It's late and I have an exam in 9 hours so I can't really do anything comprehensive, but I think other users early in the disagreement covered it pretty well. You got argumentative and insulting with the OP of that thread right off the bat which is taken poorly and sets the tone for the whole interaction.

By acknowledging that we can take some control over our safety but then refusing to account for the agency of the adult human that would then independently choose to commit violence, you kinda threw the baby out with the bathwater. Of course we can reduce our risk. I think most people recognize that. OP made a bunch of bad decisions (which she preemptively and repeatedly acknowledged, so bringing them back up wasn't really conducive to discussion), but at the end of the day the deciding factor in whether something had happened would still have been the attacker's will. A victim is never "asking for it" and an attacker is never justified by saying they are. They still had to decide to do it, so the victim's actions cannot be causal. That's where the bear analogy broke down.

I also don't reject the idea that we should work towards a world where violence against other people is abhorred more than bad decision-making.

Anyway, goodnight.