A Theology of Slut Walks

The theology of a slut walk, however, by its outrageous embrace of slutty dress, behavior, and thought, absolutely and definitively rejects any level of moral responsibility for anything. Now lest I be misunderstood at this point — which I understand has happened before! — let me hasten to add that I am not seeking to minimize or excuse violent sexual behavior, or otherwise absolve rapists in any way.

For more from Doug, subscribe to Canon+: https://canonplus.com/  

What is Blog & Mablog?

The point of this podcast is pretty broad — “All of Christ for all of life.” In order to make that happen, we need “theology that bites back.” I want to advance what you might call a Chestertonian Calvinism, and to bring that attitude to bear on education, sex and culture, theology, politics, book reviews, postmodernism, expository studies, along with other random tidbits that come into my head. My perspective is usually not hard to discern. In theology I am an evangelical, postmill, Calvinist, Reformed, and Presbyterian, pretty much in that order. In politics, I am slightly to the right of Jeb Stuart. In my cultural sympathies, if we were comparing the blight of postmodernism to a vast but shallow goo pond, I would observe that I have spent many years on these stilts and have barely gotten any of it on me.

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't 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 up stream, we might learn something about the premises. Premises incidentally that lurk in 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. But in a less sympathetic way, it is that dressing provocatively must never be considered a provocation. Let me defend the first expression of this and blow raspberries at 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 over arching 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 the 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 that there are two moral agents, not one. Now, it is certainly possible in a screwed up world like ours, for crimes to occur where all the fault, all the blame, all the responsibility lies with just one of those moral agents. Crimes of random violence fall into this category. But even here, because the crime is committed against a moral agent, it is possible for that victim to subsequently sin against his enemy. Suppose someone rapes and murders a child, and the father of that child spends the rest of his life consumed with hatred toward the man who did it. If a spiritual counselor sought to help deliver that man from his hatred, only a mad man would say that this was an attempt to justify the initial crime. The standard that overarches us all is the character of God, otherwise known as the moral law. But because we are sinners, and frequently in conflict with one another, we find ourselves lured by that seductive voice that wants the moral law to apply to the other, so that I might have grounds for my grievance. But in my own case, to reject its authority, or ignore its authority, or assume my righteous compliance with its authority, law for him, license for me. But theology of a slut walk, however, by its outrageous embrace of slutty dress behavior and thought, absolutely and definitively rejects any level of moral responsibility for anything. Now let's be misunderstood at this point, which I understand has happened before. Let me hasten to add that I am not seeking to minimize or excuse violent sexual behavior, or otherwise absolve rapists in any way. If someone kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut-pride event ever, I would want to see that rapist punish to the full extent of the law. I am not defending the rapist. I am simply pointing out that his victim was a person who had given herself to organizing events built on a theology that, when applied consistently elsewhere, fully justifies rape. I do not justify rape. She does. Imagine a criminal with a philosophical turn of mind. The woman he kidnapped had a sign that said, no matter how I dress, rape is always wrong. The rapist before taking what he wants asks her, why is rape wrong? What standard he wants to know over arches the two of us? If there is one, what is it, and how can we know? If there is no shared standard, then might make right. What I have the power to do and get away with, I have the right to do. Wouldn't you agree? And this incidentally is exactly the same thing that you were doing with your marches. Denying that there is any standard common to us all, you organized an event to impose your personal will on others. And in this, I have to say you are more successful than I, because you have organized five marches, and this is only my third rape. He is saying that the statement, rape is always wrong, is an expression of personal will, and not an appeal to a common standard. If it weren't appeal to a common standard, the kind of appeal that a Christian woman would make, it would have been made in a way that plainly accepted the responsibility to behave in a moral way herself. In other words, it is not appealing to a shared moral standard to strut down Fifth Avenue in your skibbies. Originally published in 2015.