You've reinforced that reading in your response here. You write that men have a right to expect women to act according to the way you choose to categorize them, and thus when women fail, men are "perfectly justifi[ed]" in treating women who look or act like what you call sluts -- how, exactly? Again in this context, what can you mean if not that whatever men do to such a woman, it can't be rape? I don't see any reasonable reading of your comment in this context that doesn't suggest that non-consensual sexual contact is okay when the woman is dressed like a slut, and that's precisely what makes your argument fail. My point, which you conveniently ignored, is that you don't have any more right to force a woman you regard as a slut into a sexual encounter than a woman you regard as a lady. Only rape apologists insist men have a right to commit crimes against women as long as they're sluts, not nice women. The law doesn't define rape as a sexual assault against a woman the rapist, if he were being honest, would admit wasn't really a slut, but whom he attacked anyway. Rape is a sexual assault, and the rapist doesn't get to excuse himself by attacking the character of his victim.
“Treating her as a slut” is nowhere — at least in MY lexicon — defined as “justifying rape.”. On at least two separate occasions, I have stated that in the most definitive terms. Yet you persist in taking offense at the words you yourself put in my mouth.
I suggest you continue this argument with yourself, since my input seems to be extraneous anyway.