You would think so, but apologists for the male abuse of women will create very tangled rationales in their heads for why it is anyone's fault but the abuser's.
This can also be taken to an extreme. For instance, in the Lama Norlha scandal it was put to us that in all cases the relationship is inappropriate, and that in all cases it is the clergyman’s fault for letting it happen. This includes if the woman initiated it and willingly participated for years. She still bears zero responsibility even then. And that means both he and his organization are legally liable in a lawsuit. That, in turn, effectively means that if the affair ends amicably there’s no problem. But if the woman feels unhappy—for whatever reason—she has unilateral ability to take revenge (and profit financially) regardless of the actual circumstances.
The best thing I can say about that idea is that it makes court proceedings exceedingly simple. And that is a legitimate consideration for how a society has to process these situations. You don’t want some judge trying to assign responsibility in a seduction on a case by case basis.
However it also means that adult women are given the same status as a child in that they are deemed to not have the power of consent at all. The idea that adults can have zero responsibility for their actions is, well, something. I can’t think of the correct word for it right now.