The ABAL uses flawed logical arguments to support its accusations. A popular strategy goes as follows:
If someone states that “a certain Victim Factor increases the odds of sexual assault”, the ABAL swings into action using the following strategy. The phrase Factor increases the odds is changed to Factor causes. Since, the reference relates to the Victim’s behavior or traits. The Accused person’s original sentence is translated to “Victim Factor causes sexual assault”.
The changed sentence creates the Victim Blaming Accusation. Next, the Factor is declared to be invalid because not having the Factor doesn’t prevent sexual assault. For example, since being sober does not prevent sexual assault, then being drunk does not increase the odds of sexual assault.
The ABAL labels the Accused Person as a Victim-Blamer and asks the inevitable question of “Why is the Accused blaming the Victims as opposed to blaming the Perpetrators?”
2. Some victims could do nothing to prevent being raped, therefore all victims could do nothing to prevent being raped.
3. Examining the pre-assault behavior of the victim means NOT examining the behavior of the perpetrator.
4. Trying to change the pre-assault behavior of potential victims means NOT trying to change the behavior or perpetrators.
5. Focusing on certain pre-assault behaviors of some victims, means focusing on the pre-assault behavior of all victims.
6. Saying the victim has some responsibility is the same as saying that the perpetrator has no responsibility.
7. Since men don’t engage in rape risk reduction practices, women should not have to either.
The VBAL obsession with the concept of blame has made blame the central issue as opposed to making reducing the rate of sexual assault the central issue.