A reader writes:

I'm with the "overreaction" crowd on this ad. If someone posted a warning to people to stay out of Central Park late at night, would that also be "blaming the victim" because a mugger is looking to mug people and we shouldn't place the burden of caution on innocent park strollers? If someone posted a warning on Queens Boulevard warning people to exercise special caution when crossing the street, would that be "blaming the victim" because speeders and red-light crashers are the ones who are breaking the law and we shouldn't put the burden of proper crossing on innocent pedestrians who are obeying the traffic light rules?

Telling people that certain behaviors will get them into trouble at the hands of people who will take advantage of them isn't wrong. It's what your parents try to drum into you before you leave home.

Another takes issue with Copyranter's reaction:

Seriously? "Victim blaming strategy"? Puh-lease.  

The ad makes the argument for personal responsibility in a very powerful way.  Young people tend to think that they are invincible until something really bad happens to them.  Sometimes they need to be hit over the head with the message in a way that makes them pay attention. I feel the need to quote Camille Paglia from "Sex, Art and American Culture: Essays" (1992, p57):

These girls say, "Well, I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening."  And I say, "Oh, really?  And when you drive your car into New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?"  My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished.  But at the same time, the police – and I – have the right to say to you, "You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?"

A reader on the other side of the spectrum:

A PSA should address a social problem at its origin. An anti-drunk driving ad is aimed at the person getting behind the wheel of the car. Or to the person hosting a party, embarrassed to confront a friend ("friends don't let friends drive drunk"). Both the drunk driver and the party host have a legal liability in their behavior, and can be charged with a crime for their actions. The rape victim has no liability, and indeed is the one hurt by the actions of the aggressor, yet they are the ones told to change their behavior to avoid harm.

The implication is that if only all the women would just stop drinking, rape would end. It's a lie and a cheat. No one runs PSA ads warning pedestrians not to cross streets without checking to see if drivers are intoxicated ("don't cross 'til you see the whites of their eyes!") Nor do they tell men to avoid strip clubs as they are likely to get money stolen.

These ads are directed at TEENAGERS for heaven's sake. Girls are being taught early they are responsible for the bad behavior of the boys. Where are the ads telling boys DON'T RAPE or you'll go to JAIL?

Another:

I think the problem is in the wording of the ad: "She didn't want to do it, but she couldn't say no". This implies she had an obligation to say no and her silence was equivalent to consent. Or possibly it implies that if she had said no, her rapist would have stopped. Either way, it puts the blame on her for not saying no.

What the ad really needs to convey is that it is sometimes dangerous to be impaired because people can take advantage of you. The ad could have said for example, "She tried to stop him, but was too drunk to move", or "She passed out from drinking and was raped". Either way, this wording makes it clear she was the victim of a crime that she was powerless to stop because of her condition. The crime could have been rape, robbery, and assault or something else – it doesn't matter – the point is that we sometimes need to keep our faculties about us to protect ourselves. I think that would be the right message.