After a group of researchers from North Carolina State University announced that they were developing a nail polish that detects rape drugs in drinks, media outlets lit up with fury at the researchers. It was said that the researchers were “blaming the victim” and endorsing a “rape culture.” One need look no further than TommieMedia’s coverage of that event to find the negative criticism of these researchers given by members of our St. Thomas community. But these criticisms are unfair.

It seems that whenever someone brings up ways in which people can protect themselves against sexual assault or suggests some obligation to avoid risky behavior, like walking alone late at night, the person’s suggestions are tossed out as offensive, ill-informed and paternalistic.

Those who make the “victim blaming” accusation have a legitimate worry. As a society, we don’t want to shift responsibility from the criminal to the potential victim. We don’t want to make the innocent culpable for any of the harm that the guilty may do to them.

With that said, I think these accusations are misplaced and overstated. There is a world of difference between blaming the victim of a crime for the crime and evaluating the degree of moral obligation that each of us has to take precaution against crime.

Maybe you think that, in a perfect world, we would be able do whatever we wanted without interfering in others’ lives without their consent or without them interfering in ours. Maybe your ideal world is a world of such perfect freedom. We could walk where we want, when we want. We wouldn’t need to ask whether it’s safe to drink more than a certain amount. Since people wouldn’t be criminals, we wouldn’t need to worry about criminals.

Regardless of whether you find this world appealing or not, it is at least clear that this isn’t the world we live in. People commit heinous crimes. (Women are even more aware of this fact than I am as a man.) And we should do everything we can to reduce the number of perpetrators. We should put the maximum degree of responsibility on those who might commit crimes to not do so. In short, we should insist on the obligation of rapists to not rape.

In the meantime, however, while the world is still imperfect, we aren’t wrong for looking for ways to protect ourselves from the criminals. We aren’t wrong for suggesting a responsibility on behalf of potential victims to safeguard against becoming actual victims.

This isn’t victim blaming. This isn’t saying that victims of sexual assault are culpable for what is definitionally out of their control. This is applying the universal moral principle that we have an obligation to look after our own safety to the real-world fact that there is a need to look after our own safety.

This brings us to the other legitimate worry of those who make the accusation of victim blaming: They worry that the only solutions to avoiding sexual assault are going to be too extreme. A person, for example, could avoid sexual assault by never leaving her or his home, but this would be too harmful a precaution in itself.

Again, however, I think the accusation – though well-intended – is misplaced. Yes, many potential precautions against rape would be excessive and harmful.

Others (such as the nail polish) are too demanding to be obligatory. I certainly don’t think anyone has the obligation to buy that nail polish. Some may choose to buy it. That’s fine. But it’s clearly OK not to buy it as well.

On the other hand, there are also some precautions, which are very reasonable – neither excessively demanding nor harmful. For example, using the buddy system when out late at night in dangerous areas just makes sense.

My point is this: We need to insist on the responsibility of criminals for the crimes they do, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look for ways to stay safe until the criminals accept their responsibility.

Elliot Polsky can be reached at pols4319@stthomas.edu.