The only actual FACT is that studies have repeatedly shown that in actual rapes most of the time clothing played no role whatsoever, and in fact most of the time the rapist doesn't even remember what the victim was wearing, or that in the overwhelming majority of cases there was no actual action that was construed or remembered as consent, not even eye contact or anything. I don't think trying to present some unsupported postulates as "FACT" can override the reality that it's trying to override actual data with hypotheticals. I'm pretty sure some derivative or version of that is even on the crackpot index.
Plus, just the fact that someone thinks that their prejudice is "FACT" is hardly surprising or relevant. Everyone does. Even the guy blaming the blacks or jews for some conspiracy, also doesn't think that he's prejudiced. He thinks that he's just laying the "FACT"s. And the Saudis who think that a woman is asking for sex if she runs out of a burning building without a scarf on, also don't think "man, we know we're wrong, but let's spew the canned BS anyway." They too think that their BS is absolute "FACT". Welcome to reality. Far from being an excuse, if Dan Rottenberg thinks that his prejudiced BS is "FACT" -- and that's what you're trying to tell me, right? -- that's actually what's damning, not what makes it OK.
Plus even hypotheticals can only get one so far when it's blaming something someone wore in America for what happened to her in Egypt. Even the usual rationalizations about what excites a predator and makes him lose control, usually stick to stuff that's happened in the very short term and supposedly caused a temporary lapse of judgment. Not on stuff that happened last year and outside the perp's sight or knowledge.
Additionally, it's hard for me to take the article as laying the "FACT"s, when, had he had even the most superficial interest in actually learning about the case he discusses before laying the canned talking points, he'd have plainly seen that his canned BS doesn't match what happened there. But, I guess, checking the story first must have gotten out of fashion with journalists these days.
For an article that purports to talk about Lara Logan, and even is adorned by her photo, absolutely none of his advice or spin actually matches what happened there. And the anecdotes he juxtaposes it with, also don't match it at all.
Even that photo of hers, it's trivial to show that it played no role, if one just engages the brain for a couple of minutes. The assault began when someone shouted that she's a Jew from Israel, which she isn't. They didn't actually even know who she is, or what TV station she's working for, or they'd have known that that's not the case. So HOW was that photo showing cleavage supposed to play any role, when the perps didn't even know who she is?
That's not laying any facts, it's just reaching for the canned blame. He had to rehash the usual "it's because of what you wore" BS blame, even if it doesn't apply at all.
In fact I'd say you can't even get a much better indication that someone is just rehashing canned prejudice, than seeing that kind of disconnect between the incident and what they blame it on.
To reuse your ponchos and lions, it's like someone giving a speech about not wearing meat ponchos around lions to someone who was mauled by a bear at the zoo, while not wearing any poncho.
