The principal of sowing/reaping could be argued to entail deservedness of whatever happens to results from one's choices, good OR bad.
The biggest point of contention would likely be, when it comes to bad, where does deserve start? Why do people in some situations deserve what comes upon them as a result of their poor choices...while other, equally poor choosers do not deserve what happens?
Put another way: if people who make good choices deserve the good that comes, by what logic do people who make bad choices not deserve the bad that comes?
Put yet another way: why should the universal law of natural consequences - which does exist - apply only in select situations but not in others? And who has the authority to determine which is which?
Just asking for the sake of conversation, since this general topic is now going in a direction not necessarily limited to sexual assaults.