While I fully agree with the basic premise of this article that blaming the victim is inappropriate I think the article perpetuates the longstanding tradition of oversimplifying the fundamental issue. Here are two examples of that. First:
Males and females alike must know they are responsible for their bodies and their actions — that they have an unassailable right to decide whether someone else can touch them or not. They have a right to be safe. And they have an absolute duty to respect those rights in others.
At first glance that’s all true but it’s obviously oversimplified because stating that everyone has an absolute duty to respect the right of others to decide whether someone else can touch them or not hints that people ought to be able to rely on those around them to uphold that absolute duty. In other words, nothing the victim chooses should bear any scrutiny because the aggressor had an absolute duty. To say that how a potential victim dresses, acts, or talks has no bearing on the actions of potential aggressors is naive at best. While the aggressor should bear full responsibility for their actions, we must acknowledge that aggressors rarely choose their victims at random. The vast majority of the time they will be seeking some specific characteristics or vulnerabilities in their victims and the dress, speech, and actions of the potential victims will play into their calculations regarding whether any given target is the kind of victim they would seek.