This has happened a few times with this particular comment thread. I deliberately did not say the woman had been raped or molested. I said she had been 'attacked'. The word choice is important.

If women are 'attacked' for wearing short skirts because they are deemed to be 'slutty' or 'loose', or anti-Christian, anti-Muslim etc then we do not blame the woman for the actions of the others. This is a strong feminist argument. Society understands that when someone is making a choice (even an unwise one like walking around Kabul in a mini-skirt) that the responsibility for what happens is as a result of the malevolent actions of the aggressive malevolent person not of the victim

When that is not the case, we call it 'victim blaming'. Feminism has a lot to say about victim blaming.

In this instance, there has been an act of malevolence (the man trap) and a victim of that malevolence (Chad). The arguments being presented are anti-feminist in that they hold Chad partially responsible for the malevolent actions of Dee. This seems to have been overlooked in the cut-and-thrust of insisting we talk about the severity of rape itself.

If we can say 'buyer beware' to Chad, then we can likewise say something similar to young women in Iran who want to wear their hair down. I don't propose we do that. Instead, I'm going to argue that in order to do feminism properly - people are going to need to put aside their genital bias and side with Chad on this one. :o)