Yes, SOME blame. The phrase “victim blaming” is generally nothing more than a means of shutting down conversation, as it implies that looking at the actions of the “victim” somehow negates the culpability of the assailant. So while that might be true in regards to how some people view victims, that is not necessarily true when people question the actions of someone who was victimized.
Point being, as stated above, they were responsible for their OWN actions no matter how the scenario was set up. Does that make what the parents or the guy did right? No, as I said, there are better ways in which the exact same message could have been presented. Just like the girls could have made better decisions. No one in this scenario is without fault.
And the reason the onus is, and probably should be placed on the girls, is the fact that they were the ones who left their homes, met up with the guy, and got the crap scared out of them. In the scenario presented, right up until the van door opened, they were in complete control of their own fate/actions.
It’s not as if the guy got their address and then broke into the girls bedroom(with parental consent of course). I think that scenario would support the position of this being akin to “scared straight” better than what actually occurred.
Scared straight, don’t do drugs, etc. They are all trying to use potential outcomes as a means of discouragement. This generally fails because most people do not believe that THEY will fall victim to XYZ.
In this scenario, the girls ACTIONS are demonstrated to cause an outcome. She did go online, she did meet up with a stranger alone, she did in fact get ambushed.
There is nothing potential about it. These things DID happen. So while I question the methodology. I do think pushing the “blame” or responsibility back to the “victim” is appropriate in this scenario.