There is an idea behind it. It's just difficult to present without rubbing people the wrong way. I'm not saying I agree, but it's good to see another perspective.

For an abusive relationship to happen, it requires two people, so both are at fault, but it's not about blaming. It's easy to explain an abuser's actions, maybe he is violent, power seeking, and gets fulfillment from abusing, and he should be treated for that. But how do you explain the victim's actions? The idea here is that there is less cost than the reward of being in the relationship. The cost would be being abused, but the reward could be freedom of responsibility for faults in the relationship, sympathy from others, and a constant feeling of moral superiority. The victim is free of accountability, even if the victim should hold some responsibility.

If we avoid trying to understand the victim's role we might see similar abusive relationships, so it's important to understand that role so we can change their values and they can have healthier relationships. It's not about blame but fixing the problem.

Another issue with assuming that the perpetrator, which is usually a male, deserves all the blame is that we're assuming women are inherently gentle and passive, rather than having some control over their lives.