Genesis 34:1--How Often Did Dinah Visit the Daughters of the Land?

I've often heard it said that Dinah routinely (often) went to visit the Canaanite women of the land, according to the Hebrew of Genesis 34:1. My approach through the years has been to accept this statement without really finding out why the claim is made. It's probably correct, but I just want to know why.

The Hebrew verb translated "went out/went to see" in Gen. 34:1 is grammatically, qal imperfect third-person feminine singular plus waw consecutive.

Nahum M. Sarna (Genesis, JPS Commentary): "The text casts a critical eye upon Dinah’s unconventional behavior through use of the verbal stem y-t$-’, 'to go out.' Like its Akkadian and Aramaic equivalents, the verb can connote coquettish or promiscuous conduct.3"

The expression, "the daughters of the land" also conveys pejorative undertones (Sarna).

Daniel Green makes some interesting points in his article, "The Rape Of Dinah In Genesis 34: An Exegetical, Theological, And Pastoral Consideration Of Sexual Abuse And Its Effect On The People Of God." He observes:

The narrative begins with Dinah, Jacob’s daughter by Leah, going out to be among the daughters of Canaan. The implication of  ותצא is debated. It may be that she went out among the Canaanites regularly as the preterite form can be given a characteristic (perfect) nuance. The word לִר ֹות can refer to “looking at with interest” and “gazing at so as to become acquainted.” 4 Although it was not unusual for young women of this period to be unsecluded (Gen 24:13-21, 29:6, 11-12),5 to go out alone among the Shechemites was a different case. It was not normal for girls of marriageable age to go out to an alien city unguarded.6 Not only is Dinah’s action personally careless, but the fronting of the verb suggests broader danger to Israel as a whole—forbidden intimacy with Canaanites. Waltke calls Dinah’s action “improper and imprudent.”7 It probably goes too far to call her action promiscuous. To draw a parallel with Leah’s going out in 30:16 misses the mark. Leah was a married woman who desired her husband. The verb itself should not be interpreted negatively, per se. Restraint should be shown at this point. Dinah may have been lacking judgment, even foolish, but there is a big difference between imprudence and immorality.8  Parry correctly notes that the heavy blame in the passage is directed against others.9 Readers may call Dinah foolish, perhaps, but not promiscuous.

See Journal of Ministry and Theology 16.2 (Fall 2012), Page 65.

The following image comes from Robert Alter's Genesis commentary on 34:1: