on getting around to this link.) It’s in response to a comment on another post from the same blog, where someone said:
If a man goes alone through an area of the city at night and gets mugged, I would give him none of the blame, but some of the responsibility (He’s not at fault for doing what he did, but it was at least somewhat irresponsible of him to do so).
If a girl gets so completely drunk that she can not take care of herself and she ends up being raped, I would give her none of the blame, but still some of the responsibility (She’s not at fault for doing what she did, but it was at least somewhat irresponsible of her to do so).
I must admit, I’ve wondered this myself. If I leave my car unlocked, it doesn’t mean I was “asking” to get robbed, or that any resulting theft is morally excusable. But couldn’t I have done something to prevent the robbery?
Blue Milk provides what I think is a rather brilliant response, highlighting the absurdity of the situation were the roles reversed. You should go read it in its entirety, but (to summarize) she provides a hypothetical of a man going back to a woman’s apartment and subsequently getting raped by that woman’s boyfriend (and his friends).