So people don't really fit into this label, yet you can still say they "aren't trying to trick anyone". You can either speak about "liberals", or you can't. I said it was a "liberal trick", maybe 'leftist' is a better term.
> what's the difference between
It's hard to tell, you need to know what the relevant aspects are. Is not wearing a hijab in Tehran dangerous because of the perception that the crime is deserved? This confounds the situation where risk is both known to the degree that it is a precedent, but that the fact that it is a precedent is because of the public perception that victims deserve their treatment.
If someone lost their house betting on the stock-market, we might find them to blame for their foolishness, yet still not care to tell them to their face, due to the magnitude of the situation, unless you knew them and their situation well.
I would advise a woman in Tehran to wear the hijab if there was a risk not doing so might put them at risk. I would say they put themselves at unreasonable risk if they did otherwise - I wouldn't say 'blame' out of respect for the ambiguity of the word in such a serious context. None of this means I agree with the fact that this risk exists, or that anyone deserves to be assaulted.
> Note that many in the U.S. will say, 'she asked for it' ... There are endless reports of law enforcement taking this attitude
Who? And in what context? The US is big place, are you telling me the precedent in Tehran, and the 'unwritten rule' in the US are of the same magnitude and veracity? I'm not so sure.
In any case, if this where true, then it's bad when the US do it too - this has no bearing on Tehran, and is only if it's true.
> women who don't cover up are tempting men, who can't be expected to resist
It is religiously based, in a place where that religious has real, unanimous, legal authority.
> the same thinking, just rationalized and implemented in different ways in a secular and in a religious society
Maybe so, except this thinking has no were near the same influence in the two cases.
> If I take a big risk, I might be partly to blame for a negative outcome. If I do something immoral, I might be blamed for the negative consequence.
I think you are right about risks and outcomes, but not how it applies.
First, just in terms of your theory, what's the difference between a woman in London who doesn't cover up her skirt late at night, takes a risk, and gets assaulted, and a woman in Tehran who doesn't cover up her skirt with a hajib, takes a risk, and gets assaulted? (Bear with me ...)
* Note that many in the U.S. will say, 'she asked for it', and not just to their buddies. There are endless reports of law enforcement taking this attitude when rape victims report the crime and harassing them, to the degree that rape victims often don't report it. It's an official, if unwritten rule, to a meaningful degree.
* In Iran it's a written rule (I assume). Some in Iran will say she deserved it, as you noted for religious reasons. But I read that in Egypt, at least, a basis for that rule (I don't know how common, or if this is somehow religiously-based) is that women who don't cover up are tempting men, who can't be expected to resist. That's pretty similar to 'she asked for it'.
I think to a great degree it may be the same thinking, just rationalized and implemented in different ways in a secular and in a religious society. Either way, she violated social norms - men's rules about what she can do with her body - and deserves what she gets.