JOHN PURDY writes:

Here is a letter to the editor I sent to my local newspaper in response to this column about slut walks.

To the Editor,

This is a typical example of feminists making a cause célèbre out of an inept remark. I doubt very much Constable Michael Sanguinetti was trying to imply that sluttily dressed women deserve to be raped.

If I walk into a known biker bar, wearing an expensive suit and flashing a wad of hundreds to pay for my drinks, do I want to be mugged? No. Do I deserve to be mugged? Again, no. Have I greatly increased my risk of getting mugged? Definitely. Therefore I never do things like that.

It is a peculiar, recent and pernicious idea that because, in principle, everyone should be secure, therefore no one should have to constrain his behaviour in any way to reduce his risks. Dressing provocatively increases the probability of unwanted attention from men. It is not a matter of wanting it or deserving it: it is simply a fact of life. That babies and grandmothers are raped changes nothing.

                                        — Comments —

A.M. writes:

The matter is especially perverse because it is fashionable nowadays, in any situation besides rape, to snarkily say that someone “deserves” to be victimized, if left open to attack.

As in your example, many would caustically say the man in your analogy does deserve to be mugged. In other words, “If you put yourself at risk, you have only yourself to blame.” It’s as if to say that some are brutish but blameless, and cannot help themselves. Thus the victim is the responsible party. Rather than seek to maintain order through justice, the cynic resigns himself to the reign of evil. He may fancy himself tough and hard-headed, but truly he is a relativist. Taken seriously, he implies there is no right or wrong, only selfish actions.

Laura writes:

The number of people in Western society who believe a woman deserves to be raped because she dresses in provocative clothes is so tiny as to be insignificant. The entire issue is a straw man because that is not what Michael Sanguinetti stated. Furthermore, courts do not exonerate rapists on the basis of how their victims dressed and rape victims are accorded immense sympathy no matter how they were dressed when they were attacked. Even prostitutes who are raped and injured are considered sympathetic victims.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

Laura said: . Furthermore, courts do not exonerate rapists on the basis of how their victims dressed and rape victims are accorded immense sympathy no matter how they were dressed when they were attacked. Even prostitutes who are raped and injured are considered sympathetic victims. 

Not always! Take a recent case in Canada, as follows. The slutwalking types went apoplectic over this. True, this wasn’t total exoneration, but pretty darn close.

Laura writes:

The man was not exonerated. He was sentenced with community service. Do you really think he should have gone to prison in this case? I think the judge was correct in taking into consideration the way the victim dressed and her actions in arriving at a sentence.

Alex A. writes:

Your correspondent, John Purdy, writes: “It is a peculiar, recent and pernicious idea that because, in principle, everyone should be secure, therefore no one should have to constrain his behaviour in any way to reduce his risks.”

This observation gets to the heart of the matter. Deliberately exposing oneself to danger in order to demonstrate a principle is not necessarily foolish or irresponsible. A great deal depends on the nature of the principle. But a prudent person entering an unfamiliar or unpredictable situation will err on the side of caution and never assume it is or ought to be secure.

Women are, or used to be, naturally more cautious than men. They should consult their safety before deciding to dress “provocatively” and allowing themselves to get drunk etc. There are and always will be vicious men ready to take advantage with the excuse, “she’s asking for it”. Every woman knows this and none “deserves” to suffer, but many have been encouraged to assert themselves regardless of the consequences.

Bill Wilson writes:

I think that the question goes much deeper than simply asking whether woman (or anyone) has a ‘right’ to behave in a certain way. There are essentially zero people that take the position that this putative ‘right’ is one which should be limited by law. The marches, the protests, the diatribes, whatever else they may be, are not pushes to change our laws–they are really statements of something much deeper.

The Christian view (and those who take it) has always accepted this one, key, inalterable, and essential truth to understanding our world: the heart of man is sin. The feminist protesters would say that the real heart of their protest is against a paternalistic, male-centric system which casts woman as victims and then permits their victimization. But the truth which is implicit in the prudent advice given to young women is unchanging: the heart of man is sin. Marriage is a central aspect of our civilization not least because it offers a true protection for women, in which sex is an instrument of love, not power, and in which the vast differences between the sexes can be reconciled. So the protests are really forwarding the view that the problem is the system (not sin) and therefore is correctable through political action, rather than God’s forgiveness. Ultimately, the feminists, more than anything else, wish to deny their need for repentance and redemption and to be reconciled to Christ. Everything else is a kind of smokescreen. And I think that this is true of all of the political issues which befuddle us these days.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

Bill Wilson writes, “the heart of man is sin.” 

Non-Christians get their hackles up when they hear this, because the word “sin” is loaded. People don’t understand what is really meant: that we are sinners not because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners. We are imperfect. This needs to be explained better. If I had not by chance heard this on a Christian TV programme, I would still protest the statement that “all people are sinners”. No one wants to think he or she goes around deliberately doing evil day in and day out.

Paul C. writes:

We are not sinners because we sin but sin because we are by nature sinners, an inherited quality more pervasive than any other quality. It is humbling yet comforting knowledge and food for further thought.

Mr. Wilson writes:

I agree with Hurricane Betsy that the word “sin” carries a great deal of meaning, and that almost no one goes around thinking about and trying to do evil all day. But I think that this is, in the end, a difference in semantics. Once the emotional impact of the word “sin” is gotten over, so to speak, the essential meaning remains the same.

A very soft way to say this is that we are indeed all imperfect, and that God will, if we give him a chance, make us all perfect. But I guess I would ask about the motives of anyone who wishes to soften the idea of our imperfection. The harshness of contrast is not between how the average person goes about his daily life and how a person who has become a Christian will go about his daily life. The starkness of the contrast lies in a comparison between a person’s heart (my heart, your heart, anyone’s heart) and the perfect goodness and holiness of God. The wretchedness of man is not an emotional concept designed to bring about pointless self-immolation, but rather a concept which is part of a proper understanding of God, and how we truly relate to him in our natural state. Once the natural state of man is understood, and the holiness of God is set side-by-side with it, simply stating the “the heart of man is sin” is indeed itself a very softened version of the truth. So further softening, rather than bring light and truth, only clouds the issue, and excludes the goodness of God from the conversation.

This is why I think that it is imperative for Christians to speak plainly and openly, from our point of view, about matters of truth. Trying to put things in terms that are inherently more easily understood to the secular world, rather than clarify, only obscures further. No one is ever convinced of the truth of Christianity logically (or very rarely), but many people find that terms such as sin, holiness, lostness, perdition make sense to them in their natural state, when they are being most honest with themselves. If these things do not resonate with a person, then the preparation of their heart is still within the realm of the Holy Spirit, and softening the discussion, telling them that they are imperfect (rather than sinful) only does them a disservice in the end. The job of the Christian is only to tell the truth, not to be diplomats, ever softening of weakening the truth of the Gospel. Of course this does not mean that there is not room for tact, or manners.

Please follow and like us: