A theology of slut walks. March 9th, 2026. A great deal can be learned if we just take the effort

to make sense out of things that make no sense. Of course, we can never make sense of the nonsensical

by definition, but we can learn why things that make no sense are nonetheless happening.

Every absurd conclusion is, at some level, a valid derivation from absurd premises,

but enough about any given screenshot of the drudge report. Some might say that was a little

preachy and puritanical. Slut walks provide a great example of this. Once we trace the absurdity back

upstream, we might learn something about the

premises. Premises, incidentally, that lurking the minds of many Christians. I've seen it come up

many times in trying to disentangle relationship snarls. The point of slut walks is ostensibly a simple one.

It is that dressing in any particular way in no way justifies rape. Put in a less sympathetic way,

it is that dressing provocatively must never be considered provocation. Let me defend the first

expression of this and blow raspberries of the second. The reason we must do this is because

there's a deadly doctrine that underlies the second, and it is a deadly doctrine that winds up

paving the way for all manner of outrage.

A theology of slut walks, despite a great deal of indignation directed at rapists, turns out to be

a theology of rape. In order for any two people to engage in moral argument, there must be a shared

standard overarching the two of them. Without that standard, they may come into conflict,

certainly. They may fight,

as two dogs might fight over a piece of meat, but they cannot quarrel. They cannot say anything

like, you ought not to have done XYZ. To say anything like that appeals to a shared moral

standard, and if there is no shared standard, it is not possible to make the appeal. Now, in a situation

where two individuals are operating under a shared standard, this means not possible to make the appeal. Now, in a situation where two individuals are

...