In the wake of the massacre in Chattanooga, Tenn., Defense Secretary Ash Carter approved a series of "immediate force-protection steps" designed to protect service members. One of those steps was to ask recruiters not to wear their uniforms in public.

Regular readers (all two of you; I'm being generous) will recognize this attempt to "protect" people by telling them what not to wear as "slut-shaming" or "victim-blaming." At least, that's what it's called when the protection is meant for young women on college campuses.

In this case, soldiers are being told not to wear their uniforms because it may make them targets of another shooting. College women used to be told not to wear skimpy clothes to avoid being raped.

The obvious difference here is that a military uniform clearly identifies someone as a member of the military, whereas a short skirt doesn't identify someone as wanting to have sex. In both instances, however, an authority figure is at least in part blaming the victim for the crime perpetrated against them.

Along with the new uniform policy, the Marine Corps closed recruiting centers within 40 miles of where the shooting, which killed four marines, occurred. The Marines and the Army both increased their official threat level, and the Navy doubled its random security checks in the southeastern U.S.

It's always smart to take precautions to avoid potentially dangerous situations — such precautions are found in many places where crimes may occur. There's a label on ATMs that warns users to be aware of their surroundings when withdrawing cash at night. That's not victim-blaming; it's common sense.

The trouble arises when things that are meant to be protections wouldn't actually protect. For the military, not wearing a uniform at work isn't going to stop a shooter who enters the building because it's a known recruitment center. You're there, you're associated with the military and you've seen the shooter. For women on college campuses, wearing sweat pants probably isn't going to make a rapist decide to forgo the crime.

Of course, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if urging people to take simple steps to protect themselves (being aware of one's surroundings, not getting black-out drunk, etc.) wasn't now considered victim-blaming. Telling someone that what they are wearing will lead to their rape is a bad idea; so is suggesting that military men and women who wear their uniforms invite violence.

The Department of Defense is essentially telling marines that they were dressed too sexy.

Except, at least on college campuses, asking someone what they were wearing doesn't occur as often as it may have in the past. Those who like to claim that sexual assault is an "epidemic" on college campuses usually combine clothing with alcohol consumption to make both seem equal as victim-blaming techniques. They're not the same. Suggesting someone not drink so much would actually protect them from being assaulted, it will also keep them from getting into a situation in which they can't say no. No type of clothing will do that.

Not consuming alcohol may also keep someone from consenting to something they otherwise would not. Some activists might call that victim-blaming, but I don't agree. If you wouldn't do something sober (like consent to sex) that you would do while drunk, not getting drunk is an obvious solution. People rarely act differently based solely on the clothes they are wearing, and said clothes don't tend to lead someone to consent to something they otherwise would not.

In the case of the military, more security and awareness will help prevent another attack. Not wearing uniforms in an office clearly marked for military purposes most likely will not.

So if it's not appropriate to tell women what they should and shouldn't wear to avoid being raped, why is it appropriate to tell our military men and women what they should and shouldn't wear to avoid being shot?