VDH's point is along the lines of: does a provocatively dressed woman walking in a back street alley of the city "signal she wants to be raped" versus Dinesh's "a provocatively dressed woman walking in a back street alley of the city makes herself vulnerable as a target for rapists".
Each side has merit for discussion.
Every time the Democrats open their mouths in their usual anti-WOT style, the terrorists in Iraq figure it a sign for them to surge their murdering.
So, do words and laws have conseqences?
They shouldn't (as words do not equal rape) but they do.
Our enemy is clearly Islamofascists, and in a time of war, the Dems are making themselves out to be facilitators of and for our enemies, effectively acting as pimps for our enemy; but yetwhile asserting "it's not their fault".
What might help is if our Democrats were smart and intelligent and understood and give two sheets. But they don't. They sit in soiled diapers whining that their words are being taken "out of context" by the enemy.
Oh, that'll work.
VDH's argument is that it doesn't matter what the woman is wearing. If it isn't a burka, she is "asking for it."
Dinesh's argument is that if a woman dresses sufficiently provocatively, she considerably increases the likelihood that she will be attacked.
As you say, I think there is some truth on each side. But I lean toward VDH.