Actually, I have a very simple approach to the question of “slutty dressing” and rape incidences.
The concepts of “desert” and “duty” are quickly giving way to the language of “rights” with the concept of “responsibility” rapidly diminishing into meaninglessness. So my response is very simple. Since we are so technocratic, so enlightened and no longer living in the primitive world of retribution and deserts, therefore we can completely avoid those deontological concepts of a primitive Christian world of universal moral governance in favour of the purely positivistic and pragmatic language of empirical cause and effect.
In short, we need only establish certain positivistic empirical premises. Once it is accepted that “slutty dressing” and slutty behaviour does in a positivistic empirical sense increase one’s risk of getting rape, ignoring completely the deontological questions of whether one “deserves” it or “has the right” to it, then it is a very simple pragmatic question is who is to bear the cost of this increase risk.
The fact of the increase of risk is a simple statistical empirical fact, there is no normative or value judgement involved. Thus, assuming the very existence of the increase of risk, the only relevant question is who is to bear the cost. Now, one can say that the state and the legal system “should” bear the cost in increases in security and police to curb the increase of rape risks which comes with “slutty dressing”, and along with the increase legal costs which comes with needing to nit-pick the intricate complexities which comes to determining whether the slutty dresser “consented” to the sex given how complexly fluid and “free” our contemporary sexual practices are.
Or, one can simply say that the one who exercises the new “freedoms” be the ones who bear the cost and risks as well. That is, the state should not bother to spend any increase in funds to protect “slutty dressers” nor complexify the law to deal with the fluidity of our contemporary sex practices and its essential nebulousness. You can exercise your freedom, you just have to bear the cost.
Here is a parallel analogy to consider. You have the “right” or the “freedom” to go and smoke your lungs out. But it is a simple positivistic empirical fact that if you smoke you increase the risk of lung and throat problems, etc. Thus, the simple question is who is to bear the cost or consequences of your own exercise of your “right” and “freedom”. “Should” the state subsidise and bear the cost of your lung cancer treatments which results from your smoking? Or “should” the smoker himself bear the cost of his own behaviour and his own exercise of his “freedom” and “rights”?
We completely exorcise the entire moral universe of “deserts”, “rights”, “duty”, and “responsibility”, as phantoms of a long forgotten world run by God, etc. In this completely amoral and non-normative and value judgement free universe, we have the very simple empirical cause-and-effect equation. Every “freedoms” and “rights” comes with effects and consequences and increase risks. The only question is whether we as a society is to subsidise the consequences and costs of those risk or let those who exercise the freedoms and rights bear the cost of their freedoms themselves.
A lot of people make noise against the bankers who privatise profits and socialise their losses. That is, they make risky and dubious investments, which if the gamble pays off, they pocket the profits. But when those risky investments fail, they go to the government and the nation for a hand out and thereby “socialise” their losses, that is, make everyone pay for their failed gamble.
Likewise is every “slutty behaviour” and health-risk inducing practice likewise is a gamble, a risk. By behaving sluttily and adopting unhealthy practices like smoking, one is taking a gamble, a risk. If one doesn’t get raped or lung cancer, well and good, you enjoy the experience of your freedom of self-expression and your new and sensual experiences which comes with your fluid sexual practices. But when you do get raped or lung cancer, “should” one expect the state and government to pay for the “losses” of your gamble?