The more I think about it, the more absurd the premise of Slut Walk seems to be.

Their fundamental premise is that the police and law system is omnipotent, and should be expected to perfectly protect the “rights” of woman to dress however they please. So if they wish to dress like a “slut”, then the police and legal system should use their infinite powers and resources to restrain the lust of every chikopeh and sexually desperate and depraved man from raping them, not attributing any casual responsibility to them.

But this premise is simply absurd. The deterrence powers of the police and law system is not infinite. Sure, we expect them to investigate, identify and persecute all crimes committed and reported. But it is surely better to prevent them than to punish it after the fact. And though of course the legal system and police also has a deterring role to play, but their abilities are empirically contingent and finite.

An analogy would be the fact that we have police posters advising woman to not wear ostentatious jewelry in public or carry their bags loosely, lest they get robbed. Are they trying to cramp the woman’s fashion sense? Suppress their freedom of expression? Of course not. Nobody makes a hooha about these posters and warnings. They are simply advising the public to take pragmatic and practical measures to prevent theft in the first place by not advertising one’s wealth so openly and making themselves a target of thievery.

Only in a superstitious age where people believe that the police force or law system are like guardian angels or gods on the watch always and everywhere instead of being bound to the contingency and limitations of this empirical world can people make such absurd arguments and hold such ridiculous expectations…