You are confusing blaming the victim and minimization; and you are not putting the molester's claim into full context or even analyzing deep enough how this situation arose.
Your word "minimizing" would be more like the molester saying he only raped her 10 times whereas other children get raped every day. Instead, the molester is saying he raped her because first she did X. That puts the onus on her. You are claiming you are an acting "logician" and it doesn't necessarily put the onus on her, but you are not thinking deeply enough to see it. He is saying X ==> Y, his next action. X =/=> Y, though. That only happens if also the guy is deranged (Z) and circumstances are open enough for it to happen such as parents aren't around (A). So, X and Z and A ==> Y. But is it real?
He raped her over a period of 2 to 3 years, multiple multiple times. Yes, I wrote the word "multiple" more than once.* So, this single time she is alleged to have done something accounts for some 8 rapes? Really? After the first time, where he just HAD to do it because of what a 4 year old did, he also HAD to rape her another 7 times? That's a rhetorical question as it ought to be obvious to a normal person (and a self-declared logician) that the only relevant factors are his motive and opportunity (i.e., Z and A ==> Y).
Finally, the molester's declarations do not minimize their ugliness in any way whatsoever. All they do is expose his irrational mind as does the fact that he wants to plead not guilty.
*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rticipant-records-say/?utm_term=.0201253ff741
Wait, wait, wait. We got two different ball games going here. I'm usually pretty good about keeping my eye on the ball, but when the game ball winds up on the other field, we have to be particularly careful. If we're talking about a particular case and whether the bad guy's words ought to be construed as victim blaming, then that's a horse of another color, and as such, I find little reason to argue.
However, when a topic progresses and transcends beyond an actual case whereby similar yet hypothetical cases are being examined instead, then the points being driven home need not address the original case in every way. I could easily argue with Lauren about claims highlighted in red, but to think my arguments must be confined to facts of the particular case presented in the OP is silly.
Statements like, "she was dressed provacatively" does not logically imply (but merely suggests) that there may be some victim blaming going on. If someone presents a case where something like that is said, then even if we can demonstrate that the statement in that case does represent victim blaming, that does nothing to counter my claim which is a different issue entirely and need be applicable to the particular case at hand.
If an officer arrests a provacatively dressed twelve year old and places her in the same cell as a 24 year old immigrant earlier arrested by that same officer for sexually molesting a ten year old, the immigrant might say she is partially to blame for dressing provacatively, but the prosecuting attorney who just so happens to agree that she was dressed provacatively is not blaming the victim. Suppose instead, the immigrant says yes, she was dressed provacatively but that had nothing to do with it, for he would have molested her either way because the officer gave him access to her by putting her in there with him. That's SHIFTING blame away from him to the officer but not onto the victim. The point is that what may ordinarily be a dead giveaway for victim blaming does not guarentee that it must always in every conceivable case be so.
WHY we say the things we do matter.
