Still, the valid source of the anger is the notion that rapist is not a criminal because his victim was dressed immodestly. Kennedy-Smith, Assanage, that guy from Iraqi inspection team, Polanski,... they all got found innocent because their victim “was a slut.”
Fellow Christians, look at this way:
Christ announced his mission was “to bring glad tidings to the poor... to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”
Suppose a 19-year-old girl, going with the crowd, dresses a little racy and gets raped. Who is she going to feel better towards to, the person who scolds her because it’s her own fault, or the person who is enraged towards the rapist? The anger needs to be towards the rapist!
These rapists who get off because the women “dress like sluts” aren’t guys who couldn’t sort out a mixed signal, or because the jury doesn’t buy that it wasn’t a case of “buyer’s remorse.” Read up on the Julian Assanage case or the William Kennedy Smith case. The jury has premitted the attitude that “she wanted to have a sensual time with SOMEONE, therefore she gave ANYONE the lisence to do whatever to her, no matter how painful. In the Kennedy Smith case, it was because she wore black, lacy panties
Are you SURE your daughter has never worn black, lacy panties? If you’re younger, are you sure your wife never did in her single days?
This rally totally a wrong-headed response, since it promotes promiscuity and degradation. (Who rages against burglary by leaving their doors unlocked?) But there is also real, justified rage. And frankly, if we Christians do our job and answer, “Yes, but...” instead of “No,” we may find that there is a value in the argument, “Even if they are sluts, they are still people who do not deserve terror, torture and rape.”