Yeah, that conclusion (in the OP) sounds a lot like some aita commenters who give judgements based on a bunch of assumptions they just made up in their heads. They don't believe the original version where the daughters are at fault, so replace that version with their own and add the discrepancy (that they created in the first place) as another point against it.

It's a fictional story where the daughters were written as villains. Or maybe it was erotica of its time, intended to sell more copies of the Bible or get people in to listen to what crazy shit happened next.

Though I just remembered another part that does really bring the paragon of goodness (and what they thought was good) into question: the city of Sodom was destroyed because the citizens, upon seeing an angel or pair of angels or something, insisted they needed to gang rape them. Lot, in his unquestionable goodness, offers his own daughters for the gang rape instead. So clearly, at best they saw his daughters as his possessions that he could "sacrifice" to do "good", at worst they thought so little of women getting gang raped that it was just an "out" offered to the people that they refused and thus justified their destruction (because a normal gang rape must be fine, but angelic gang rape is something else).

Oh and the call for blind obedience just thrown in when the wife looks back after being told not to and is punished for disobeying.

Lol the story as told is fucked up enough, don't know why anyone feels the need to act like it was based on true events but was actually just a coverup for a different rape.