When you protest in weird ways like that, people may be for your cause but they don't want to associate with you because of the way you're protesting.

First, there are advantages to such a visible approach: It gets people to participate who wouldn't otherwise, and it gets far more attention. I'd argue that those outweigh the disadvantages of being "weird".

Second, I wonder if that argument is so much concern trolling. Not exactly in your case; I don't doubt that your agreement with the protesters' cause is sincere. But I think that your argument here may stem more from your admitted discomfort with the actions (or just the clothes?) of the protesters than any actual evidence that a "weird" protest will be less effective in influencing people's opinion/attention in a desirable way.

Not to mention some of the people at these walks are wearing not that much clothing. And I'm totally against people doing that in public. Kid's should not have to witness that and they might end up because you're walking out on the street after all.

(An apostrophe does not mean, "Look out, here comes the 's'!")

I can't speak for what was beyond my view at the march, but I didn't see any people dressed in clothes more revealing than what one might see on a public beach, and I didn't see any pornographic or otherwise obscene content. I've seen significantly more "shocking" outfits worn in public by people who, nonetheless, still remained well within the bounds of the law.

Actually, I'm surprised your concern is about clothes and is not the more typical concern about signs. As for the latter: I don't think public speech about sex in the abstract is harmful to children, and I think that parents would do better talking to their children in response to such content instead of trying to shield their child's eyes and ears or urging restraint for those who wish to say such things in public in general.

Suggesting that skimpy clothing is inherently harmful to children is just silly. Unless, perhaps, you think the implied message is "you should dress like this". For those seeing the protest in person, I think it was pretty clear that the message was not that, though I'll admit the photos showcased in the media were more skewed. I would argue that's a preexisting problem with the media that would not have been mitigated by the absence of this protest.

And thanks a lot for doubting me and wondering whether I'm concern trolling! [...] it's just a hypothesis, I never claimed I had any evidence.

Like I said, I don't doubt your sincerity. But since you didn't have evidence for your views, it's not unreasonable to question the origin of that intuition. Yes, I'm being a bit aggressive and could be more polite. But I wanted to express why (and that) I find that argument aggravating.

I would just talk to my kid about what they just saw and tell them not to use the words written on signs. (I'm not quite sure what I would say though.)

I think there are three key pieces of context (how you express these depends on the child):

1. "Slut" is a word used generally used to insult women who the speaker thinks act in a way that is "too sexy", who are too loud/visible, who have "too much" sex or have sex "too easily", or who have or talk about sex in a way the speaker doesn't approve of (in some cases, at all).

2. Bullies (including adult bullies) can be quite flexible with what insulting words mean. The point is to hurt or silence.

3. Taking on a label for yourself is very different from labeling someone else, especially if the intent is to hurt them, silence them, or say that you know what's best for them.

4. Bullies like to set their victims against one another. Sometimes it's more important to stand together than to argue over what labels mean and who, exactly, they apply to.

And… the word that they're reclaiming— it's not something to be proud of.

As Friedman pointed out in the speech I linked to, it's a word with an awfully flexible definition, one that is often applied to behaviors that I'd view as non-objectionable or even virtuous: Valuing honesty when expressing one's desires, holding "enthusiastic consent" as the standard in sexual relationships (and relationships in general), promoting sexual education and safer sex practices. People have been called "sluts" for all of those and more.

Now, as someone who cares about safer sex and sex education, I am certainly not going to say that having sex is a good thing to do for everyone in all contexts. People engage in sexual behavior for bad reasons or in self-destructive ways. But I don't think the marchers' message was at all opposed to that point.

You should say what you mean—not what will get you publicity; you should say "Stop blaming victims for rape" and stuff like that

The marchers did say exactly that sort of thing, clearly, repeatedly, and explicitly. There is something about ad hoc organization that prevents perfect uniformity of message, different people want to express slightly different things, and it's hard to express complex, interlinking ideas in a way that's both pithy and evocative.

But if you want a really clear expression of the march's message, read that speech I linked to. I think that explains the rhetorical framing of the march very well, it's not just about "getting publicity".