Neither I nor anyone else has said anyone has to do anything, and for the past 3 posts you've been attacking that un-argued argument. "Should" does NOT equate to "have to." I will give you advice right now: save some money for a rainy day. That means you have to limit x (movie theaters), y (theme parks), and z (expensive restaurants) in order to be financially secure, while the wealthy have to do none of that. Did you feel that? You just lost your ability to choose. My advice has drained your freedom.
It is not our advice that makes it so women are more likely to be raped. It's the generally more aggressive nature of men which can be morphed into sadistic desire in a demented few, the smaller stature of women compared to men, and the general sexual attraction of men to women. Combine those three, and that's what makes it so women are more likely to be raped. Saying that safety advice should be applied equally to everyone, regardless of their circumstances, is absolutely mind-boggling.
With regards to the logical analysis of the fallacy, you are confusing necessary and sufficient clauses, and messing up the inverse. You are saying that since the existence of a major threat doesn't render all Precautions for minor threats unreasonable, that that translates logically to the following: If you choose to engage in a reasonable precaution against a minor threat, you MUST take any and all precautions (reasonable or unreasonable) against a major threat. This is logically unsound. Not only are you adding terms to the equation (precautions against major threats was not part of the original, nor was the actor's choice to engage in any behavior), but it's illogical to think that one MUST participate in anything, without some force making them do so.
There was one dude that said an awful statement that seemed to endorse rape and blame the victim. After an avalanche of criticism against the guy (and a banning), people were talking about his victim blaming, and then were attributing victim blaming allegations to any safety advice whatsoever. Other people then jumped in to say that, while victim blaming does exist, advice doesn't equate to victim blaming, and no one (besides the first dude) was claiming that any of the rape's culpability was shifted from rapist to victim. I've seen multiple people, including you, say that people are focusing on what the women can do and ignoring the rapists. Who in the world is ignoring the rapists? Not a single person has said to do so. And that first poster who endorsed rape was soundly criticized by everyone, and banned. I've never met or heard a single person say, "let's let the rapists run free, and try to solve this problem through the women alone." It's a false dichotomy, an either-or that holds no water. Everyone giving safety tips also endorses educating people on obtaining clear consent, locking up rapists, trying to improve the sexual health of the country, putting full rape blame on the perpetrators, reducing rape attempts, and encouraging women to take reasonable precautions to reduce the risk, while disregarding unreasonable precautions. Suggesting people are ignoring the rapists is just nonsense, and an attempt to make an opposing view seem indefensible when it's actually quite solid.
