This chapter explores lingering concerns about whether, the decision to shift claims of provocation to the sentencing stage of the legal process will put an end to what is perhaps the most vexing exculpatory narrative of excuse for men's violence towards women: the narrative of women 'asking for it'. It shows that the decision to abolish the controversial partial defence of provocation in a number of Australian jurisdictions and elsewhere was only in part designed to redress the problem of provocation's victim-blaming narratives. The chapter suggests that a decision to abolish the partial defence of provocation in most jurisdictions made alongside the introduction of other quite substantial legislative changes to the laws of homicide. Building on Smart's discourse theory approach, this book explores the ways in which certain, preferred understandings about femininity, masculinity, heterosexuality and indeed, culpability, are embedded in the rhetorical practices of legal discourse. The chapter also presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.