There's no empirical evidence which suggests any positive correlation between being raped as a result of being scantily clad. In fact I think some statistical evidence actually suggests women who dress conservatively are more likely to be selected as victims by public rapists. It is counter-intuitive, but this is because dressing conservatively is linked with being more introverted, passive, and lacking self-confidence. These women are less likely to fight back. TL;DR this argument is unsound because it is based on an untrue presupposition.

Are you saying in some conservative religious communities they do not sexually harass women women who show skin?

Again, where's the evidence that supports being alone is the variable of most significance, rather than dress or environment, when examining risk factors that contribute to sexual harassment?

I would think the stats on rape would say women are more likely to raped when they alone than part of a group.

Do you have statistical evidence that shows they just as likely to be attacked alone or part of a group?

This is a false equivalency. Though I agree with the general contention of this argument, you A) have not defined "racial abuse" a term which seems rather hyperbolic in 2017 and also you're B) presenting this scenario as though it is a guaranteed necessary absolute. The equivalent argument is: "If you don't want to risk the likely possibility of facing "racial abuse," then don't visit that racist town.

Your logic says people should expect to be harassed and discriminated against.

Discriminated against by employers? It's their fault for being black.

Discriminated against by landlords? It's their fault for being black.

They shouldn't try those racist places.

"If you don't want to face homosexual discrimination, then don't tell people you know or think may be homophobic that you are gay."