The reasons why people rape and rob don't correlate together to make the kind of comparison you just did. Each individual action are different from each other. There might be a few similarities they both look for in a victim, like weakness, but their endgame is in no way comparable.
Someone might want to mug a 90 year old woman wearing expensive clothing because they're put under the impression that she has a lot of money, but a 90 year old woman isn't going to be raped because she's dressed provocatively, as 90 year old women usually don't dress provocatively or in any fashion that's sexually "inviting".
Alternatively, no one is going to mug a toddler because they usually don't have any money. But unfortunately, people have and will continue to rape them, and I doubt anyone can think of a single toddler who has been raped because of the way they were dressed.
As a side note, I'm in no way saying that people getting mugged are to blame either, I'm just saying I can see why a mugger would prefer to rob someone who looks wealthy over someone who looks poor. A rapist's reasons for choosing his victims vary.
It's okay that you couldn't find anything on the subject, I already have one.
While people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor. Instead, rapists look for signs of passiveness and submissiveness, which, studies suggest, are more likely to coincide with more body-concealing clothing. In a study to test whether males could determine whether women were high or low in passiveness and submissiveness, Richards and her colleagues found that men, using only nonverbal appearance cues, could accurately assess which women were passive and submissive versus those who were dominant and assertive. Clothing was one of the key cues: "Those females high in passivity and submissiveness (i.e., those at greatest risk for victimization) wore noticeably more body-concealing clothing (i.e., high necklines, long pants and sleeves, multiple layers)." This suggests that men equate body-concealing clothing with passive and submissive qualities, which are qualities that rapists look for in victims. Thus, those who wore provocative clothes would not be viewed as passive or submissive, and would be less likely to be victims of assault.
Along these lines, research suggests that rape victims are “significantly
lower” in “dominance, assertiveness, and social presence.”While members of
the public believe that victims of assault attract such attacks by dressing
provocatively, attractiveness does not correlate with submissive characteristics in victims. Instead, research “specifically revealed a negative relationship between perceptions of attractiveness and traits which could be construed as contributing to a nonverbal appearance of vulnerability.” Thus:
Male evaluators perceived attractive females as lower in submissiveness,
uncertainty, simpleness, carelessness and passivity than their less attractive
peers. This suggests that conventional definitions of physical attractiveness do not represent visual attributes which enhance a woman’s potential for
So in a sense, this is almost saying that dressing like an Amish woman poses a greater risk than dressing like a hooker. Personally, I'd rather not try to influence the way a woman dresses and stick with things that are actually known to help prevent rape.
I can see how the intent isn't particularly awful. If it's not accurate, though, then it's pretty much useless. Giving someone a false sense of security does zero good. And for those who don't follow that advice and end up falling victim, then there's a chance that they could end up blaming themselves for it, which is definitely awful.