"Life isn't black and white. It's a million gray areas, don't you find?" - Ridley Scott, Award-Winning Film Director

Generally speaking, adopting a perspective that portrays one person/group as the sole perpetrator and one person/group as the sole victim is both disingenuous and unfair to the party which gets vilified. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. For instance, serial killers (of reasonably sound mind) who randomly select innocent people to torture, rape, and murder obviously don't fit the criteria for inclusion in the partially-culpable category; they deserve 100% of the blame for their heinous and deplorable actions. However, in most cases, blame deserves to be shared between both parties. Often times, because one party is more responsible than the other, fault should not be distributed equally among individuals. For example, morally speaking, infidelity and domestic violence are both wrong. And in another example, legally speaking, jaywalking and driving while intoxicated are both wrong. But any rational person can conclude that, in each example, the latter of the two is considerably worse. And these are just two examples; there are many more hypothetical scenarios I could devise to better support my claim. Regardless, the crux of my argument remains true. In tense relationships/situations both sides tend to take advantage of each other, to varying degrees. In other words, not every conflict in the world should be taken at face value. When examining disputes more thoroughly, we discover that discrete and rigid labels like "villain" and "victim" aren't always appropriate and should be avoided in the majority of circumstances. The nuance of interpersonal dynamics should respect and correspond to the complexity of human interaction. Absolute truths are rare; not everything is so black and white.