In terms of the financial crisis, I'm willing to say some poor judgement went down; but more than that, unnecessary risk was present in droves. And it was a situation where more than just the primary, or even secondary, players were to be greatly and acutely and intimately affected. That is a risk I am not willing to take, but that is because until I got to college, I had a tendency to shake after making a very large purpose and have immediate buyer's remorse, even for things that were necessary. However, it is also a greater risk because its effect went beyond those making the original assessment. The amount of risk in terms of life-destroying financial decisions should be, I think, couched in part by how many lives will be destroyed. It's an inexact science, to be sure.
But then, there is the risks that, generally, affect only ourselves. The risk of wearing a miniskirt in 1960s America. The risk of riding the subway whenever as a woman. The risk of talking to a stranger at a party.
There are all sorts of risks that are both greater than the average and exhibit poor judgement, without being immoral or criminal. Lighting one's own head on fire. Taunting a group of Hells Angels with your police badge. Yelling at a police officer. Getting a piggie back ride from an extremely drunk friend. Doing anything ever first demonstrated on Jackass.
Talking to a stranger at a party, going to another room with a new acquaintance at a party isn't on that list. Even while drunk. There is a risk factor, yes. But there is (a) also the risk of reward, and (b) the assumption your companion isn't about to break the law. Does (a) or (b) always hold up? No. But it is there, and it is the counterbalance. It is the thing that makes the risk worth the reward, meeting someone new.
Rape is frequently compared to muggings or walking down dark alleyways. And while a post by someone else I can't find at the moment details the problems with comparing a violation through sex to the removal from your possession of your wordly goods, there is a deeper issue at hand. What happens if your life includes that dark alleyway? I don't mean, "Oh, I'm going to wander down a dark alleyway I don't know tonight!" but "That dark alleyway is in my neighborhood, and it is a way of getting from place to place". You could still say it is stupid to take it, but is it really? If it is your neighborhood, if walking through all of the other streets is just as risky? Women get drunk. Women drink. The people women drink around are not always going to be people they know. And women are, generally, in the presence of men. If a drunk man is a dark alleyway, the chances are a woman has been alone with multiple ones over the course of her life. Because she has to interact with that dark alleyway sometimes. Because rape doesn't happen with strangers leaping out at us from dark alleyways. Rapists are most often the people close to us, and the people close to the rapists are most often their victims. And because, all things considered equal, talking to a drunk guy alone isn't that much more risky with talking to any guy unfamiliar to her alone. Which is to say, it could go rather poorly - or he could be wonderful and end up as her not-boyfriend before the week is out, and everything in between.
I don't go to parties, and I never much enjoyed them in college. My risk ratio was that I don't like people, I don't like large gatherings of people, even among those I know, and I'm not the most fun person to meet at parties. I prefer to hang out with my friends, the people I know and can talk to. But, if I were someone who enjoyed people and hanging out with a whole host of them when we were all drunk, the risk-reward ratio would shift. A lot.
And then there is the other part of this, and that is that with all of the concern Amy and others have placed on how this girl exhibited poor judgement, the actual criminal and his criminal act gets lost in the shuffle. We're not talking about his risk-ratio, his poor judgement, his criminal actions. We're not talking about how to talk to men about rape, committing it and how to not. We're talking to a woman, and to all women, about their poor judgement, and the rapist suddenly disappears from the conversation.
The rapist should be front and center. The rapist should not have as a comfort the "rape is always wrong - but" going on. The rapist needs to be the focus, because otherwise we're just having another conversation about women and how they get raped. Women don't "get" raped. Women are raped, by other people. Most often, by men. And the way we help victims isn't by foisting upon them some idea of agency, some idea that if we can teach them how they've done wrong and they have to own their poor judgement. We have to talk about how, by being raped, someone didn't acknowledge their agency, didn't recognize their humanity. We have to change the conversation. Because for too long, it has been about women, and what they do or don't. For once, it really is a "what about teh menz?!" issue.