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 screen shot of the Drudge Report.
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 lurk in the minds of many Christians. I have 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 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 is 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 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 madman 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.
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. If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want to see that rapist punished to the fullest 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, overarches the two of us? If there is one, what is it, and how can we know? If there is no shared standard, then might makes 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 were 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 were an 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 5th Avenue in your skivvies.
Years from now… oh, nevermind, months from now, someone will post the following quote: “This is only my third rape.” – Doug Wilson
“See, not only does he defend child molesters, he is a rapist himself.
Minutes from now…
I suspect that the women who would go on a slut walk say that rape is wrong not because it’s immoral, but because it violates their right to control their own bodies. And in that way, it’s not inconsistent with dressing like a slut. The man who would excuse rape because the woman dressed like a slut or acted like a slut is demonstrating an external locus of control which is entirely inappropriate in this context. These women are positing that in this context everyone should have an internal locus of control: the woman controls who she consents to having… Read more »
I think you are right about the articulation of those who justify slut walks, and it’s definitely worth considering. However, I still think that the underlying, ultimate message of slut walks is one of destructive sex positivity, which I believe contributes to a culture that tears down strong fences against rape.
Where in the world are there strong fences against rape? I don’t know that country.
: (
A strong fence against rape, in my opinion, is the way people treat rape in conversation. If people brush it off, the fence has been destroyed. If people strongly condemn and assume that it’s one of the worst crimes imaginable in conversation, the fence has been built up.
I don’t know if there’s a country that has consistently built up their fences, either now or historically, but I do think that some fences are still being built.
Like “don’t drop the soap” jokes about prison rape? I object to those strenuously whenever they cross my path but they are dang persistent.
Or the cultural thing about boys who are exploited by their female teachers having gotten lucky, as opposed to being victims of coercion.
ETA: These are examples of what some feminists refer to as “rape culture” btw.
Around A.D. 1982 I heard from a professor at U of S Fl that some (African) country punishes rape with public castration and had only punished 2 in 10 years?
How many women had been stoned for “adultery” or “fornication”?
Rape is game on in Europe. In Sweden the authorities have every reason to cover it up. Slut Walkers, it’s coming here soon.
https://youtu.be/3KSJY0c8QWw
You almost seem pleased. When the barbarian hordes come that’ll teach those slut walkers, won’t it?
No, actually I’m thinking a strategy of resistance. But your mind is darkened, you can’t understand.
Who are you thinking of resisting? Isis, or the immodest women?
Do you ever go on a ten mile hike, unplugged?
It is such a valid question. You do seem pleased when you say “Rape is game on in Europe. In Sweden the authorities have every reason to cover it up. Slut Walkers, it’s coming here soon.”
But you say you are not. Rather you are thinking up strategy of resistance. What is the strategy What have you thought of?
(I haven’t been on a ten mile hike for a long time, as I have a lot of young kids. Can i still ask the question?)
Feeding ground for angry woman. Bring it!
When Isis comes for the immodest women, you feminists have removed every vestige of impulse to defend you. We will defend our own. You, fierce-in-my-face-feminist, will have to fight like a man.
Your “we” is a tiny group. If ISIS comes here, the rest of “us” will be defending America. We won’t be quizzing you to see if you have the correct attitudes toward women first.
I don’t think you know that Laura; you vastly underestimate the amount of antipathy out here.
You vastly overestimate it.
You think men as a whole have antipathy toward immodestly-dressed women?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
You think men as a whole have antipathy toward immodestly-dressed women?
Feminists. Slut-walkers garner little sympathy and the sympathy they do garner is not from the tip-of-the-spear types. You have lost the respect of men. You go girl.
Sorry Tim you are waaay off base here. Yes they have lost our respect and have given us little to no reason to protect them but you know what? We MUST do it anyway. If I(or any Christian man) sees any woman (anyone really but I think women more so) in danger we should do everything in our power to protect her. I believe Wilson would agree with me here. People don’t have to earn our treating them well/showing love and in this context protecting. We are called to give it! Part of giving that love is to call them… Read more »
Jonathan, sometimes love demands leaving a person or people to experience the consequences of their errors. Of course we will welcome the women who leave the theology of the slut-walks for the grace of God and we will do so abundantly, lavishly and lovingly; our spirit is of over-flowing giving. God Himself turns His back on some saying “thy will be done” to those who do not say to Him “Thy will be done”. We call that judgement and the Biblical instances are many. God commanded the Apostles, of whom we are brothers in Christ, to shake the dust of… Read more »
Timothy have you or have you not “shaken the dust off your feet”? I ask because you do not act like you have done so. When we shake off the dust we leave the town i.e. we disengage from them. This post by Pastor Wilson and your responses seem to indicate that you have not in fact disengaged. We don’t get to engage when it is fun but decide when it becomes difficult to dust off our feet. If we act like our feet are dusty then when we see someone being attacked we must defend. If you call these… Read more »
Suppose, for the sake of argument, I grant your ‘dust of the feet’ argument (I do not).
My point on God’s behavior and my point on letting some people learn the hard lessons still answer your original claim that we “MUST”.
“You have lost the respect of men.”
Who the heck are you to speak for half the human race?
All you can say is that I have lost YOUR respect. Maybe you’ll think I’m crying here. … Checking.
… Nope.
That’s fine Laura; I really don’t care what you think of me; I see what I see and nothing I see from you leaves me unpersuaded. Perhaps you speak for men when you say they will rush to defend the slut-walkers, because America!
“Perhaps you speak for men when you say they will rush to defend the slut-walkers”
Perhaps one day you will pay more attention to the words on the monitor in front of you than the voices in your head.
I do think it is unfortunate that a lot of men encourage women to dress immodestly. I don’t understand it, but I have seen it in my experience. I think it is sometimes wanting their girlfriend/wife to strike their buddies as being “hot.”
And how immature is that.
Jillybean,
This is a great point. Have you ever read Rene Girard on mimetic desire? He explains this beautifully and in a stunningly obvious way. A great literary example is in Shakespeare’s The Rape of Lucrece.
It’s a tragic reality and I think Girard might have explained better than anybody ever has in human history. I can’t know that, but I really do suspect it.
Just google Rene Girard or mimetic desire.
Pastor Wilson’s point is that said women cannot produce any moral or philosophical basis for other people to believe in or respect their so-called “right to control their own bodies”. Without that shared morality, there is no argument or persuasion, merely force, and the things they say are just noise thrown into the void.
Amen…sounds suspiciously like “Survival of the Fittest”. Hm. Now where have I heard that before?
Why when they say they don’t want people to harm them, do their voices not count? Are these Jesus followers saying “Amen”?
“Don’t harm me” is the ‘super-text’ the sub-texts are:
“do not judge me”
“do not hold me to your Christian standards”
“I will serve myself”
We hear them loud and clear; they are blind.
Are they really ONLY saying “Don’t harm me”?
Does God not tell us to be angry without sin?
Yes. I think that is why many people are angry with the premises being laid out here by Doug et al. That a person needs to understand Scripture the exact same way as Doug and company, in order to have a say in the conversation about not harming another. What are you angry about here Kimberley? I am a bit angry about so many religious people being more concerned with being right than they are concerned with loving their neighbor, and seeing the humanity and Imago Dei in the promiscuous woman, too. And I am angry about the way that… Read more »
“That a person needs to understand Scripture the exact same way as Doug and company, in order to have a say in the conversation about not harming another.”
Good paraphrase. That’s pretty accurate.
Bravo. It is so rare here that someone makes a compassionately christian point. Thank you.
Loving your neighbor sometimes requires acknowledging their sin, and sometimes the sin of one’s own need to be right all the time.
Why can’t it be both/and? The problem here isn’t that Christians are concerned with x and not y. The problem is that when Christians talk about x, SJW’s decide to falsely cast that as a lack of concern for y in order to shut down the discussion of x altogether. Let’s turn this around . . . does the wickedness of rape – which Christians do not deny – does that wickedness render issues of propriety categorically out-of-bounds? Of course not. If one says otherwise, then they are admitting that they wish to narrow the conversation so as to eliminate… Read more »
Hi Matt! I am not a supporter of flaunting promiscuity. But I do very much agree with a sign statement that says, “Do not tell me how to dress, Tell them how not to Rape.” I hear Doug, and many people here saying that a woman making this demand/request has no moral or logical leg to stand on. How is this so? Also, a woman living in according to a different sexual standard than God says is best, absolutely does that mean that she justifies rape. That is what Doug specifically said. He said, “I don’t justify rape, she does.”… Read more »
Therein lies the problem: there is no shared moral standard, and that is why any attempt at discussion quickly degenerates into riotous shouting matches and slogan-infested placards. Christians uphold a moral Standard, and when Christians disagree about how that Standard should be applied, there is at the very least a shared moral Standard to which they point and work our their differences. Those deep in the middle of the “slut walk” have rejected all moral standards; therefore, it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation, never mind a discussion of what ought to be done. There is no “ought to”… Read more »
Erin I certainly don’t put forth any accusations about you personally, flaunting promiscuity, I”m speaking to the issue itself! Your points, one by one . . . (1) the sign that says “don’t tell me how to dress, tell them how not to rape,” Well, the propriety of this sign depends on whether or not those they are addressing are indeed blaming them for the rape or giving the perps a pass. The necessary implication of the sign is that they are giving the perps a pass. But are they . . that’s the question. If they are, then I’d… Read more »
Thank you Matt! I am glad if Doug is not saying, “she explicitly argues *in favor of* rape.” But, my main struggle here is that she does not have an anything goes moral standard. She believes in not forcing power on another, taking from another, forcing oneself on another. It is a “Do no Harm” standard. This is a shared moral standard that we have between us all, right? I was out last night with my husband at a concert, and the lady next to us was wearing a shirt that said, “Do no Harm… But take no Shit” I… Read more »
Oh but she does indeed have an anything goes standard. There are two issues of morality at play here – the rape, and her dress/presentation/modesty, etc. You are right that the rape position is a “do no harm” standard, but that doesn’t answer the issue concerning her dress and modesty. You are repeating the stance in opposition to rape, but let’s put that to rest – that is not the issue – I oppose rape, you oppose it, Wilson opposes it, and the slut walker opposes it. Fine. The hang-up here is that the opposition to rape is often used… Read more »
Erin, the “do no harm” standard is all well and good between two people, but it has a glaring omission; namely, do no harm (or cause no offense) to God. Dressing like a slut does nothing to hurt me or anyone else on a “horizontal” level, but it is an offense to the way that God has created and intended these women to be. Not all sin is an offense to other people, but certainly all sin is an offense to God, and is therefore rightly condemned.
I am really struggling with the logic here. “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.” Is Pastor Wilson saying that when a woman publicly offends against modesty, she has violated the moral law to such an extent that she can no longer claim the protection of the moral law against a rapist? Considered in moral rather than legal terms, is Wilson’s philosophical rapist equating her immodesty with his violent predatory… Read more »
I THINK what he’s saying is, that if you are going to have moral standards such that you disapprove of rape, then you have to have moral standards, such that you take on modest dress and behavior.
The fact is, of course, that the only way a slut walk imposes the particpants’ personal will on others is if the streets are closed for it.
But suppose it is an anti-rape parade conducted by respectably dressed women? Would Pastor Wilson then have no problem with it? But what about an anti-rape parade conducted by lesbians dressed in overalls and plaid shirts? Would he say that because they don’t acknowledge the Christian moral teaching against lesbianism, they have forfeited the right to the Christian moral condemnation of rape? What about Atheists against Sexual Assault? Would Pastor Wilson say that by denying the divine source of human law, they have no right to claim that rape is wrong? Perhaps not, but all of these examples come down… Read more »
Well, that is where it all falls apart.
ETA: There is a very strong thread here of Disapproval, with a capital D.
One of the Games People Play is “Ain’t it awful.” That game gets a lot of play here.
Outrage is cheap. And pretty common on the internet, no matter where I go. If I’m hanging out at Rachel Held Evans or Jory Micah or Patheos or Desiring God or Youtube or wherever, there’s a lot of “I can’t believe” and “these people are so evil.” I don’t think it’s particularly unique to Doug’s blog or comments.
You’re probably right.
He’s talking about the philosophical underpinnings of a shared morality. He isn’t saying that it’s ever right for the rapist to rape. Any Christian operating from a Christian worldview can uphold that claim. He is saying that they have kicked the logical ladder out from under themselves while proclaiming, “Look at how high I am.” It’s not an issue of who has a right to violate the rules. It’s an issue of how one can logically bring an argument against another based upon their worldview. The lesbian slut walker desires to be free from God’s created sexual gender norms (one… Read more »
“rails against the rapist for violating God’s created sexual norms (monogamy, marriage, consent).”
No. The lesbian (?) slut walker rails against the rapist for raping.
“There is no absolute wrong in the atheist worldview.”
How many atheists have you personally spoken with, and asked if they think there is absolute wrong?
“No. The lesbian (?) slut walker rails against the rapist for raping.”
Why is rape wrong? Because it violates God’s created sexual norm in several ways (removes consent. It’s outside of marriage. Etc). I made the equivocation (both are violating God’s created sexual norm) to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of the position.
“How many atheists have you personally spoken with, and asked if they think there is absolute wrong?”
I have met many people who do not believe in God and yet think there is evil. But they have no absolute foundational assumption which would justify that position.
It justifies it to them.
Rape doesn’t have anything to do with violating God’s norms about marriage and monogamy and so forth, by the way. It has to do with forcing a sex act on someone who doesn’t want it. Period.
What justifies it to them?
The crime of rape is primarily the removal of consent. This is why you can rape someone that you’re married to. In addition to that violation, someone who rapes someone else would be guilty of sex outside of marriage in addition to the removal of consent…unless a husband is waiting in the bushes to jump his wife.
Their foundational assumptions do.
They may. But they aren’t being consistent. A foundational assumption of the atheistic worldview is a naturalistic materialistic universe. The universe is composed of hydrogen bumping around and grouping up in various configurations. It’s all star dust and space gas. Human beings are just what protoplasm does at a particular temperature. There is no logical road from there to any moral imperative. There is no rape. There is no murder or theft. There is merely star dust bumping into other star dust, and it has no absolute moral value. The atheist can be outraged, but he can’t be consistent. “The… Read more »
“God made Adam from the dust of the ground.”
“There is no logical road from there to any moral imperative. There is no rape. There is no murder or theft.” The atheists I know don’t agree with your characterization. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. But they could, and sometimes do, point out some severe inconsistencies in the way Christians talk and act. We understand that we are all, Christian and non-Christian, flawed humans. I don’t think we should try to hold atheists to a higher standard than we hold each other to.
God did indeed make Adam from the dust, and he made him in the image of God with dignity and worth. These are inherent truths about the universe. Atheists cannot lay claim to them. They have to jump into the Christian worldview in order to make moral claims. Of course your atheist friends don’t agree with those assertions. Romans tells us that we all know God but suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They do it with a ridiculous inconsistent argument that leaves humanity with no inherent value, yet they make moral claims. They cannot make these claims from the logic… Read more »
I’m saying we are all flawed. I’m not an atheist.
And they would not agree that they borrow from the Christian worldview.
Look, I agree that the reason an atheist knows right from wrong is that God gave it to him to know. I can’t get from that, to an atheist doesn’t have a philosophy that encompasses moral v. immoral.
A ridiculous empty assertion. Atheists- like all humans regardless of nationality, creed and religion of have the golden rule- the ultimate foundational assumption. It doesn’t require the burning bush, the genocide of the Midianites, rape of virgins, sexual slavery of Exodus, murder of homosexuals etc. condemning souls to hell for eternity. All that wonderful biblical morality.
Just do to others as you would have them do to you. I will assume that being raped would be one of those things you would rather avoid?
Upon what basis do you justify the golden rule? Why ought I do anything according to any rules?
I don’t need to justify it. In group reciprocal altruism exists in many animals. We can observe it in most of the other higher level primates suggesting it is an evolved trait. One that likely allowed us to survive a very close call with extinction 70,000 years ago.
But what says that human survival is a good thing? What does it matter if we are a pile of carbon and water wiggling around on the surface of the planet or we are a pile of carbon and water beneath it? Without God establishing our moral foundation we live in Dawkin’s universe of blind pitiless indifference. The totality of human suffering and pleasure are morally equivalent to a solar flare or any other cosmic happening, which is to say they are completely insignificant in an absolute sense.
This human says survival is a good thing. But more importantly my genes ‘say’ it! It matters not if we are a bio-mechanical process. My experience in consciousness remains. ‘Because god’ is an intellectually soft out. If the search for meaning in human existence seems to be the problem for you, postulating a god without evidence and weaving an elaborate tapestry of superstition around it to explain the thing and make yourself feel less alone in the universe changes nothing. The best of your god’s attributed morality exists without scripture. For the worst, add scripture to taste- murder, rape, eternal… Read more »
The presupposition of the Christian God provides a moral framework by which I can call evil evil absolutely. The naturalistic frameworks provides no imperative, not even the imperative to survive, because there is no authority in the universe to stand over human action. If it suits you you can rape and pillage or be mother Theresa and the universe will be indifferent and after you are gone it won’t give you any more pleasant brain fizzes so you don’t have to care. We just need to be clear that that is the platform you are standing on. You cannot bracket… Read more »
Well I could presuppose the Russell’s celestial teapot as the basis for my morality with the same amount of proof. The platform I am standing on is one of evolved in-group reciprocal altruism. It is quite simple and requires no special pleading. Evolution and a gene’s blind drive to pass on it’s own information is the imperative. There is no need for an authority. You are merely adding an even more difficult complication. “In a naturalistic worldview, someone can rape a woman, eat her baby, and then look at you and say, So what?” Yeah, you christians keep saying stuff… Read more »
Because no society has ever evolved widespread objectification of women or destruction of children built into its very core out of a belief that society would be better off that way. It’s only Christians who are so depraved that we think we need a transcendent reason why those things should be against, rather than built into, the social order.
Well, except for all the societies in history that WERE that way, of course. Other than those, it’s only a fantasy of the depraved Christian imagination.
I of course am not claiming depravity as a specifically christian proclivity. Nor that christians are depraved by default. Just that you have no claim to moral superiority by positing your presuppositionalist god. You guys do a good job however of justifying almost anything with scripture. All religions do. ISIS is a perfectly acceptable literal reading of the qur’an and hadith. Rape is uncivilized behavior. It is unacceptable in any modern culture that values actual human flourishing above dogma and superstition. But religion often finds a way to excuse it. The idea that morality is the purview of christians is… Read more »
Randman, How does Christianity excuse rape? I would agree that Islam often does, but then it’s prophet encouraged the rape of captured women.
I also agree that Christians don’t have the monopoly on morality, but Christ does. I highly recommend that you read the book.
Well, then, it’s a good thing I never forwarded such a ridiculous idea. “Morality has to be based in something real, not made up for convenience and not subject to incoherent picking and choosing” “morality is the purview of Christians.” That’s a lovely and true discourse you made there on rape. I just can’t figure out what it has to do with anything. If there were anyone in this conversation suggesting that rape was acceptable, it might make sense; lacking that, I have to assume you accidentally pasted that paragraph in while editing a comment in a discussion on another… Read more »
So the christian god is not the font of morality in your religion?
Though he loudly crows that he would love to play the Duke and track down and punish a rapist, Wilson is certainly saying that how a women dresses could place some of the blame on her. So with his typical rhetorical BS ‘logic’, yes he is suggesting there is a spectrum of responsibility, where in some cases rape may be more acceptable. “I do not justify rape; she (the victim) does.”
I don’t need to paste anything. It is called a Wilson blog post.
Does ingroup mean its. OK for Stalin re kulaks and Hitler re Jews, as outgroups? /tablet typing/ or al quaida re WTC? Tell me about the Muslim, atheist, Nazi golden rule?
Animal morality huh? Are we going to say that cannibalism and rape are now okay?
You might with a specious bit of logic.
Primates practice rape and cannibalism.
RandMan, I know we touched on this on a previous thread. The animals do many things, and we all tend to pick some of those actions and discard others. Darwin saw cruelty in nature and felt that no God could exist in a world this red in tooth and claw. For example, though not the example which so impressed Darwin, bears eat their cubs when they become hungry enough, but I know you would not condone that. Thus, one of the many problems with this form of an argument for natural law. Also, it would equate a person’s sense of… Read more »
I am not just referring to ‘animals’ in general but specifically primates with whom we share common ancestry. This gives us a solid idea that these traits may be evolved. And no, I am not saying that morals are a merely a matter of genotype. What I was saying was that morality may (like religion) be a blind but specifically evolved survival strategy that allows for group dynamics to work in favor of the the survival of the species as a whole, by playing on the strength of the passing on of the individuals genes. We needed each other to… Read more »
RandMan,
If your previous statement does not reduce morality to biology via genetics, then it what sense are morals an evolutionary product?
“Darwin saw cruelty in nature and felt that no God could exist in a world this red in tooth and claw.”
Darwin’s not the first to have a problem reconciling the concept of a benign creator God with the world as he observes it.
RandMan,
The world would be a better place if everyone did as you said. The Golden Rule is not enough, though. That guideline from Christ was given in the context of a Judeo-Christian view of right and wrong, and was not, in context, meant to define the ethical value of our actions based on, at that moment, what we think we would like others to do to us.
“The crime of rape is primarily the removal of consent.” Do you realise how strange this would sound to someone who hasn’t lived in Western culture in the last 50 years? Historically, rape was seen as particularly heinous because it attacked the fundamental sexual structures that society was built on, and used some form of violence to coerce the woman into participating. The philosophical mess we find ourselves in is that we now want to say the action is good – even admirable – but that the coercion is heinous. Worse, we want to define coercion as “didn’t think the… Read more »
You should probably be made aware that marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states.
Kind of scary because rape is actually a crime against the state, so a husband or a wife can now be charged with rape, even in the absence of a complaining victim. It recently happened, a man who was charged with rape for having sex with his wife who had dementia. She did not file a complaint, her adult kids from a previous marriage did. The man was eventually acquitted. Marital rape laws get into sticky territory. What if I were to wake my husband up in an intimate way and he didn’t like it? In a marital context, does… Read more »
It depends on the law in the specific state. In some states, within a marriage consent is assumed unless it is explicitly withdrawn. On one of the NY times articles about the case you mention, a woman talked in the comments about how her mother, being cared for at home, progressed in her dementia to the point that she did not recognize her own husband. She took to going to bed fully dressed, in fear of that strange man who forced himself on her at night. The daughter had to explain to her father that he needed to set his… Read more »
I agree that it is very sticky, and I am sure it is not easy to prove. I would think that unless you pinned your husband down, ignoring his pleas for you to stop, you would not be in any legal danger. I think the intention of the law was to prevent rape as a component of domestic abuse.
Yes, but domestic abuse is already assault, so why add a sexual component to it? “I would think that unless you pinned your husband down, ignoring his pleas for you to stop, you would not be in any legal danger.” My husband is a good man, but what’s to stop him from claiming I pinned him down and ignored his pleas? What if he lies about rape because he wanted to steal my insurance money, get rid of me, and move his mistress in? I’m exaggerating here, but in a marital context where consent is a given, assumed, what is… Read more »
Why make rape a separate crime from assault at all?
It’s a special kind of assault, that’s why. As a matter of fact, some states don’t have a crime called “rape”. It’s all sexual assault..
“My husband is a good man, but what’s to stop him from claiming I pinned him down and ignored his pleas? What if he lies about rape because he wanted to steal my insurance money, get rid of me, and move his mistress in?”
By that logic nothing should be illegal, at least not if done in private, because someone could lie and say it happened. Just because someone could lie about being raped, doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have protection from rape.
Consent is not a given in marriage. That’s how come husbands and wives can say “Hmm. No, I don’t feel like having sex tonight.”
Marriage gives implicit consent. That is why ME states that these laws are difficult.
What? No, when I say “I do,” I’m not consenting to sex at any and all times. Marriage is a sexual relationship, but within marriage, partners still get to say, “No, thank you” or “Not right now” or “Not that.”
Yes they can say they do not wish to at times. But saying I do is a general consent. You are agreeing to sexual exclusiveness and to be sexually active. While we may not feel like it at a particular time, there is an agreement that sexual activity will take place.
A consistent refusal to have sex after marriage is breaking a vow before God.
One would hope there would be some mutual consideration and respect within a marriage, but yes when you say “I do,” you are granting consent, perhaps promising to love, honor, and obey too. What if a husband doesn’t want to go to work and simply decides “no thank you, not right now?” Or how about getting up to check on a prowler? “Not right now, I’m just not feeling it.”
I’m being facetious, but sometimes I wonder what people think wedding vows are all about? What do we think we are saying “I do” to?
Sure it is. We’re one flesh, legally married. prone to make sacrifices for one another. If one person wants sex and the other does not, it’s rather selfish to say, “sorry, I don’t feel like it.” Not everything in life, love, marriage, is going to be motivated by what you’re feeling, by you. There’s another person in that equation who also has needs and feelings.
ignoring his pleas for you to stop
Pleaded no husband ever.
Of course it is. I’m using the hypothetical rapist from Doug’s post…who definitely isn’t married to the hypothetical woman in the slut walk. That’s why I said he is guilty in more ways than one. He’s guilty of rape, sex outside of marriage, not loving his neighbor as himself, etc. Those things would all be sub points to the rape.
And why is that wrong? Why is it more wrong than forcing an education on someone? Education is good, sex is good, what’s the problem?
(You know of course, that I don’t question whether it is so, but the question is how you — or more properly those who rejects a transcendent sexual order — come to the conclusion that it is.)
I kind of feel like you are asking me what is the sound of one hand clapping.
Well, you can answer my question, you can say you don’t know the answer, or you can discredit the question with an aphorism without actually giving an explanation of what’s wrong with it. Those are all options, I guess.
I don’t understand the connection you are making between education and sex. I really, truly don’t. What has one got to do with the other?
They are not connected. They are parallel. It’s an analogy. Both education and sex are, in general, good things. One thing is forced upon every child above the compulsory education age, one is prohibited (properly) from being forced upon another. Why is it right (or at least acceptable, and certainly not heinous) to force one, and not the other? Clearly, it’s not because one is a good thing and one is a bad thing. It must be because one thing is inherently something that should never be forced upon someone, and it is recognized at a great evil when that… Read more »
Because they are two entirely different things? I am struggling to get your point. Education and sex are two TOTALLY different things.
When you educate a child you are not involving her genitals. You are not forcing a body part inside her. You are not putting her at risk of pregnancy and disease.
I just sincerely don’t see how you can conflate these things.
Do you want to compare rape with force-feeding prisoners? That at least would have a little bit of relevance, since both are physically intrusive.
Why are genitals special? What’s wrong with physical intrusiveness?
Every time you insist that it’s different, you’re relying on some REASON why it’s different. So what is that reason?
Oh for pete’s sake.
I don’t know what you want from me.
Education isn’t sex. Sex isn’t education.
Okay, I give up. You can’t follow a simple analogy. Of course they’re not the same thing — that’s what an analogy is. But you either can’t or won’t account for the point of difference that makes one generally accepted as desirable, and the other heinous. I don’t deny such a difference, but I can account for it simply enough when asked. You apparently can’t even grasp that if two things are different, to the extent that one is desirable and the other is horrible, there must be at least one specific thing that can be pointed to that MAKES… Read more »
Okay, you tell me. Why is rape wrong, and making a six-year-old learn to read not wrong? And then you can explain how a raven is like a writing desk.
Laura, rape is wrong because we are sons and daughters of a most high God, having great worth and value to him. That is also why we don’t like to see women portraying themselves as sluts.
I do not disagree. I still don’t understand what Dunsworth is getting at. Dunsworth is asking me, if forcing a sex act on someone is wrong because we are sons and daughters of a most high God, then why is forcing education on someone not wrong for the same reason.
That’s not what I’m asking. Your answer is, “forcing a sex act on someone is wrong because we are sons and daughters of a most high God” almost answers the question — add “and He has declared to us that it is wrong because it violates His created purpose for sex” and you’ll be all the way there. And He has not declared to us that forcing education on someone is wrong. It does not violate His created order or purpose in any way. Great. Fine. Wonderful. Now, since they reject the idea of something being wrong because it violates… Read more »
Thanks, Jane.
But why is it wrong to slap somebody upside the head? What created purpose does that violate?
From the slut walk women’s POV, rape is wrong because it is a sex act forced on a person who doesn’t consent to it. From their POV, anything consenting adults do with each other is fine. The minute you do a sexual thing to a person who didn’t want you to, you’ve crossed the line.
I don’t think you have to agree with them, to see their argument. It’s not really far-fetched.
The created purpose that people are supposed to live in harmony together, not abuse one another’s bodies. I see that much of their argument. I want to know why “consent” is essential to this. As I’ve pointed out, there are things for which consent is not essential. What makes sex different? It just seems to me that lacking a foundation in which God has designed people to live and live together in certain ways, it’s really hard to justify what makes some things wrong, and others not, especially based on “consent” which is an issue for some acts done by… Read more »
You gave the answer yourself. The created purpose that people are supposed to live in harmony together, not abuse one another’s bodies. People who don’t acknowledge God as creator are still created in His image, and have this self-worth built into them. They know they should not harm another person, or need to allow another person to harm them. Unwanted sex acts forced on a person is harm. HARM. Is that confusing? And it is not just sex acts. If I rest my chin on someone’s shoulder, and they don’t want me to do to do that, what should I… Read more »
Yes, I believe and agree with all that.
What I don’t understand is how someone who doesn’t believe there is a creator, or at least doesn’t believe that the creator’s design has anything to do with how people should act, explains why forcing one thing on a person can be good but another is heinous.
You haven’t been following the conversation if you think that I don’t understand what’s wrong with rape. I’m not asking what’s wrong with it, I’m asking why a person who doesn’t believe God has standards believes it’s wrong.
Sorry! I hadn’t followed your whole conversation through here, Dunsworth. You are right!
I suspect the reason why people know that it is wrong to assault and hold power over others is because we are all image bearers, and have some amount of knowing morality and love written on our hearts.
I agree that knowing the Creator is what we are created for!
Hi Laura, Yes, your comment is correct. Doug does not need me to speak for him, but the idea here is that while provocative dress does not justify rape, it becomes a matter of breaking sexual ethical codes in different places, which while not broken in the same ways (certainly rape is far worse than a “panty parade”, and yes, that has actually happened), it is akin to what James said – he who breaks the law in one area breaks the entire law. Your previous comment about atheists potentially believing in moral absolutes ties in with your comment here,… Read more »
Wow. Well, the consent is definitely the primary issue, but it’s unavoidable that it’s also fornication or adultery on the part of the perp. If a married man commits rape, he’s committed rape and adultery. If an unmarried man commits rape, he’s committed rape and fornication. It’s disgusting beyond measure that you’re so far in the tank of feminism that you can’t bear to recognize and let stand any offenses against Yahweh’s law that don’t prop up the feminist narrative by isolating sins against women when other sins against God’s law are clearly present. That is downright horrible. What is… Read more »
The crime in rape is violating a woman’s autonomy and in particular her most sacrosanct autonomy, that over her sexuality. (In this manner the crime of the prude is similar to the crime of the rapist.) By this was of thinking, a man who has sex with his wife without her consent has committed a much greater sin than the man who commits fornication or adultery with a stranger.
“It’s disgusting beyond measure that you’re so far in the tank ”
You just have no idea how to act, do you?
“You just have no idea how to act, do you?”
Maybe, but he certainly knows how to reason. :)
I don’t see evidence of this.
“See” being the key word.
All I did was type an argument – pertinent to the point, to boot. Avoid it if you must.
No, it’s not all you did.
Matt, do you really not understand that “it’s disgusting beyond measure that you’re so far in the tank” is an insult?
If you meant to be insulting, then own it. Don’t lie about it. Especially when your words are right there.
Laura, don’t confuse a blunt assessment with a gratuitous shot. It was warranted, and not gratuitous or personal. If you believe it doesn’t wash, then feel free to clarify the real reason why you insist on filtering the fornication/adultery out of rape.
I’m not confused at all. I know exactly what this was. You do too. I am confused, however, as to why you continue to try to engage me in conversation, since you hold me in such revulsion and contempt. My daughter has a cat who fell on her head and underwent a personality transformation. This poor cat will approach me, growling, and head-butt my legs and twine around my feet like my own kitties do when they want me to pet them. But when I reach down to pet my daughter’s cat, she backs away, hissing, and swats me with… Read more »
I’m not trying to engage you in conversation – I’m responding to falsehoods.
Matt, when you hit the “reply” button, and begin your comment with the person’s name, the person is going to think you are trying to engage them in conversation. It’s kind of strange to do that if you don’t want to have a conversation with the person. Like poor little Turtle, head-butting and twining when she doesn’t want to be petted. Her excuse is that she’s just a little animal. If you hate me, Matt, you can skip over my revolting comments. That’s what grown folks do. If you’re worried that the other commenters here won’t see them for the… Read more »
Besides, whenever a discussion that’s relevant to the post or subsequent topic comes to a logical sticking point, instead of defending your position, you change the subject and turn to this thing of me supposedly hating you. That’s side stepping the issue. If you don’t like the dynamic, then just stick to the topic and finish defending your position. But as an aside, I don’t hate you. I know you take it that way, but the fact that people might refuse to treat you with kid gloves doesn’t equate to hate. Nor does a negative assessment necessarily equate to an… Read more »
I honestly think you never had home training. That’s not a slam on your mother. I suppose she did the best she could. So I’m going to help you out, by showing you how your comment should have gone, then responding to that. Then you can look at it, and compare it to what you originally said, and see the difference. Matt: Wow. Well, the consent is definitely the primary issue, but it’s unavoidable that it’s also fornication or adultery on the part of the perp. If a married man commits rape, he’s committed rape and adultery. If an unmarried… Read more »
Yes, stealing something and committing murder with it is two sins, and two crimes. That’s very easy. That analysis doesn’t come from any “need” to add anything to the murder – it’s just an unavoidable consequence of what happened. The murder is just as bad either way. Just as bad. And the rape would be as well, in that example. The question of what it supposedly “adds” to see it my way, and the squirminess that it might “subtract” from the murder (or rape, or whatever) is evidence not the the distinction is contrived, but that the unwillingness to see… Read more »
“But again, don’t confuse responding to a post with wanting to engage you personally.” Please express to me how I can tell the difference. With your posts. I don’t know of having this problem with anyone else’s. “If I comment on topic X or post Y, it does not mean I hate you, nor (given your propensity for evasiveness, impertinence, and moving of the goalposts) does it mean that I respond to your posts for the sake of personal engagement – it’s about the substance of the topic, not you.” I’m going to help you out again here, Matt. “given… Read more »
Laura, I clearly said – CLEARLY,– and TWICE — that the post above, *and* the one prior (i.e. see the clause “save these last two” in my last post, and the phrase “THIS post *is* engaging you” in the one prior) *WERE* engaging you personally, in response to your comments on the matter. Those were two explicitly stated exceptions – exceptions made in response to your raising of the matter. And the general rule, that I am stating, to which those two are exceptions, is that when I comment on a topic, a post, or your comment to a topic… Read more »
It’s difficult for you to engage me without insults? Or it’s difficult for you to engage me because I will persist in having opinions that don’t agree with yours? You reply to my comments, starting out “Laura,” then when I ask why you were engaging, snap “I wasn’t talking to you.” You bury personal insults in your comments, then when I object to them, claim that you are only talking about the topic, not me. Can you, first of all, tolerate the fact that there exist people who have opinions with which you won’t agree, and that those people express… Read more »
“If so, can you tolerate that when those people are women?”
Attempting to discredit Matt as being a sexist ex nihilo?
That seems below you, Laura.
I’m trying to figure out why Matt is so angry that someone has a different opinion than he does.
Some of the folks here make a big deal about how men are supposed to lead and so on. Plus, Matt has gone on and on about “feminists”. That’s why I wonder if that is what the problem is. If it’s not, then “no” is an easy word to type.
Who would want to rape a lesbian?
Ask the men who rape them. I don’t know why a man rapes any woman, other than that he’s evil and wicked. (Same as women who rape.)
If you’re seriously asking, look here. In South Africa, women have less sexual and economic power than men.[18] One of the factors associated with this inequality is strict gender roles, which has led to one of the highest rates of violence against women in the world.[7][8] The South African government conducted a survey in 2009 on sexual assault. One in four men admit to having sex with a woman who did not consent and nearly half of these men admitted to raping more than once.[19] Corrective rape is used as a “punishment” for people who are gay or do not… Read more »
Did you really just ask that? Because she has a vagina, that’s why. A person doesn’t rape because he really really wants a committed relationship. A person rapes for sex. Pure and simple. The sexual orientation/age/religion/physical attractiveness of the victim rarely, if ever, had any basis on a rape committed randomly. (By that I mean a rape committed where the two parties are not known to each other.)
Most – not all – but most of the atheists I talk to acknowledge absolute wrong. But they all have the darndest time trying to locate the source of it. It turns out that Sam Harris, the Universe, and the collective wisdom of human civilizations, Darwin, natural selection, DNA, and quarks, don’t really cut it.
Atheists who acknowledge absolute truth/wrong are much like a person who believes in the Mona Lisa but believes no one painted it.
Logic is for the philosophers. Philosophy does not introduce sinners to the Savior. Nor does it change societies for the better. There is a reason Scripture calls it “vain philosophy.”
Then what would you call your argument that you just made with its conclusion and premises and all? Are you a philosopher?
Logic is for everyone. We are created in God’s image.
Are you referring to Colossians?
Paul warns against being taken captive by philosophy and vain deceit. He is not calling philosophy vain, but rather viewing it with the spirit of the world and not according to Christ.
Jilly and Laura, A. Nice job on calling out stoney boo boo. (stone kirk) It’s sort of pitiful that he even tries. B. Even Wilson might admit sometimes that he talks too much for his own good or the good of his “case”. Wilson always makes the case that moral absolutes, which come from God, are the basis by which anything moral / ethical is correctly evaluated. He does the same in this post, but it is an odd and indirect “ride”. C. I can be “innocent” while standing at the edge of a cliff. I can be “innocent” while… Read more »
“A” dad, it’s my understanding, not having looked into them to any great degree, that the point of slut walks is that women have the right to live their lives as they see fit and men do not have the right to control them. From my perspective, I answer to God but I don’t answer to other people.There are those on planet Earth who would say that a woman not covered head to toe is fair game – Google Australian imam and uncovered meat. Where we draw the line of correct dress and behavior varies from place to place and… Read more »
L’, Again, we are not really far apart. A person’s freedom to be free, from rape in particular, is something everyone agrees with, at least with regard to themselves. (And this Freedom comes from God) Even rapists do not want to be raped. I at least, am not saying that victim status for rape depends on what someone was wearing at the time they were assaulted. I am saying there are wise vs. unwise ways to conduct ones self and present one’s self in public. (for both genders) There is additional protection that comes with wise presentation of one’s self,… Read more »
I completely agree. Yes. I think they are overstating it. Where I disagree with DW is that I think, given their views, they have a coherent and defensible point.
“Perhaps not, but all of these examples come down to the idea that only modestly dressed and virtuous religious women [ACTUALLY] have a moral right not to be raped.” The logic that you “have struggled with here” is not about ACTUALLY “having a moral right”, but rather the logic of Doug’s point is “having a … justified/authoritative standard of the … moral right not be raped” without simultaneously and implicitly denying/opposing that standard with the immodesty of slut walks. That is, while holding to such inconsistency, the walking sluts have in principle no OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIABLE right to insist that it… Read more »
L’, see below to you and Jilly.
No, the point he is making is that the universal moral law (which the Slut Walkers cannot help but draw on in condemning rape) also has a section that deals with modesty and sexual purity. If you appeal to the universal law in, then it falls on you just as heavily; contrariwise, if you declare yourself free of its strictures, then the rapist has the right to do the same.
The universal moral law that the Slut Walkers draw on is, don’t hurt other people. That has zip to do with either modesty or sexual purity.
Same for us speedo-walkers, we are just trying to point out your insecurities and warped values. Honest!
Timothy you need to stop walking into girls’ restrooms, right now. I mean it. Stop now.
Do you not see the principle is the same? Your condemnation of speedo-clad men walking into a girls locker-room is exactly the condemnation given to the slut-walkers. I know, feminists are ‘privileged’ because “rape” but consider the consequences to the poor fellow just out for an innocent stroll in his tiger-srtriped speedo and Mr. T. gold jewelery. He will be arrested and if he is resisted he could be shot. Who deserves to be shot for walking around in a way that “da man” says is inappropriate dress? NOBODY (by your logic) . If he manages to not be shot,… Read more »
Are the slut walkers going into your bathroom, Timothy?
Down a public street. Now see if you can even see the common principle involved. So far I just see your feminist ideology doing all the talking.
You are seriously equating walking down a public street with walking into the opposite-sex bathroom of children. I know why you don’t understand feminist logic. You don’t appear to have enough sense.
Yes, I am. I did it to highlight the fact that you do not see the positive good of dressing appropriately and that you are eager to ditch that standard in defense of sluts yet embrace that standard when encountering speedo clad, hirsute men.
Fickle, thy name is feminist!
.
Bummer man. : – (
I’m busted. ; – )
When I get discouraged, I just push my ample belly out further, part my chest hairs, straighten my butt-crack and whistle “I’m too sexy for my…”
The feminists dig it. (;
Well, except for the people who believe we are harmed by the public cheapening of sex. We don’t count.
Are you talking about you, personally, being harmed by the public cheapening of sex? Or about a group of which you are a member?
I don’t want to argue about your experiences at all, but if other women go around having casual sex and dressing immodestly, that really doesn’t affect me that I can tell.
Well, you can think that. But you’re wrong.
Tell me how it hurts me.
It cheapens and coarsens the understanding of sex and the value of women as more than sexual beings within the culture in which we live.
Really, it’s just the opposite of what we always hear about “rape culture.” The same women who are constantly touting the idea of rape culture manifested in all kinds of subtle, unconscious (and frequently imaginary) cultural artifacts, want us to believe that popularizing the idea of women as cheaply sexual and promiscuous, has no larger social implications except the ones they want it to have. Seems absurd to me.
If I am experiencing these things I don’t see it.
There are many people who value women as primarily baby factories. That doesn’t affect me either, as far as I can tell.
This just seems strange to me, that you believe that cultural ideas about women don’t affect you.
Well, there are cultural ideas expressed right here that I am sinning every day that I make more money than my husband. If I fretted about things like that I’d be crying all the time.
People can have all the cultural notions they want. It’s a free country. I can’t stop them and I don’t want to. In the meantime, I’m going to live my life.
Of course you’re going to live your life. So am I. Nobody asked you to fret or to cry about it. “Being hurt” does not precisely equal “being incapacitated by self-pity.”
It doesn’t mean there isn’t objective harm done by attitudes that work against what is good and right.
what is good and right.
Bingo. We can’t have good and right can we? That entails women being subject to the moral laws too? Sinful women do not want that stuff, so they rebel as only a sinful being can–by corrupting that which is beautiful.
Well said. You can walk around without an arm. It doesn’t mean the lack of an arm isn’t injurty.
Who said that making more money than your husband is intrinsically sinning?
Let me bookmark this page so I can bring up your comment the next time someone asserts that feminists who don’t think it’s for the husband to provide are subverting God’s natural order.
It is for the husband to provide. Where did I say it wasn’t. You claimed that people here think it is sinful for a woman to earn more than a man.
Now maybe someone did say that, I can’t read all the comments. Now you are talking about who should provide.
Do shouldn’t conflate 2 different things to use as a weapon, better to seek to understand.
Kind of a rabbit trail, but one that I’ve been thinking about. I do believe that men are, generally speaking, called to be the provider in a family. But I also think that Proverbs 31 clearly demonstrates that a wife is way, way more than just a baby factory and child-rearer – she is essentially running a small business, and also managing finances which include her husband’s earnings. I think the complimentarianism argument should include these Biblical elements.
How would a strip club on every corner of your neighborhood hurt you? Yet really, it would.
Loud noise at night? Too much traffic?
The idea that women have to have perfectly correct presentation and behavior or they lose the right to complain about rape has more potential to hurt me, quite frankly.
Nobody said what is in your second paragraph. Yet you heard it.
You didn’t read the article, did you.
I did, but you seemingly didn’t.
Crying “Rape” has become a feminist hecklers veto. It is used to shut down discussion of things beyond “me, me , me”
Laura, you really need to stop misrepresenting people to win the argument.
Doug didn’t say that a slut-walker is not allowed to ask the police to arrest her rapist. He has gone to some lengths to be clear on this.
He is pointing out that the lack of moral authority that their position has.
And you can stop misrepresenting me. I said nothing about the police. He said that those women justified rape. Go back and read it. Then you can express your viewpoint and I will express mine.
He said their theology justifies rape. He believes they have a theology without knowing it. A view of the world that says “no one may tell me what to do” can be used by the rapist as well as the protestor.
He is saying that their moral claims that justify slut walks at the same time justify (even though they are unaware of this) rape.
You comments make it sound like Doug thinks that they are consciously saying rape is okay.
I know what he’s saying. I think it’s wrong.
Hurt you, personally? I believe (and hope) that it doesn’t, given your specific situation and relational commitments. But a society that has sick and evil expectations about sex hurts most people, even those who consciously reject it. The hurt might be minor, and may heal if God grants grace, but it doesn’t mean that the expectations and valuing of sex hasn’t done damage.
I don’t disagree but I have a visceral dislike of person A trying to control person B over there, and making what person B does all about him. We have enough on our plates, trying to control ourselves. If I dress immodestly, and you watch racy videos in the privacy of your home, both of us need to clean up our own back yards. Neither of us has any business pointing the finger at the other. And there’s no human living on planet Earth today who’s not a sinner. Mote, plank.
Very true. I think we as Christians need to figure out the proper balance between Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged and prophetic truth-speaking. Nathan wasn’t blameless in his own life when he told David, “You are the man,” but he was absolutely righteous when he did so.
Then why not just have a normal, non-slutty, anti-rape walk? Why a slut-walk? The unavoidable point is that beyond just opposing rape, they want everyone else to keep their mouth shut about any and all standards of morality and propriety that might apply to women.
Having a slut-walk aimed *strictly* at opposing rape would make about as much sense as holding a gluttony rally *strictly* to oppose fat-shaming – – or having a promiscuity rally strictly to oppose womanizing.
I’m not defending the slut walks as such. I would never participate in one. That doesn’t mean that I don’t see what they are doing. “they want everyone else to keep their mouth shut about any and all standards of morality and propriety that might apply to women.” Yeah, pretty much. If you are taking sufficient care of your own righteousness, that ought to keep you busy enough that you don’t have time to worry about how some woman you don’t even know wears a tank top or whatever it is. Now, are you obligated to enter into a friendship… Read more »
It’s hyperbole to make a larger point and raise awareness, but you know that. The way women dress does not make them culpable in their own abuse. Period. Even if Wilson tries to reverse the argument and claim that it is actually the slutwalker’s argument that justifies rape. What a load.
Clearly this is a post meant to deflect the accusations of missteps in his defense of Jamin Wight.
Just to be clear, the rapist has the right to violate the moral law against rape if he encounters a potential victim who has violated the moral law against modesty and purity?
‘if you declare yourself free of its strictures, then the rapist has the right to do the same.”
Looks like it.
Whereas, the slut walk participants aren’t declaring themselves free of the moral strictures against immodesty. They’re saying it’s not a valid stricture at all. NOT the same thing.
I’m not sure I follow this. How is rejecting a stricture as invalid different from declaring yourself free from the stricture? I would think that the most common justification for declaring oneself free from the moral obligations would be that the claims of moral obligation are invalid in the first place.
If you declare yourself free of a stricture, you are acknowledging it as you announce that you are going to disregard it. “Yes, it’s morally wrong for me to dress immodestly but I’m going to do it anyway.” That’s not what these women are doing.
See my reply above. Are you arguing that “declaring oneself free of something” is very different from “declaring that a law is invalid”? What’s the difference?
And I think part of the point here is that no-one has the right to come up with his own definition of “the universal moral law”. The reason it is universal is that it even binds those who reject with it. And it’s inevitably theological.
But if you are saying that there is a universal moral law that means women have to dress a certain way, that is exactly what you are doing: coming up with your own definition.
No, I’m not. It’s in the Bible, which I didn’t write. I also am not making the argument that they have to dress “a certain way”, as if to distinguish between skirts and pant-suits. The way they (and I) must dress is “modestly”, and the way they (and I) must behave is “chastely”.
I’m asking this in all seriousness because my Biblical knowledge is not good compared to many of the regulars here. Does the Bible ever suggest that there is a moral corollary between rape and modest dress? In other words, is there any suggestion that rape and female immodesty are equivalent and inextricably linked vices?
You are drawing a false inference. I am not linking the sin of rape to the sin of immodesty, and neither, on my reading of the post, is Doug. Rather, the point is that we know them both as sin because of God’s revelation.
They have to be equivalent and inextricably linked vices for this to hold: 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. If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want… Read more »
No, because theology and clothing are different things.
Now you are being silly.
Sorry, that’s the summary version of what I said below. Let’s talk there.
Something that may be helpful here, when we’re talking about taking responsibility, potential blame, we’re also talking about who really holds the power.
When I read, “….its outrageous embrace of slutty dress, behavior, and thought, absolutely
and definitively rejects any level of moral responsibility for anything…” it reads as of one who claims no moral responsibility for anything is powerless, vulnerable, prey basically.
If instead, one genuinely wanted to stop rape, we’d be empowering women, teaching them, recognize your own sexuality, take moral responsibility, consider your dress, where you walk, how much you drink, what is provocative.
“….its outrageous embrace of slutty dress, behavior, and thought, absolutely and definitively rejects any level of moral responsibility for anything…”
I don’t think that follows, though.
What do you think Pastor Wilson meant when he said that by organizing such an event, the person built on a theology that fully justifies rape? I think this is the line I can’t get past.
Because the event rejects God’s authority; its theology is antitheology. Once you do that, it’s a free-for-all. Now, the victim of rape here probably doesn’t actually think through her lived theology and wish to live in the state of nature – she holds it inconsistently. But if there is no God, then there is reason to talk about right and wrong for anything.
Morally upright atheists everywhere disagree. And if you don’t know any, you would probably benefit from increasing the number and variety of people you interact with.
Contradiction in terms. Without God, morality is an arbitrary rule – hence not universally applicable.
You think that countries have either theocratic governments, or anarchy? What do you think the Soviet Union based its laws on? What do you think the French government bases its laws on?
The Soviet Union mostly based its laws on enabling Stalin and his cronies to loot and murder at will. I’m not sure how that helps your case.
I don’t think it did. In fact, I’m really sure it didn’t.
My compliments for your honesty.
Thank you.
Let me guess, you never read VanTil, Rushdoony or Bahnsen.
That makes sense. But, in that event, how the women are dressed becomes immaterial. You could as simply say, “Those who reject divine authority have no right to complain when they are victimized by others who reject divine authority.” Is that a fair summation?
More or less. Although I would say not that they have no right to complain, but that their instinct to complain should teach them their theology is bonkers.
“Universal moral law” as downer vs. “Universal moral law” as edifying.
Laws are oppressive, Grace is liberating. With it comes birth into the law of Grace where the citizens under that law do not dress like sluts, nor do the saunter into girls bathrooms wearing tiger-striped speedos.
No. See my reply to Jilly. Ultimately her strictures are rebellious, as are his. And both allow them to justify (wrongly) their own sin.
The sins are not equivalent. But the underpinnings are.
I don’t think that’s quite what Doug’s saying. It seems a bit stretch to me, but the way I read Doug’s argument is that once the Slut Walkers have abandoned a moral law regarding modesty and purity, they have — if consistent — also abandoned that same moral law when it speaks to rape. That’s not so say that the moral law actually ceases to be, which is implied by how I interpret your statement that “the rapist has the right to violate the moral law” No, he doesn’t have that right, but if there’s anyone who would be causing… Read more »
“IOW they can’t eat their cake (proudly reject common standards of modesty and sexual purity) and have it, too (appeal to a transcendent standard regarding sexual purity).”
I don’t think they appeal to a standard regarding sexual purity at all. In fact, that’s exactly what they are not doing. They are differentiating between the concept of rape and the concept of sexual purity. If person A forces a sex act on person B, then person B’s sexual purity or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant.
No one has said anything remotely like that. The point is that the moral law, being one, reprimands the rapist and the slut, albeit for different reasons. You don’t get to reject the parts of the law you dislike – those forbidding promiscuity – while trying to hold other people accountable for the other bits – those forbidding rape. It’s an incoherent position. Of course both rapists and sluts are in sin (in different ways), the problem lies in arguing that only one of them is a-okay.
The moral law prohibiting rape is that you don’t assault other people and you don’t perform sex acts on other people who don’t want them.
What does how a woman dresses, or who she chooses to have consensual sex with, have to do with that law?
“The moral law” as I (and I believe Doug) am using here is larger than your “don’t assault people”. It’s the moral standard of behavior – all behavior – as established by God and revealed in both general and special revelation. If you had to boil it down to a few sentences, it would “Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself”. That Law, God’s revealed will for humanity, excludes both rape and fornication. If you get to determine which parts of that law are worth following, than in effect you are behaving as the universal legislator.… Read more »
You are assuming that everyone who counts is a Christian. I don’t see it that way.
“Counts” is a funny way to say it. To me, there are lots of people who “count” in the sense of being important creatures made in the image of God. But if I want to know what the moral law is, I daresay I’ll refrain from asking those who worship their bellies.
Are you going to tell them that they can’t complain about rape if they dress in a way that you consider to be immodest?
For the second time, no.
Then you disagree with Doug.
That’s quite an accusation. Cite him or retract it.
Did you even read the article? It’s what he says all through. 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. If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want to… Read more »
Yes, I did. Read the part you bolded: Doug is talking about her theology, not her clothing. He says that in so many words. “built on a theology that… justifies rape.” Theology is not the same as clothes. So… I think you are confused.
“Are you going to tell them that they can’t complain about rape if they dress in a way that you consider to be immodest?”
Evidently you are. A person can’t complain about what they justify.
They can if their theology is incoherent and inconsistently applied.
Who says it is?
And “theology” was a weird word for Doug to use here anyway. Many of these people are atheists.
All people have a theology, especially atheists.
Please define “theology” for your purpose.
theology is a set of religious belief, generally about the nature of God. And atheists have beliefs on the nature of God.
I don’t think that lack of belief in God really equates to beliefs about the nature of God.
If I think the moon landing was a fake, is it fair to say I have an opinion about it?
Yes. Point?
Well, to say that God does not exist is, likewise, to have a view about God.
An opinion as to whether or not God exists does not equate to having a theology.
You can answer all the same questions, right? Is God benevolent? Christian: Yes, Atheist: No. So it seems pretty similar to me. What are you driving at? If atheists don’t have a theology (say they have an atheology), why is that important?
“You can answer all the same questions, right? Is God benevolent? Christian: Yes, Atheist: No.”
Wrong.
Atheist: That’s a nonsense question, because there isn’t a God. You might as well ask me if Puff the Magic Dragon is benevolent.
It’s important if you are going to try to critique their theology.
To which the answer is, properly speaking, no. Because Puff lacks being, he also fails to participate in any other real-world good, such as benevolence or velocity or wisdom. It’s a hypothetical question, because it deals with non-real entities, but it is not, so far as I can see, nonsensical. It may be annoying…
Right. If your view of God is that there is no judge in heaven, then right is merely the advantage of the stronger.
Do you even know any atheists?
I do actually, yes. And none of them can give me any reason why utilitarianism or whatever form of ethics they subscribe to should compel my assent. Their ethics are groundless.
They don’t have to compel your assent, to have a worldview. They can have worldviews all day long, that you don’t assent to.
If they want to talk about right and wrong, however, they need to have some reason their view should apply to everyone. Otherwise, as I said before, it’s just a free-for-all – what’s wrong for you may be virtuous for me, because you are not my judge.
Sometimes they talk about what’s good for society.
Societies aren’t stable when men can rape women with impunity.
Yeah, but why should I agree with them? The Vikings thought rape was pretty darn cool, as long as it wasn’t happening to their women.
Why are you asking me why you should agree with them? Did I not just say that their worldviews are independent of whether you agree or not?
My point is, it’s no good talking about “what’s good” if you don’t know what “good” means. As a Christian I can say “you shouldn’t do X because the Creator – who has the right to make such rule – said not to.” But without divine warrant, an atheist can merely say “You shouldn’t do X because I don’t like it”, or if he’s armed “you shouldn’t do X because I’ll kill you”. Which is basically the state of nature.
You haven’t actually had a conversation with an atheist who wasn’t an idiot. I have.
I’ll thank you kindly not to insult my friends. But if your friends are clever enough to extract Ought from Is, I’d like to hear how they managed it.
If your friends aren’t idiots, then you should listen better when they talk to you.
I dont think you are being fair with wallaby, nor are you engaging his argument. What is the standard one uses to determine right and wrong? For the Christian it is God, for the atheist it is ????
Not hard to find info on this. Look at this one. Morality comes from us – we make it. It starts with a few biological sources, such as the basic survival instinct, and behaviors of social species. After that, human philosophy, and assessment of harm versus benefit, establish the remaining nuances of morality. Atheists use this “Secular” morality explicitly, which is basically a derived set of behaviors that allow multiple humans to cooperate in a society. The goals are to maximize benefit and happiness while minimizing harm and misery (which biology primes us to desire). Actions taken can be evaluated… Read more »
“Morality comes from us”
How is this not might makes right? Also, how does one define happiness and benefit? What are the standards here? People have a wide range of differences on what makes them happy or what benefits them? If what is beneficial that which benefits the majority of people in a society, then how is that not might makes right?
“The goals are to maximize benefit and happiness while minimizing harm and misery (which biology primes us to desire). Actions taken can be evaluated towards this goal as moral and immoral, respectively.” That is how it is not might makes right.
And it doesn’t say “benefits the majority of people”.
I’m not an atheist. But I don’t argue that they don’t have a system of morality.
And wallaby isnt arguing that they dont either. He is arguing that their morality is based on might makes right, which is what you cited says.
Yeah, and another thng – happiness for whom? A lot of different people have a lot of different ideas about what makes them happy. So in practice what this means is that they fight it out and whoever wins gets to makes laws about it. Might makes right.
And it doesn’t say “benefits the majority of people”.
this is what you posted:
“morality.. [is] a derived set of behaviors that allow multiple humans to cooperate in a society… The goals are to maximize benefit and happiness while minimizing harm and misery.”
So the goal is to maximize benefits for society. Maximize implies that the majority, or at least a plurality, of people benefit from the derived behavior. Might makes right.
I don’t think it does, but you might seek out some smart atheists of your acquaintance and ask them. You won’t learn anything if you are asking them with the goal in mind of explaining to them what they think, of course.
Biology primes me not to desire misery for myself, certainly. But I’d like to hear how biology teaches me to altruistic. Seems it didn’t do a very good job, historically speaking.
So this isn’t an ethical argument. “The behaviors of social species”? You mean like Chimpanzees, who eat each other? Who gets to decide which behaviors inform ours? I know I have a survival instinct; what argument can whoeveritis make that I should respect those of others? If my friends tried to pass of tripe like that I’d help them stop, because friends don’t let friends talk codswallop.
Laura retreats to scolding when the argument gets difficult.
In evolutionary fitness terms, Genghis-Khan is the most successful man ever in that his genes are in a good 1/3 (iirc) of humanity. His ode’s to rape are well known.
He is speaking about the logical implications of her theology, not about her right as a human not to be assaulted. She is living within a belief system that has no way to justify her desire not to be raped, but that doesn’t free any other living human being to rape her (or otherwise sin against her.)
I didn’t say he was. I said he was denying her right to complain if she is raped.
If someone does something to you that is against the law and subject to severe penalties, because society properly condemns it as a heinous crime, you have a right to complain all the way to the police station and the courtroom. You can complain the guy into prison for forty years. Nothing Doug said suggested otherwise.
” 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.”
That doesn’t mean she has no right to complain, it means she’s dug herself a logical hole in which, if we thought like she did, we would deny her the right to complain. But we don’t think like she does, and we don’t deny that right. She’s the one who’s removing the ability to both complain while and maintain a consistent position, but fortunately we don’t hold her to it, valuing her safety, virtue, and human rights, over insisting on consistency.
What does it mean, to justify something?
It means to make it acceptable in terms of justice. But you’re missing this: when applied consistently elsewhere.
We don’t want to apply it consistently. We don’t want to apply it at all. It’s a logical conclusion from her premise, but we don’t want to take it there because we don’t accept the premise in the first place, and we understand that the notional “she” doesn’t understand the logic.
So we want her to keep complaining about being raped, we just wish she’d lose the bad thinking that, were it followed, would justify rape.
jus•ti•fy (jŭsˈtə-fīˌ)
►
v.
To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
v.
To declare free of blame; absolve.
v.
To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. Used of God.
Emphasis mine.
She is not, with her bad thinking, justifying rape.
Doug is saying that her claim to the rightness of slut walking is logically the same as the rapist wanting to exert his will.
Now you can argue that Doug is mistaken in this inference, but he is not justifying rape: he is claiming that her worldview does this even though she does not see it and she denies it.
I know that’s what he’s claiming. I’ve quoted him over and over claiming it. I find it bizarre and indefensible.
So, it is the same logical thing for one party to say “my will is that you do not harm another by using your power over them” as it is for the other party to say, “my will is to harm you and exert my power over you.” ? This is logically equal?
No, we’re assuming that Christianity is actually true. We’re fully aware that other people think differently, but if Christianity is true, then it’s actually, well, true, and therefore the law is a coherent thing, and it applies to everybody. Those who believe differently aren’t just taking a lesser option, they’re trying to live in a reality that doesn’t work, including the idea that there is a law against rape but NOT against glorifying female immorality, built into the universe. Either God’s law is real or it isn’t. “Well, it’s true, but those who don’t believe in it aren’t affected by… Read more »
I think it’s possible for a person to credibly both have a free-wheeling consensual sex life, and denounce rape. We may have to agree to disagree.
Why? If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, promiscuity is a lifestyle choice, how we dress is a lifestyle choice, why can’t pedophilia and rape also now be lifestyle choices?
This is the problem you encounter when you enter into subjective morality.
“If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice”
But I don’t think it is.
“But I don’t think it is.”
Why? Why would you judge homosexuals and yet defend promiscuity, dress, unrestrained sexuality, in women?
I’m not judging homosexuals and I’m not defending promiscuity in women. It’s not my job to do either.
“It’s not my job to do either.”
Then you have no theology? So what makes you willing to judge rapists?
Wow. We have a lot of different definitions of theology running around here.
“Theology” means “passing moral judgments on other people”? Who knew?
I think theology is “the study of the nature of God and religious belief.”
The slut walkers have a theology too. They believe morality is subjective, based on their desires and wants. Within Christianity we tend to believe morality is objective, standards set by God. It’s not really an impertinent question, I am genuinely curious about the logic that suggests we can judge rapists, but not homosexuals or the promiscuous.
The rapist is forcing a sex act on another person who doesn’t consent to it.
If the homosexual or the promiscuous person forces a sex act on another person who does’t consent to it, you bet I will judge them.
You are, of course, free to judge whomever you want.
Nope. Forcing sex onto children, animals and women- all creatures who cannot or (do not) consent is reprehensible. Anyone needing to hold up a god or text as restraint from raping is just damning themselves.
Illogical specious atheist reasoning , you discredit your non-creed. Genghis khan is a FIT speciman. His line has survived. Quit arguing against nature red in tooth and claw and learn to embrace your inner Mongol warlord. Its the way of this universe and the sooner we get rid of this sentimental remnant of xtian thought the sooner the best of mankind will evolve.
It is possible. It just doesn’t make sense, when pushed past the level of, “Because.”
I don’t agree.
If you are offered a piece of chocolate cake and you turn it down, and the person offering it to you shoves it into your mouth so that you have to swallow it, you have a real grievance. It doesn’t matter how good eating is, or how good cake is, or what else you have eaten, are eating, or are going to eat. I don’t see how it’s so hard to see the difference between choosing something and having it forced on you.
No one is saying that we don’t “get” why rape is wrong. Instinctively, we all feel that it is. But you still haven’t offered anything more solid, anything more that you can base a morality on, than “everybody knows what an awful feeling it is.” Of course it’s an awful feeling. So what? Why should inflicting an awful feeling on somebody be accepted by anybody as wrong? I don’t blame anybody for thinking it is wrong, regardless of how messed up their moral reasoning is, because it is in fact wrong, but I still want to hear an explanation of… Read more »
I think you actually don’t get it. I don’t know why. You’re all bound up in modesty and purity, which are fine, but they have nothing to do with rape.
I think you really don’t get it, if you think this is all about being “all bound up in modesty and purity.”
So I’ll just leave it at that, since clearly we are not communicating at all.
No. Because that is not the way God made the world. But the victim is practicing a similar setting aside of philosophical underpinnings of right and wrong–on a different issue. As such she has no consistent place from which to condemn a rapist’s actions. She’s better at pointing out the rapist is wrong because she’s a better moralist than she is philosopher/logician.
And good for her because in the world God made, she’d be right. She just couldn’t prove it from her foundational assumptions. That’s Doug’s point. Her rebellion comes from a similar philosophic place.
“However I dress is irrelevant to whether you are justified in sexually assaulting me.”
What’s wrong with this statement?
What did Jesus say? If whatever your eye sees causes you to sin, march right over and demand that it cover up?
No, but Paul said “if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.”
Maybe Paul could have added, “brother, look to thine own righteousness, and let thy sister look to hers.”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at… Hopefully while looking to her righteousness, the sister will be impressed with a desire not to put stumbling blocks in front of her brethren. I am very thankful for my sisters who desire to help me in this way.
I agree that it’s wrong to set out to tempt someone else.
Yes, the sister does well to take this into account. Her modesty and correct behavior ought to come from her own convictions.
You DO NOT need to believe in God in order to believe that rape is always wrong. In fact, that’s exactly what the US legal system does. It says it’s wrong to rape, period. And there’s nothing in the US legal system that says anything about “sexual purity.” You act like the only people who believe rape is wrong are Bible-believing Christians, and the only reason Christians believe rape is wrong is because there’s a book that tells them that. Really, if you lost your Bible, you couldn’t tell by the situation itself that rape is wrong? And, really, you… Read more »
“In fact, that’s exactly what the US legal system does. It says it’s wrong to rape, period.”
Does it really? Because rape sure seems to have a whole lot more to do with who you are than what you’ve done. Woody Allen married his daughter, and who can forget Whoopi Goldberg trying to explain rape-rape to us. Hollywood is chock full of rapists and pedophiles, as is our secular school system.
Woody Allen married Mia Farrow’s (adopted) daughter. What he did was weird and gross, but let’s not make it more than it is.
Whoopi Goldberg – well, bless her heart.
There are rapists and pedophiles everywhere, including our churches.
None of this has to do with the US legal system.
“None of this has to do with the US legal system”
Sure it does. The comment above was declaring US law to be the arbitrator of morality. If that were true, than all the unconvicted rapists have not violated the law. If the law is going to be the standard you use to measure morality, than it does not say, “rape is wrong period,” it is instead quite selective in who it chooses.
I think the comment above was saying that the US legal system defines rape to be wrong without quoting the Bible or appealing to sexual purity.
This line of argument frustrates me as well. What are we to make of the fact that the vast majority of people in prison for serious offenses claim to be believers in God and the Bible? I would be safer in the hands of a virtuous atheist, even if his moral premises seem inconsistent to many Christians, than in the hands of a believer who behaves wickedly.
I’ve never heard this before? And do those numbers account for prison conversions?
According to a 2013 Mehta study using information from the US Bureau of Prisons, atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population. I don’t know about conversions.
I don’t “act like” anything. I said that non-theists have no way to justify their moral views without contradicting their materialist assumptions.
I also note that non-Christian countries tend to feel a lot less urgency about rapes, and women’s rights in general.
Listen to yourself a moment. Do you really think that every culture in the world abominates rape? Have you never heard of Vikings? ISIS? Pirates? Ancient Rome? Babylon? Societies are all messy and sinful, and not one is of a piece, but if you were picking a country and a time period, and wanted to have a decent shot at landing somewhere with a strong cultural bias against rape, wouldn’t the obvious choice be to aim for the Christian West? Now why do you suppose that is?
You are correct, you don’t need to believe in God to say that rape is wrong. But you do need God (i.e. God’s word) to state that rape being wrong is an absolute truth and not merely subjective. Someone else could say that rape is fine. And without God what authority do you have to say otherwise? You can give reasons to why you believe it is wrong, but you cannot say it is definitively evil because without God the definition of evil is not definitive. For example: In Nazi germany it was legal to murder jews and considered not… Read more »
I think there is a difference between your penultimate sentence and your last one. I think you can say that slut walks, in degrading sexual standards and morality, contribute to the communal perception and practice of sexual morality, which includes rape. I don’t think that saying this is equal to saying that a woman who deliberately dresses immodestly is asking to be raped. I would regard it as similar to people who protest private property (or at least, the private property of people who have more than they do), and then are angry that they were mugged. I think they… Read more »
From the slut walkers’ point of view, imposing standards of modesty on them that they don’t want is part and parcel with imposing sexual acts on them that they don’t want.
Yes, but I think the ultimate message of a slut walk is generally one of sex positivity – a destructive moral philosophy which contributes to sexual expectations and behavior that do hurt people – including those who preach and practice it. I think that message, not necessarily just the issue of modesty – is what is the fundamental question. I do think that the question of modesty does muddy the waters, and am not completely convinced by Doug’s articulation in this post (of course, the fact that I am typing on 4.5 hours of sleep isn’t helping.)
It probably is. And I don’t share it. (But I don’t, I DO NOT, support slut-shaming.) Here’s the deal, though. There is a perception among many that pro-lifers’ motive is that we want to control women’s bodies and women’s sexuality. I know that’s not true. I’m pro-life and that certainly isn’t my motive; I want women to control their own bodies in every circumstance that doesn’t bring about death to their unborn babies. There I draw the line, and it’s a sharp line. But this kind of thing – “dress according to MY standards or don’t complain if you are… Read more »
Again, I do think that Doug phrased it confusingly (even in my current confused state). I would phrase it (probably no less objectionably to slut walkers, but hopefully more usefully): attacks on sexual standards of commitment, modesty, monogamy, and the like, which I believe a slut walk clearly is, contribute to a culture that has no consistent reason to condemn rape. I don’t think that this destroys the real evil of rape and the guilt of rapists, but it does mean that our society, in our justice and educational systems, raises up a generation of men and women who do… Read more »
It’s partly the double standard and it’s partly that shaming doesn’t work. Shaming is more about the shamer’s desire to feel morally superior, in my observation, than any real desire to help the shamed person live a better life. Here’s the thing about rape. Let’s define, for this purpose, rape this way: the performance of a sex act on a person who did not consent to it. I can’t draw a line between this and how a woman dresses or acts. I just can’t. If men are using these things as an excuse for rape, they would be committing rape… Read more »
As I responded to jillybean elsewhere, I think there are really two types of rape that get conflated under the “sex without consent” definition. There’s violent, predatory rape – rape under explicit threat – and I don’t think slut walks or education are effective against it at all, and I can’t see a way that destructive sex positivity really contributes to that either (unless it assists in the creation of more Ted Bundys, which seems a bit unlikely, though I’m not completely sure). There’s also the kind of sexual assault where there is manipulation, alcohol and drugs, or other types… Read more »
You could be right.
I do think that the nexus Pastor Wilson presents is not very accurate when it comes to the crime of rape. If we are talking about violent, predatory rape, how the victims were dressed does not seem to play a strong role. Which is why I find this kind of parade rather silly. The violent, predatory rapist is a psychopath driven by anger and the need for power much more than he is driven by sexual desire. Many other rapes are crimes of opportunity where the offender targets an easy victim (not easy because she is sluttily dressed but because… Read more »
I totally agree that violent, predatory rape isn’t really affected that much by education or public statements against “rape culture.” However, there’s a whole category of sexual assault that (usually the kind that results in college lawsuits) that I do think moral education can help with. And I think slut walks, with their sex positivity that doesn’t encourage responsibility (not being drunk when you have sex, either as a man or a woman) or commitment/monogamy, do contribute to the epidemic of destroyed lives, both of men and women, because of that kind of sexual assault/behavior.
I agree with you, if only on grounds of prudence (which we sometimes forget is a virtue we are required to cultivate). Prudence requires that I do not deliberately put myself in harm’s way without some compelling reason. Of course I ought to be able, in a free society, to walk along the worst streets in town at two in the morning, counting my money and flashing my (non-existent) Rolex, but prudence tells me I can’t. I ought to be able to go to the hotel room of an NBA player who has already had a couple of rape trials,… Read more »
I totally agree. Though I feel like all this talk of prudence leaves us open to claims of victim blaming. :)
It does, and I think we are so sensitive to that possibility that we shy away from discussion of what we can actually do to reduce the risk of sexual assault. Believe me, in my lengthy discussions with my young daughter, prudence trumps modesty every time as a practical strategy. You don’t accept drinks from strangers, you don’t go to frat parties, and you don’t ask people you don’t know to drive you home. She does dress reasonably modestly, but that would not protect her for a second in the urban wasteland she lives in.
Ian, sometimes you strike me as a voice of common sense in the wilderness.
Awww. Thank you! (Endeavoring to wake up. :) I quite enjoy reading your comments, and always look for them in contentious comment sections!
Jilly,
I recently read an article from Chrisy Hynde (the singer for the Pretenders) in which she mentioned her rape as a young woman. It took courage for her to state simply “I was asking for it by the way I dressed, and my drug use.”
I read that, and really liked the fact that she can separate the two in her head. She never said that what happened was her fault, or that she deserved it, as neither was true. What those guys did was totally on them, they were culpable.
Suppose that someone walked up to DW and socked him in the nose.
When DW protested, that person said: “You offended me when you wrote, and published for the entire world to see, your disrespectful comments about [homosexuals, the unattractiveness of non-Christian women, whatever.] You can’t publicly express the offensive things you do, then draw upon some standard moral code to complain about me hitting you in the face. If it was wrong for me to hit you, it was wrong for you to be offensive in your speech.”
I think your analogy has some merit. However, there is offensiveness that is sin, and offensiveness that is not. Jesus, after all, offended many (to the point that they murdered him), and was without sin. And he was deliberately offensive – the whited sepulchurs, the camel swallowing, and saying that people won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven. How would you draw that line? Again, I’m not saying that everything that Doug says that is offensive falls into Christ-like offensiveness, but I think your analogy doesn’t leave room for Jesus’s model.
I don’t agree with my hypothetical nose-socker.
But I think my hypothetical is a very good analogy to DW’s argument here.
I’m not sure I follow?
1 – You can’t dress in a provocative way and then say that rape is morally wrong.
2 – You can’t write provocative articles and then say that assault is morally wrong.
ETA: I don’t agree with either of these.
I also think those formulations of those arguments are weak. I’m just not convinced that Doug is actually saying that – though I think his articulation doesn’t defend strongly enough against that interpretation.
A theolgy 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… Read more »
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. If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want to see that rapist punished to the fullest extent of the law. I… Read more »
It’s only outrageous if you’re outraged by it. We all have the option of just rolling our eyes and going on. Why give other people that much power over you? Here is where I think Doug meant to be going with this: Morals are derived from God. If you don’t acknowledge that you derive your morals from God, then you can’t really lay claim to any worldview that embraces concepts of right and wrong. 1 – I disagree, and 2 – I think he deliberately and unnecessarily chose a provocative example to use in putting forth his point. A less… Read more »
I disagree. I think it’s outrageous if God is outraged by it. Which, to be fair, includes many, many things that I myself do. But I don’t think my own sinfulness means I have to look at a Slut Walk and say, “Well, I am sinful, so I must not cast stones.” It does mean I must say, “I myself am sinful, so I am not better than Slut Walkers, but they are also sinful.” I agree that Doug is being provocative. I actually don’t think the provocativeness of the post is the problem – it’s the somewhat muddy arguing… Read more »
When you look at the things that people get up to, and have since the dawn of time, I doubt seriously that God has much outrage to spare for this kind of thing. If he’s even outraged at ISIS with the beheadings and the sexual slavery, it’s got to feel like deja vu all over again. You can of course say that the slut walkers are sinners. We’re all sinners, so that’s a safe bet. That’s not the same as saying that they are justifying rape. I appreciate our conversations. I never want to converse with people who agree with… Read more »
I believe that God, as an infinite being, never tires of outrage at evil and joy at good. I also believe He has a different level of outrage, and that his outrage as Slut Walks is not as high as his outrage as ISIS – but I don’t think that means it doesn’t exist.
I think the language of justifying rape is part of Doug’s less than stellar communication in this post. I personally argue that Slut Walks, along with all other expressions of sex positivity/libertarianism, degrade our cultural fences against rape.
They might. But there’s a family that’s been in the news this year, that has been active in putting forth a very rigid visible code of moral, correct behavior – the women don’t wear pants, men and women who aren’t married don’t touch, and so forth – and it turned out that one of the boys had repeatedly molested his sisters. There’s an argument to be made that overdoing purity culture puts too much emphasis on sex and that also can lead to rape.
As a conservative homeschooled Christian with seven younger siblings, I wasn’t happy about the Duggars before the scandal, and I’m not happy with them now. I believe in purity – I’m not happy about purity culture. I think it should be marriage culture, which I believe values purity in the right context – rather than, as you say, obsessing with sex instead of embracing God’s plan for relationships including sex.
Extremely well said. And FWIW, there are lots and lots of us out here who value purity, yet find “purity culture” suspect at best.
I get antsy about criticism of purity culture because of the fact that a lot of the critics are against purity as well, but there are definitely better and healthier ways to promote sexual wisdom.
Are you aware of Elizabeth Smart’s comments about it?
One of the reasons she didn’t try to escape her rapist for all those months is that she had absorbed purity culture to the extent that she thought she had now been irretrievably ruined and no one would want her now. Obviously that was never true, but remember that she was reasoning as the fourteen-year-old she was, not the adult she is now, and it’s girls of her age group that purity culture, with its rings and balls, is primarily aimed at.
I don’t think Catholic sexual teaching in my young days was always healthy, but I appreciate that it was always emphasized that purity can be regained. There was a means of repentance and renewing what had been lost. You didn’t need to feel that one sin, however serious, was total ruin.
Some of its trappings remind me a little unpleasantly of Elsie Dinsmore.
Doug, I think I see where you’re headed with this, so I’ll just come out and ask it – how many of the children and toddlers that Steven Sitler molested were immodestly dressed?
Can you point to any statement DW has made, excusing what Sitler did? You have a lot of shock value in your comments but it’s pretty much substance-free, as near as I can tell.
“Can you point to any statement DW has made, excusing what Sitler did? ”
Well, for starters, “I now pronounce you man and wife.” And “You may kiss the bride.”
Nope. While I am baffled by DW’s assertion that he was helpless to refuse to conduct that wedding, that is not excusing Sitler’s raping of the children. In fact, his continued defense of conducting that wedding is even more baffling in view of the fact that he doesn’t defend Sitler.
I think you need to look up what “excuse” means.
ex·cuse verb ikˈskyo͞oz/ 1. attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify. “he did nothing to hide or excuse Jacob’s cruelty” synonyms:justify, defend, condone, vindicate; More 2. release (someone) from a duty or requirement. “it will not be possible to excuse you from jury duty” synonyms:let off, release, relieve, exempt, absolve, free “she has been excused from her duties” noun ikˈskyo͞os/ 1. a reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense. “there can be no possible excuse for any further delay” synonyms:justification, defense, reason, explanation, mitigating circumstances,mitigation,… Read more »
You forgot “overlook” and “disregard”. Which Doug most certainly did do in Sitler’s case.
Are you positive that you are not the reincarnation of McDivit? My McDivit radar keeps going to DefCon 5.
He and RandMan are pretty solidly in troll category for me.
I see RandMan’s posts in a different light. He never strikes me as pointlessly provocative.
He won’t give you a direct answer, which pretty much answers the question in the affirmative, IMO. I’ve asked for the trash to be taken out before, I think it’s time again.
You’re a liar. I’ve already given her a direct answer last week, when she asked me the same question. No, I’m not him. Stop asking me.
I will stop asking you and, of course, I accept your word. But I did miss your reply last week.
“What I have the power to do and get away with, I have the right to do. Wouldn’t you agree?” Oh no! Without christian morality… chaos! If there was a god, I would thank him for existing, keeping the Douglas Wilson’s of the world from raping and pillaging if their victim didn’t have an argument they they found personally convincing. (Except of course that this same god advocated rape all over his book. So how does that morality work exactly?) If you are unable to contain your desire to rape a woman- well dressed, sluttily dressed, or simply undressed because… Read more »
Stated a little bit brutally, but your last sentence is unfortunately how the argument struck me. I wish he had made it clear whether the offensiveness of the parade lies in how the women are dressed or in their declaration that how women are dressed should never be a justification for rape.
He kind of does but he tries to have it both ways.
Yes, this is where Doug starts to lose me. I think that it would have been better if he’d focused on the underlying message, and not concentrated so hard of modesty. Modesty is important, but I don’t think it’s as strongly linked as sex positivity to what he’s arguing.
The offensiveness is not in the second. It is in the underlying claims of: I can sin how I want and that does not justify your sin against me. From God’s perspective, the rapist has no defense. The slut wants to take God’s position and agree with it in her sin. She is saying because the rapist has no defense (true) then I am not culpable for dressing in a way that is sexually enticing. This is incorrect, she is culpable for sinning against God and man by behaving this way. As to Doug’s association of rape and slut-walks, the… Read more »
“A theology that justifies hate justifies murder.” Yes. “A theology that justifies sexual promiscuity and sexual enticement justifies sexual crimes.” Hm. A theology that justifies sexual promiscuity only justifies crimes that one may commit against oneself. Not crimes that one person may commit against another. “Enticement” is very like “seduction”. I see people using the word “seduce” when they mean “woo”. Seduction is tricking someone into doing something they wouldn’t do if the seducer were being straightforward with them. It’s wrong, every time. Enticement is like entrapment. BUT. It doesn’t justify a person forcing a sex act on someone else.… Read more »
Laura, the slut walkers are not wearing a bikini because they are at a private beach. The idea is that they can wear provocative clothes.
In PNG many of the women wore no tops. It was not perceived to be provocative. The problem isn’t just what is worn, it is why it is worn. That is why they are slut walks.
I think they are saying that for a woman to be free in how she dresses and what she chooses to do sexually does not make her fair game for any man who desires her. I’m not a slut. I would never apply that word to myself. I take care to dress modestly and I am faithful to my husband. But I do agree that rape is never justified. Ever. Do I wish the women doing these things would straighten up? Sure. But even if they don’t, they shouldn’t be raped.
They know what they are saying. They use the word intentionally. They are trying to claim the word, as if dressing how you want is a personal matter. It is not. They are wrong.
Of course they shouldn’t be raped. But they are culpable if their behaviour portrays a theology (or philosophy) of sexual freedom that encourages others to accept that philosophy. This is even though others use this theology (philosophy) in a way that is antithetical to the slut-walkers.
Laura, I’m curious – how often do you think women in general (just a guess, in an informal conversation, unless you have access to statistics) wear attractive clothing for themselves (because it’s hot, because they want to feel better about themselves, etc) vs. wearing attractive clothing to attract men? I hear “women desire to be desired” from Doug, and more egalitarian/feminist commenters say, “No, women dress nicely to make themselves happy” – but I think it’s clear that at least sometimes, women (and men) dress and act to attract men. I’m curious for a woman’s perspective on how often they… Read more »
I don’t know. I can’t read other women’s minds any better than you can. I try to look nice for a number of reasons. I want to look like I respect myself. People don’t respect you if you don’t respect yourself. When my husband and I are going out, I give thought to respecting him. It’s not respectful to a person, to give the appearance that he, or she, is partnered with a sloppy person. (He returns the favor, sometimes going back to put on a nicer shirt when he sees how I am dressed.) But when I put on… Read more »
I wasn’t asking for a mind-reading, just wondering if, as a woman, with female friends, you had a guess about ratio. I’ve been trying to figure out if Doug has any support for his claims about female nature.
My female friends probably aren’t a representative sampling of the female half of the human race at large.
A lot of them aren’t married. Some of them are happy like that. Others express loneliness. Some are actively looking for romance. Some aren’t. Virtually all of them dress in a girly way and wear makeup and so forth.
No, Doug has no support from me for his claims about female nature. Females comprise approximately half the race. There’s not much you can say that’s universally true of females, that’s not also universally true of all humans.
Fair enough. I hear many things from Doug about male nature (that we are generally very visually oriented when it comes to sex, for example) that ring true with my own experience, so I have been thinking about the other aspects of his theology and their connection to experience.
There’s a useful distinction to be made between descriptive and prescriptive. And there’s a very useful distinction to be made between “some” and “all”. Also, the fact that something *may* be generally true of one sex doesn’t mean it is excluded from the other. Look at the song “Call Me Maybe” – “ripped jeans, skin was showing” and “it’s hard to look right at you, baby”. That is extremely visual. The female singer describes seeing a man and feeling sudden strong desire. The thing about men needing respect and women needing love is, to my mind, so facile and inaccurate… Read more »
As someone who does not comfortably fall into the spectrum of behavior and tastes that comprises “most men,” I tend to agree that there are difficulties and dangers with prescriptive and descriptive generalizations about men and women. And I absolutely agree that women are visually stimulated – I just think that a survey of most culture indicates that men are more visually stimulated as a group – you may get one or two Magic Mike films, but there are dozens and dozens of movies in which the women are the ones presented as objects of desire. Not to mention HBO… Read more »
I will say that as a happily married woman, approaching 40, with several children, I still wonder if other men will find me attractive as I’m getting ready to go out. Which I’m ashamed of, of course. But the struggle is real.
Thanks for your reply, Katie.
jillybean, I do not have your wonderful combination of incisiveness and restraint, tho I wish I did. (however if so then I would not have the wonderful gift of timothy following me around.)
Wilson, while lauded for being some kind of christian gadfly in his writing, really shines in his obfuscation. He comes to what looks like a strong point sideways and always leaves himself a little trail of breadcrumbs… just in case.
It is the same theology underlying the bathrooms for perverts initiative that got shot down in Houston earlier this week.
It is the ‘theology’ of the child-molester man, who saunters into a bathroom full of teenage girls and then insists that “it should not matter”.
This isn’t nihilism–it is something else.
Can you draw a line going from “the way I dress is immaterial to the fact that it is wrong to rape me” to “it doesn’t matter if I molest children”?
“You don’t do that to people. It is the height of selfishness to lay that burden on anybody. ”
Now, which situation am I talking about? The sluts, the perv or both?
What are the people who dress immodestly doing to anybody?
What is a guy who walks into a bathroom full of teenage girls doing to anybody? Besides, I look good in my speedo and gold chains.
Quit judging me!
Are you just trolling?
What, Timothy, are people who dress immodestly doing to anybody?
I asked you. What is the speedo wearing guy doing to anybody when he walks into a bathroom full of young girls?
Is it not the exact same thing as the addled brained feminists strutting their stuff?
Is it to you, really? You are plummeting in my estimation.
Feminist logic is not my strong suit.
Toots, logic is not your strong suit. Quit digging.
Laura, maybe you’ve seen it, but if not, I wonder if watching this would help further explain Doug’s position in this post? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision_(2009_film)
Thanks but Doug stated his position in this post pretty articulately.
btw, answer my question. What harm is he doing? Why should you assume the worst of him? Why do you place your sexual insecurities upon that guy? Isn’t it your problem that you think that he might do wrong?
Oh,amen to this post. The theology of slut walks, indeed. Consider what much of modern feminist message regarding rape is. Be sexually empowered. Walk wherever you want at anytime. Dress provocatively. Be constantly afraid of rape and perceive all men as the enemy, but never avail yourself of their protection. Drink all you want at parties and insist that you have the right to remain unmolested even while unconscious. It is okay to cower in fear in a stairwell clinging to your rape prevention tips, but don’t ever carry a gun because guns are dangerous…. It’s such a pro-rapey message… Read more »
“Drink all you want at parties and insist that you have the right to remain unmolested even while unconscious.”
Er. I agree that that is stupid, but the person (it happens to men too) does have the right to remain unmolested.
Laura, I have a “right” not to get hit by a car when crossing the street. I have a “right” not to get robbed when counting my money in a dark alley. Should I stop looking both ways before I cross the street? Publicly display all my money trusting we’re going to teach all the robbers not to rob?
Two separate issues.
You have the right to walk in the pedestrian crosswalk. If you’re smart, you’ll look.
“Why is rape wrong?” What standard, he wants to know, overarches the two of us? If there is one, what is it, and how can we know? If there is no shared standard, then might makes right.” This a really good point. Rape has been around forever, but what women used to do is appeal to men’s higher selves, to their Christian values, to their sense of honor. We did this with behavior, modesty, virtues, for both men and women. As we start to erase those Christian values, virtues, behaviors, we are left with might makes right, which it truly… Read more »
It is actually impressive to read the strained willful misunderstanding of Wilson’s “logic” which commenters are at pains to display. “Wait, wait – is Wilson saying women deserve rape?” “I think he just called all women sluts.”
Please point out a comment here that says DW is calling all women sluts.
Please know these were caricaturizations.
Then are you seeing actual strained willful misunderstandings of Wilson’s “logic”?
Yes, I think you may be reacting emotionally rather than logically.
I don’t think so.
I read what he wrote.
You did, but you don’t seem to be understanding what he is saying.
OK, what’s he saying? Please go back and really look, because I will cut and paste out of his article, like I have more than once here. His words speak for themselves.
I believe Thomas is accusing the commenters of willfully misunderstanding Wilson’s arguments. Notice the quotes he is using.
I don’t see his quotes in the comments though. It’s almost as if he is willfully misunderstanding the people who object to Wilson’s arguments.
He seems to understand them pretty well.
You see commenters accusing Wilson of saying all women are sluts? Where?
CARICATURE definition: exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics
We are back to willful misunderstanding, then.
The first comment I read on here was one of someone misunderstanding Wilson’s post. Just click on best comments and it should be the first to appear. She has 3 likes last I checked so clearly some people here do not understand what Wilson is arguing.
That’s me. Please point out where I misunderstand Wilson. I suspect that the women who would go on a slut walk say that rape is wrong not because it’s immoral, but because it violates their right to control their own bodies. And in that way, it’s not inconsistent with dressing like a slut. The man who would excuse rape because the woman dressed like a slut or acted like a slut is demonstrating an external locus of control which is entirely inappropriate in this context. These women are positing that in this context everyone should have an internal locus of… Read more »
Without God there is no moral standard to say that anything is definitively and unequivocally wrong or right, including rape.
Leaving aside whether or not a person believes in God, do you think it’s possible for a person to say that rape is wrong, and that a woman may dress as she likes and have sex with any adult who consents to having sex with her?
Sure, taking all that is it possible for a woman to dress provocitavly without provoking anything?
It better be. Otherwise men are merely puppets with no agency.
So you are of the opinion that men should have no reaction to a womans apearence?
I am of the opinion that men should not rape women. I am of the opinion that a woman’s appearance does not excuse a man if he rapes her.
You?
I am of the opinion that women should not be raped. I am also of the opinion that dressing immodestly will provoke an immodest response.
Because men are Pavlovian dogs?
If a woman dresses immodestly in front of you, are you free to look elsewhere? I think you are. I don’t think her dressing immodestly WILL provoke an immodest response from you. You may choose to offer an immodest response, of course.
Are you arguing that women are in no way guilty or accountable for dressing immodestly? That would seem to imply that men are moral agents but women are not, in such case the feminist project is an utter failure. And, given the premises of Scripture and Christianity, rapists and self-identifying sluts who glory in it are accountable to the same God under the *same* Law. That’s a rehashing of bethyada, admittedly. Slut-walks and rape don’t happen in a world without God, but in a world *subject* to God, subject to the Law He has given. One who glories in whoredom… Read more »
Are you saying that men have a right to rape women they disapprove of?
I don’t know where that could be squeezed out of my comments. If it’s regarding the last paragraph, my point was blasting in one particular place the foundation of morality upon which society it constructed doesn’t merely affect that one area, but the entire structure. I’ll grant that as Christians, we don’t want the structure as it currently stands, but we should be blasting the foundations upon which sexual immorality, whether rape or promiscuity, so that THOSE may be toppled, not the other way around. Don’t get me wrong, I do completely agree that dress, or lack thereof, NEVER justifies… Read more »
Talking about your sentence regarding glass houses.
That’s referring to who’s guilty under the moral Law of God. Glorying in sin and filth is as condemned as rape is: If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do… Read more »
So if two people disagree on whether something is sinful, one gets to tell the other he’s forfeited any right to claim moral law? Southern Baptists who think drinking alcohol is sinful would have a field day with some of you folks.
As a Southern Baptist (though my wife and I are currently at a PCA church) who drinks alcohol, I can make an argument from Scripture as to why the demonization of alcohol is actually bad–Isaiah 5 is a wonderful piece of evidence–just like promiscuity and immodesty can be shown, from Scripture–according to the true standard of morality–that it is bad. So, perhaps in a world devoid of Scripture and God, I’d be more affected by your point, but given reality, no, no I am not.
Do you understand how, for a SB who does think drinking alcohol is sinful, your arguments won’t hold water and you appear to be trying to pick and choose your moral values based on what you want to do?
When do I get to say that a scandily-clad woman walking in a public area is raping me by making me accidentally see her nakedness?
Whenever you like. Knock yourself out.
Great, I’m entitled to not be raped, meaning I’m entitled to a woman not dressing inappropriately in public
And other people are, of course, entitled to read your comment and draw conclusions about you, which probably are going to be just about as flattering as the conclusions you draw about the slut walkers.
Super duper! I wear it as a badge of honor to be held in low regard by those who resort to distortion and obfuscation so as to not admit any valid point made by their opposition! Ad hominem is great, too!
“those who resort to distortion and obfuscation so as to not admit any valid point made by their opposition”
could nicely describe DW’s article here.
While I agree that immodesty (in both men and women, though I think men as very visually oriented people are more damaged by immodesty – though their sin is their own responsibility) is a sin, I do not think it is the same sin as rape. I think this entire conversation is hurt by the conflation of violent rape with sexual assault where consent is muddy.
If two people disagree on whether something is sinful, one of them may still actually be right and at least one of them is definitely wrong. You seem to want to dismiss the reality of morality by constantly bringing up the fact that not everyone agrees about it, as though that affects whether there is such a thing as real moral cause and effect. It’s sort of like finding some obscure tropical tribe that argues over whether snow is real or not, and using that as a reason why people in Minnesota shouldn’t tell each other not to run on… Read more »
Of course one will be wrong. That doesn’t mean that one has given up his right to any claim to having morals, does it?
Looking away is just as pavlovian as looking.
Is a woman who dresses immodestly free to dictate what response is appropriate?
Rape is ‘inappropriate’ under any scenario I would think.
Has anyone sugested otherwise?
This is the not so hidden subtext of this conversation. That while rape is wrong, women bear some blame for ‘asking for it’.
Are you saying the statememts ‘Women should dress modestly’ and ‘women who dress immodestly deserve to be raped’ are equivalent?
No, I am not. I think women should dress as they please. There is no context in which violation of personhood and rape is more understandable than any other. I am saying that Wilson is tap dancing around those ideas by even bothering to post this blog.
If it involves her physically in any way, you are darn tooting. Think what you want. Say what you want. That’s it.
And if it doesn’t involve any physical contact?
I doubt that many women, especialy those involved with ‘slut’ walks are ok with men saying “whatever”
Because *some men* are evil rapists. One does not have to have a low opinion of men in general, in order to grasp the fact that there are violent men, lacking self-control, and subject to violent sexual stimulation. If I walk up to an ISIS guy wearing a bikini and a cross around my neck while waving around a ham sandwich, what do you think will happen? If I say that the predictable result is that I will be raped and then murdered, does that mean that I think that “men” in general or even “Muslims” in general are “Pavlovian… Read more »
Hey! You agree with Doug! Wow, Laura!
No, I disagree in that I don’t think that a woman who dresses immodestly is justifying rape.
Wait wait wait…. If no one is provoke, you, by definition, weren’t provocative.
These slut walks, I didn’t realize that was a thing, aren’t there to do nothing, correct?
What do you think they are there to do?
So, are you saying that if someone says they personally don’t want you to do something to them, but there is no shared, agreed upon moral standard to base that on, than there is nothing here to say it is wrong to assault the one who asks you not to do (whatever it be) to them? I am assuming you are saying here that “Slut walks” (whatever they are) are full of women who don’t believe the Bible as a standard of morality, and therefore, they believe that rape is not morally wrong? ?? You are not incredibly direct here… Read more »
No he is not saying that second paragraph.
He is saying that their reasoning for slut walks is inconsistent with their reasoning against rape.
So… What is the shared moral standard required here? What IS he saying? Do you understand it, Bethyada?
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. Provocative dress and promiscuity is wrong. These women are celebrating this. Doug says that the embracing of such immoral behaviour is a rejection of moral responsibility. The slut-walker is saying I should be able to dress as provocatively as I want (and not be raped). The right response is that even if we stop every rape a woman is still not allowed to dress immodestly. If the slut-walker is rejecting moral responsibility… Read more »
Is the picture supposed to be a display of this alleged wrongness? I don’t see provocative dress there. And, I don’t see people celebrating promiscuity. I’ve never seen a “slut walk”. So, I am confused about the allegations. Doug says – “I do not justify rape; she does.” If someone has a promiscuous view of sexual relationships, how still does that mean they are justifying rape? Are we unwilling to talk about the word consent? Are we unable to see that we are not all sexual animals who have to follow every physical urge? Why is Doug confused about why… Read more »
And that is an ever-tightening spiral. You can never be unprovocative enough.
Exactly. What is the shared moral standard here? We would be hard pressed to find one. And yet, I think that is the main point of this post. hmmmmm……
Exactly. Nailed it.
First part of your question. And, I don’t see people celebrating promiscuity. I’ve never seen a “slut walk” “Slut” means sexually immoral woman. They use the term intentionally to say that they can behave how they want (and men are only allowed to touch them with their permission). If someone has a promiscuous view of sexual relationships, how still does that mean they are justifying rape? Are we unwilling to talk about the word consent? Doug is arguing that if they are rejecting sexual morality how can they then appeal to sexual morality? If they are appealling to autonomy then… Read more »
The rapist IS allowed automony. But they are not permitted to take it from someone else. Is that confusing? Consent is not the “highest good” per se. But, it matters. I am in a happily married, monogamous relationship. But, if I don’t want to have sex, my husband doesn’t want to either. Because it is a two person action. Us. Not HIM. Not just ME. But us. It is an action of love, not of taking. Do you and I not agree about that? That may be an issue here, of us not being able to see eye to eye… Read more »
Slut means sexually immoral woman. This is not contentious. I said that slut-walkers use the term intentionally to say that they can behave how they want sexually. This is not the definition, it is why they use it. I added the bracketed and men are allowed to touch them without their permission to illustrate that I knew that the movement was doing more than identify as slut. It is mistyped. My mistake. I had “not” then removed it without changing “without” to “with” (or vice versa). Read: the movement is to say that I can identify as sexually free, and… Read more »
I grew up under the tutelage of an English mother who used slut to mean lazy and slatternly. When I moved to the US, it was one of the words I had to be careful with!
You have articulated my central issue with this argument, and that is the linking of rape with a woman’s presumed sexual attitudes. It has been explained to me several times here that by rejecting God’s laws about chastity and morality, these women have lost the right (morally speaking, not legally) to complain about rape. In other words, accept all of God’s morality or none of it, but you can’t pick and choose. I don’t find this useful. Under this reasoning a thief has no right to complain about a murderer. A liar has no right to complain about a mugger.… Read more »
Thank you Jillybean. Yes, yes, yes.
What a shame, for those who claim to uphold God’s standard of good, to tell people who don’t claim to follow it, that they don’t get any part of the conversation. It’s sick, really. Where is the love of God that moves us and changes us?
After reading this blog post, I have been truly at a loss for words most of the day. My first question is: how is this post benefit any Christian? Or any human being? Does it tell me what the Bible says about anything? I realize that you are entitled to write about whatever you decide to write about – evidently you give yourself more freedom of speech than you allow those who participate in “slut walks” – but this post is quite disappointing. “Now it is certainly possible, in a screwed up world like ours, for crimes to occur where… Read more »
Gretchen, I could not agree with you more. And I am so wearied by the pseudo intellectual garbage coming from this site. A lot of puffed up language intended to deceive by big convoluted wording.
I have not read all the posts , but in case it was not said I want to sat that rape is not about sex, but about control and power.. In Serbia and Croatia it was considered a war crime.
“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. If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want to see that rapist punished to the fullest extent of the law.” This… Read more »
I knew when I saw 266 comments that a point had been missed …
Trigger words–this post has em.
You are using a pretty robust metric.
Or rejected as incorrect.
If we can work in a Confederate flag angle I see 500 comments in a matter of hours…
Doug Wilson claims (hypothetically) he would argue the rapist be punished by the fullest extent of the law, but do not forget the proviso that such punishment be “measured and limited.”
So you think that the punishment should be reactionary and unlimited then? Drawing and quartering, maybe, preferably inflicted by people hyped up on psychoactive drugs?
If you agree that punishment for a violent, heinous crime should be subject to any measurement of appropriateness and any limitation whatsoever, you are just as eeeeeeeevil as Doug Wilson.
I just returned from a three day conference of the California Grand Jurors Association. One of our panel of speakers was two District Attorney’s . They spoke on sex trafficking in California and the rest of the country. The naïveté of the general public and the church is huge. While we can pick at gnats on websites like this, there is major injustice going on in our world. The church can either be a agent of change in our society, or it can just go about its exclusive , power driven club I , myself, prefer to be an outcast… Read more »
Although I agree that justifying provocative dress and justifying rape both transgress the same moral standard, that argument, if I understand it rightly, seems a bit abstract. A better approach might be to take the moral standard that we all still agree on and demonstrate the hypocrisy of the strutters. We live in a culture where anyone is justified as long as they are not hurting someone else. As Christians, we would agree that we should not hurt others, but we can see that further down the track all of the sexual “freedoms” and “rights” do in fact hurt other… Read more »
One other thought: a friend of mine was raped many years ago. She was in her fifties and not dressed provocatively. Lust played little part in it. The act was all about power. But dressing provocatively is also about power.
Who exactly is a slut and who isn’t, Doug? Do tell.
1 Corinthians 6 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Dr. Hobbs, Glad you showed up. I am not Wilson, however,… Read more »
I think the event he’s referring to is called a “slut walk”. Don’t think he named it that. He, and I, might be forgiven if he thought the organizer was owning the descriptor. That hypothetical “she” and “her” hypothetical behavior, response, and implied philosophy, along with any that identified themselves as such by participating, were pretty much the limit of his argument.
I am not sure of the point of your question.
Oh, I see. So he is confining himself to women who go on slut walks when he talks about women who open the door to justifiable rape. Just trying to understand which women should blame themselves (and which we should blame) and which shouldn’t. Cause, of course, Natalie Greenfield.
Yes, thank you for mentioning it. This is a conveniently adjacent point for him to be making. This is how he thought about that crime. That much is clear.
Dr. Hobbs, Please run a lexical analysis of Wilson’s statement below, especially the part where Wilson says “I do not justify rape'”. Then please explain how that really means “justifiable rape” in your analytical opinion. While this particular post is too convoluted, it does not say what you keep saying that it says. You have this problem a lot in your lexical analysis of Wilson. “— 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 somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of… Read more »
On Thursday, she tweeted “One minute my abuser would say “You look like a model, how am I so lucky?” the next minute “You are such a slut. No one else will love you.”
Oh my God. And he said these things to a child. How could anyone not think that man is a sexual predator.
Uh….I don’t know how many different ways there are for Doug or anyone to say that rape is never justified. But doesn’t appear to be enough for you to not associate him or his argument with justifiable rape.
So, with respect, not even agreeing on what he said, I won’t argue with you about what it meant.
Oh of course. HE is not justifying it. THEY are. And I got his point, I just don’t like the context in which he made it and the completely inappropriate example he used, given what his denom is facing. But then again, maybe he is priming them to blame Natalie. He has already done as much.
Dr. Valerie Hobbs, You have a Doctorate in English correct? If so, I remain surprised at what you say that you did not say, when you did, and what you say others said, that they did not. In all honesty, I once heard a well known writer say: “You can’t write any better than you can think.” Something to think about. Correct? Moving on to what Wilson has written about Wight, even in his letters, posted by Ms. Greenfield, Wilson properly blames Wight for the crimes Wight committed. A person with a Doctorate in language ought to be able to… Read more »
Indeed and amen to all of that DW. For these women to parade their bodies in various states of undress on the street or at their marches does a salacious violence to children in general, and boys in particular, that end up being witness to such debauchery.
So if I leave my $600.00 Iphone on the front seat of my car in a Wal Mart parking lot in downtown somewhere with the window down and it gets stolen, I am not stupid?
I think we can safely make a distinction between iPhone theft and the rape of a human being.
In what way? Which one is not wrong?
You are careless. But you still don’t “deserve” to have your phone stolen.
And the thief is still a thief.
And nobody said he wasn’t.
Thought I, as soon as I read the comment above.
And nobody said you did.
True. Going back to scantily dressed female protestors, do you think this would be a fair summation of Wilson’s point (and yours and Bethyada’s): If you reject any aspect of common morality (not as determined by society but as given by God), and if you are public and defiant in your rejection of this morality, it is still wrong for a person to victimize you in a related area. You are free to complain, but you have no actual, philosophical or moral basis to make that complaint. For example, if I had ever gone on a protest about restrictive divorce… Read more »
It depends. Did you ever argue those things on the basis of absolute personal autonomy and the right to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, without respect to any law outside yourself, including the laws of cause and effect in a fallen world? My guess is no, had you argued those things, it would be because of your belief that in the context of a law greater than yourself, you found them improper. Therefore, arguing that the marijuana laws are ill-conceived does not leave you logically unable to protest driving under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Believing that… Read more »
Thank you, Jane. I knew you could lighten my darkness!
I am not saying I agree with Doug, though I get him and have sympathy with his position. But I get his position while several readers do not. I think that to an extent the issues should be related. When Jesus said that we should not judge it was in the context of logs and specks. That is we shouldn’t judge someone’s minor sin when we have a major sin. I think this should be in the same area (in general) as this is the issue of hypocrisy which Jesus so hated. I do think that the warning is probably… Read more »
Your last paragraph articulates my own confusion. I don’t see violent rape as a primarily sexual issue. If I have the misfortune to cross paths with a predatory rapist, wearing a burqa will not save me, and in fact it might increase the offender’s twisted rage. I think you are also right about the slut walkers. Are they saying, “I have the right to dress and act immorally and still be save from violent rapists,” or are they saying, “Look, violent rape is not about sex; it is about male rage and aggression, and how we dress won’t save us”?… Read more »
. I don’t see violent rape as a primarily sexual issue. Because that what we get told repeatedly. It may not be solely sexual but to deny it is sexual (to the rapist) is not true. It is extremely sexual to the rapist. He uses the power differential to get what he wants. But he clearly wants sexual pleasure (though in a way that highly displeases God such that execution is appropriate). A thief with responsibility uses the power differential to steal, he doesn’t steal to secure or display the power differential. But in thinking about this last night, I… Read more »
I too have been going back and forth on this. I think that the violent rapist is pretty much an opportunist, and victims’ clothing probably doesn’t matter very much compared to time, place, and ease of access. Nowhere on this thread have we really got into the responsibility of women to keep themselves safe by being careful where they go and with whom, and that is probably just as well. I remember when a serial killer was targeting prostitutes in my home city, and there were demonstrations demanding greater safety measures for “sex trade” workers. What no one was willing… Read more »
Well said! Absolutely – the perverse sex-positive or libertarian theology of sex of our culture have created incredible damage in sexual contact between men and women. Feminists see that damage, and rightly want it to stop – but because, as Doug says, they have abandoned the standard which will actually protect both men and women, they do silly, silly things to try to help. They are right – rape and sexual assault (both of which can be classed under the dictionary definition of rape) are a real problem, but don’t realize that they are perpetuating that problem themselves by preaching… Read more »
I think the point of the post is that you should not be surprised that when you dangle a worm, the fish may bite. moreover, that’s how it works.
That isn’t actually in any way, shape, or form Doug’s point.
Doug’s point is that if you say that you have a worldview in which rape is morally wrong then you can’t also refrain from having moral standards about your dress and behavior. I disagree with Doug but that is his point.
His point is NOT that if a woman dresses immodestly, a man is naturally going to rape her.
I really do get the idea that some sort of “contributory negligence” by the “slut” ought never be enough “negligence” to either justify or excuse the rapist. The perp is still a perp. That’s a valid point whether dressing like a “slut” is defined by Victorian England or by last night on Sunset Strip. jellybean and Laura see that point along with Pastor Doug. To me, the iPhone example is a difference in kind, not in degree. But Pastor Doug’s second point – – dressing like a slut does not appeal to a common standard – – is far weaker… Read more »
Nice summation K’,
Yet we will not be surprized if such a reasonable summary fails to sum up the discussion.
People will continue to construct their “math” to achieve a pre-determined sum.
At least somewhat. ; – )
I show drinks to alcoholics, books to logoholics, valuables to kleptoholics, food to gastroholics, fire to pyroholics, lust to sexaholics…and if they try to partake, it’s completely their fault. Yeah, they (we) have a duty/opportunity to refuse temptation. (Lust, gluttony of mind, gluttony of body especially here.) But you (we) might better go swimming with a millstone necklace than put a stumbling-block before God’s little ones. Repent, please. (To some of the world, ” …aholics” may mean an addiction and an excuse–tho Laissez Faire Books did use to offer a book on “The Myth of Addiction” or something like that.… Read more »
From the slut walkers’ POV: the sexaholic can try to get sex from a provocatively dressed woman all day long. As long as he takes “no” for an answer when it’s given (it may not be) all is well.
So dressing provocatively is wrong. I happen to agree with that. But that has nothing to do with the fact a rapist is wrong. By the way, it does not take a rocket scientist to know why you wrote this article. Do you really think God is pleased with you? Instead of sharing the wonderful news that we have a Savior who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood, a Savior who the prostitutes and tax gatherers flocked around, a wonderful Lord who comforts the broken and the wounded, you write these clever articles -and… Read more »
God opposes the proud, but He gives grace to the humble.
Jesus died for the “sluts” too. He knows what their motivations are, what their pain is. He is more interested in redeeming than He is shaming.
That is all over the New Testament. I don’t know how it’s not front and center of every Christian’s THEOLOGY.
If one of these slutwalkers got raped, would she wear her slutty attire in court?
One thing all the Christians keep forgetting to point out in all this discussion of rape: biblically, rape is only a big deal when it involves a married woman( or possibly engaged woman – not all commenters agree. In that case, the penalty is death. But if a man rapes an unmarried virgin, the penalty isn’t death – his penalty is that he has to pay her dad some money, and dad had a right to demand that he marry the girl he raped. But what about an unmarried woman who isn’t a virgin? What’s the penalty in that case?… Read more »
Well, under leviticus,yes, but we are not under that covenant. Furthermore, even under that covenant the sin committed is still fornication. We do not approve.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a sin. I said it wasn’t a crime. Lots of things were “sin”, but only sins that were considered a big deal were deserving of the death penalty. Like raping a married woman. Raping an unmarried non-virgin woman? Well, it’s not ideal, but all have sinned and fallen short, etc., and she wasn’t a virgin, so no harm, no foul.
Or you can read it as God placing a higher value on married women than sluts. From a view of cultural and societal survival, it makes perfect sense.
God placed the ultimate value on humanity when he sent his only begotten son to die for us.
Do you really mean to say that God values a married woman over an unmarried woman who has sex with whomever she wants? Then either Jesus didn’t die for that unmarried woman, or there’s some indication of God’s value that goes beyond that sacrifice and is greater than it.
You leave out the rest of the process—Christian growth. As an adulterer and fornicator I speak with confidence that God’s grace is offered to all. The same Jesus God who died and rose for me, died and rose for them. Its the ‘rose’ part you are omitting. With that resurrection comes a radical change in being and as a consequence of that inner change, of behavior.
St. James is very clear that without the evidence of that external change in behavior we have no evidence that the internal change has happened.
Wi
Does God, in your view, value the married woman over the unmarried woman who isn’t a virgin, or not?
He loves all.
He sanctifies the repentant; the rebellious is given over to their sin.
But I’m not sure it makes sense from a theological perspective. I think I have wandered into sinful ideas if I believe that I am worth more, or am more righteous, than a fallen woman who has encountered temptations I have never faced. Or who has been a victim of abuse or coercion, or who has problems I can’t even begin to guess at. Judged on her own merits, the most supremely chaste and virtuous woman is still completely unrighteous in the sight of God.
The larger context is the nation of Israel–a people He chose to multiply and become innumerable–the Law was given to them qua nation. Within that scope it makes sense to favor those structures (marriage) which further that promise and disfavor those structures which hinder it. This does not contradict the perspective of God’s burning love for all of humanity and (as you say) that we are all fallen before Him.
Hi Jillybean,
This link is off-topic, but since you are Catholic, I thought you would enjoy it.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4333/two_years_among_the_liberal_theologians.aspx
@BJ if you read this, go there too.
Doug, you too.
blessings,
t
Thank you, Timothy. I found it depressing but not surprising. What I have always liked about being a Catholic is that while the rules are strict, there is infinite patience and charity for people of good will who keep on screwing up. It seems what we are seeing is a weakening of the rules along with the destruction of the charity and patience.
I am glad you found it worthwhile. It seems what we are seeing is a weakening of the rules along with the destruction of the charity and patience. A good theologian could name the principle involved; the two go hand-in-hand. It starts with faith–the sure knowledge of God and His love for us and the redemption of us through Christ. From faith, we grow in sanctification; with sanctification His law is written on our hearts and we ourselves set new boundaries–rules–for our behavior that, lo! and behold!, match His character and law. From there we look out and see our… Read more »
He’s right, folks.
And further, there’s no mention of rape against men, unless you count the story of Sodom which I see much more often used to condemn homosexuality, and no protection for a woman against her husband even if he is estranged from her due to previous abuse.
Which is why we can’t say there’s no morality other than what the Bible reveals to us.
In a plot twist you are both wrong. Folks, sodomy is wrong, and fornication is wrong. That covers all the rape in the world. If a dood buggered another dood, the law had plenty of recourse.
To punish both equally, even if one was forced. That’s the point. We’re both right.
One more time – saying they’re both “wrong” doesn’t change the fact that in the Bible, God commanded the death penalty for raping a married woman, and a financial penalty for raping an unmarried virgin, but He never demands a penalty of any kind for a man who rapes an unmarried woman who wasn’t a virgin.
You can’t just keep insisting “they’re all sin.” Of course they are. But one was punished by death, another by paying a fine to the father of the woman, and the other wasn’t punished at all.
The rapist violates the common standard of bodily autonomy, not god’s law. Therefore you have no argument
a common standard of bodily autonomy that does not apply to babies with body-parts that can be traded for a Lamborghini.
Therefore, you have no argument
An you have no rebuttal as you have made his point for him. He stated (paraphrasing) that having rejected God’s will, their ‘common standard’ is as arbitrary as the rapists–a woman (women do rape)–are not ‘common’ to your ‘common standard’. The only thing in common is the rejection of Him. The consequence of that is a downward spiral into depravity.
At the very least she could have shaved her armpits.
I’m just saying…
Do you feel that this is a moral issue?
From her POV she would probably say that she doesn’t offer suggestions about your personal grooming, and her armpits are her business.
For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. . . For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse themon that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of… Read more »
“Also, in DW’s thinking, immodest women forfeit the grounds on which to claim rape is wrong.”
You are mistaken. DW would say no such thing.
“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 think he does. Just above.
Re-reading your original comment, I can see what you might be saying, but I honestly can’t tell from your words if you have understood DW correctly or not.
It is not just “immodest women” but all deniers of an overarching ethical standard who forfeit ethical consistency. Since rape is always, unequivocally wrong, every person is welcome to say so. Some have a defensible, consistent reason for saying so, and slut walk organizers don’t. But they are still correct when they say it.
All who are not obedient to the gospel are essentially deniers of the overarching ethical standard. Yet to all humanity, believers and apostates alike, is given by God the institution of human government. To the extent that they affirm God’s righteous standard (i.e. rape is wrong) they are right. Where they err (should they say there is no line which, when crossed, is sinfully immodest) they are wrong. Their “conflicting thoughts” in failing to affirm the latter does not negate the legitimacy of their affirming the former.
That sounds correct. Do you think Wilson would disagree with that?
Probably not, but does he recognize it (along with Romans 2) renders his point essentially moot? People are right when they affirm God’s truth and wrong where they deny it. Well, duh, as they say. However, Wilson seems to intimate that unless a person affirms all of and only God’s truth, then they deserve no hearing even where they do affirm it. Problem I have here specifically is, I believe, that my innappropriate use of an inappropriate display of a woman’s body is 100% my fault. In my book, nor God’s I believe, the rapist gets no degree of guilt… Read more »
I should have said academic rather than moot above.
You say: “Wilson seems to intimate that unless a person affirms all of and only God’s truth, then they deserve no hearing even where they do affirm it.”
Wilson says: “If somebody kidnapped and raped the most outrageous organizer of the worst slut pride event ever, I would want to see that rapist punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
Friend, it seems that something is hindering your full understanding of what you read.
Actually, something is hindering your understanding of the distinction between taking action against an offender and writing off the arguments of someone whose worldview is not consistent.
This is nonsense. The idea that slut-walking women are trying to communicate with rapists is a false premise. It is more likely that they are communicating with society at large and with other women who have been similarly shamed or raped. What woman tries to communicate with a rapist – either those she knows or those she doesn’t? This is a patriarchal assumption that the conversation revolves around males and rapists.
I spent a week hate-reading Wilson and Doug I hate to tell you this but there is not in fact a social contract where women have continually justify why they should not be assaulted, and failure to do so is not in fact justification for such crime. Also, I hate to break this to you but rape is a crime, not a fashion choice, despite your false equivalence above. I know, rape being a crime is such a bummer huh. Why can’t people treat it like a fashion choice like you do in your church. Huh, maybe you should go… Read more »