[saint_fiasco]

I think I see what is going on. Could you be seeing both wearing skimpy clothing and leaving your door unlocked as very minor crimes?

From that point of view, getting robbed would be a minor punishment fit for such a minor crime, while getting raped would be a major punishment, disproportionate for such a minor crime.

[fixermark]

Neither is a crime. But responsibility and crime are divorced concepts---you can be partially responsible for being in a situation (getting in a car and driving on the road during rush-hour with a friend in the car) without being culpable for the consequences (drunk driver hits you and your passenger is severely injured). Drivers still feel responsible in situations like that, even if they're not guilty of committing a crime.

And if you're talking about my personal opinions: I think the two states (leaving your door unlocked and wearing skimply clothing) are completely separate, and the arguments that unify them are flawed because they move the responsibility to not get raped from the rapist to the victim.

But the sharing of responsibility for petty theft between the thief and the person who fails to take basic measures to secure property (like locking doors) is already culturally-accepted for reasons I don't know, which is why the argument that "wearing skimpy clothing is the same thing" is even made. I think it's possible to argue that people who leave doors unlocked shouldn't be considered to have done something wrong, but I hear almost nobody making that argument.

[saint_fiasco]

>I think it's possible to argue that people who leave doors unlocked shouldn't be considered to have done something wrong, but I hear almost nobody making that argument.

I hear this every once in a while. My country used to be a police state and people often say "back then we could leave our windows open without fear" to argue that we should go back to authoritarianism to reduce crime.