Jesus H. Christ. Anyway,
I think the wrongness of those arguments is absolutely relevant, because those arguments are symptomatic of the mindset that allows rape to happen and keeps it from being successfully prosecuted again and again.
They're not terribly important, since they're only symptoms. It's relevant that they work as red herrings. That might explain why the mindset has gone unchallenged. So it would be good to examine the properties of these arguments as red herrings, but not to take the bait and actually engage them.
Trumpeting "precaution" puts the burden on the victim, moreso when the precautionary actions being encouraged (don't wear that, don't go here, etc.) rarely have anything to do with the reality of rape and its circumstances.
Not really. Putting the burden on the victim puts the burden on the victim. The precaution trumpeting is a common red herring that lets the subtle burden-putting go unchallenged.
Allowing evo-psych arguments to stand unchallenged removes the burden from the rapist,
Evo-psych arguments don't do much of anything. Sometimes they seem to remove the burden, and sometimes challenging them seems to remove the burden. Rarely in these arguments is the link between biology and burden-removing coherently considered. The perfect red herring.
by making it seem like it's a situation where the rapist simply hasn't been socialized or civilized properly, when in reality our society not only tolerates but actively encourages sexualization and objectification of women, the line of thought that leads directly to rape.
Knock knock. Red herring. So that was my point. Too much red herring chasing.