'Ranking' rape is a form of rape apologism, a way of making excuses for rapists, a way of saying 'oh but she went on a date with him/wore a short skirt/kissed him in the taxi, she must have secretly wanted him to forcibly stick his dick in her, even though she said no'.
I don't see the logic in that at all.
How does ranking rape, place any blame on the victim? All it does is acknowledge that within all offences, there are different degrees.
All rape victims are victims. None are in any way responsible for their rape.
It's the same with sexual assault or paedophilia. There are varying degrees, which are all recognised within the court system.
If a man grabs the boobs (over clothes) of a woman on the bus, that is sexual assault. Would anyone seriously argue that that is the same as a three hour ordeal at knifepoint, where the woman was stripped, assaulted and forced to perform acts on a man, but not raped? One is clearly more serious than the other.
Images of child abuse have 5 clearly defined levels of seriousness. That doesn't mean that level 1 is ok, or was partly the responsibility of the child, it just acknowledges that all offences are hideous, but some are more hideous than others.
And I don't think someone has to be a victim or a woman, to form an opinion on the subject. I am not a victim of child abuse but I feel able to form a valid opinion. Law makers, enforcers and juries are not all victims of the crimes they are assessing.
Someone very close to me was abused by a teacher. It is very obvious that as this paedophile perfected his technique and the degree of abuse became more and more serious over the years, the lasting effect on the victims was much worse for his later victims. So out of all of his victims, some suffered more serious assaults than others. By definition, that means that some were milder.