I need help as I feel I've lost a debate today although I know I'm right, goddammit! 
Ok, here goes:
Female co-worker and I were talking about sexual assault/rape and she came out with the old 'well, she was asking for it what with her short skirt/gaudy make-up/being out and alone at that time of night/teasing him with her provocative dancing' or whatever. Which I countered that that represents rape apology and that the guilt is always with the rapist, no matter what went before.
So she gave the example that is two men (or women, I suppose, 2 people of the same sex) get in to a fight and one punches/stabs the other any judge/court would take in to account whether they were provoked and that unreasonable or inflammatory action by the victim prior to the attack would be used to mitigate the guilt of the attacker (or at least result in a lesser sentence).
Now I know that sexual assault/rape has very little to do with sex and an awful lot with power/need to dominate/control and nobody no matter how short their skirt should ever have to be subjected to that kind of violence, but I struggle to not agree with the mitigation argument? 
Help!! I know I won't be able to let this lie, and I do have until Monday to get things clear in my head.