"Short skirts and respect", or "to justify or not justify an agression" or "freedom?"

I’ve been thinking about it for quite some time now, but since I saw Lesson # 1238 of Surviving the World on November 21st 2011, I decided to write about the subject.

First of all, let’s get something clear, this issue can be approached in more than one way, but since I’ve studied law under the “Civil Law” model, I’ll try to approach it accordingly (nevertheless all “Commonlaw” model opinions are welcome), so here’s the thing:  Where do we draw the line in the confrontation between “freedom” and “respect”? (I deliberately write both words that way as they aren’t univocal concepts.)

Wait for a moment, re-read the question and ponder it…  at a first glance everybody may have an opinion, nevertheless it may change one way or another once re-thinked. The post at “STW” blew my mind as I thought that problem was exclusive to Mexico (due to the fact that Mexican society considers itself liberal even though it is deeply catholic-conservative). In Mexico most people frown upon girls with short dresses considering it to be an invitation to be harassed or raped, but on the other hand, consider “freedom” as absolute, and here is where it gets tough, but before continuing, I would like you to take a look at the aforementioned post in “STW” here: http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson1238.html

You may consider after reading the previous paragraph and giving it 3 minutes of thought that the solution is simple, no matter how you act, you are free to dress, act and say whatever you like without having to bear with any consequences you know? “Freedom above everything else”.

Then again, that’s not as simple as it sounds, think about it for a moment once again, let’s not get too ahead of ourselves people and remember law was created for once single purpose, and that’s to regulate the actions of the members of a society towards the protection of values such as RESPECT and beliefs.

So let’s re-consider our little experiment, let’s say that a girl goes around prancing in a miniskirt and a mini tank-top (if that’s how it’s called anyway) “showing too much skin”, many of us might say “well, she has a right to dress however she wants, it’s a part of her personality” and I might agree to that, but then again would the same principle apply to a couple of exhibitionists having intercourse at a park in front of a large group of children? Don’t answer just yet… think about it…

I’m not promoting exhibitionism, but then again, the previous argument was that it doesn’t matter how little your clothes are, you have the right to dress anyway you want and not be frowned upon or attacked, so we shouldn’t be splitting hairs here regarding nudism people… following the previous argument, they’re allowed to dress or fail to do so as they see fit, because it represents their personality, and they may even argue that nudism is an essential part of their personalities.               

Some of you may be thinking, ok but you said they were having intercourse right? So THAT’S the problem, not the nudity… well let’s get real people, I don’t think you would like a streaker in your community, that same community in which your little brothers and sisters or children play, aren’t I right? But skipping the point in which nudity proves a problem itself (and we begin to re-consider the concept of “freedom above all”) let’s get to the bigger conundrum.

Action is part of that “absolute freedom” we all seem to advocate for in our younger rebellious days, it’s not only freedom to dress however we want, freedom of speech but also freedom of action, and it may even get to the point in which such freedom gets into conflict with a little thing called RESPECT, and so we wonder “What is respect?” well, it seems it’s nothing but the way people expect to behave during some situations.

Wait, WHAT!? Must I behave in a determined way just because other people want or expect me to? That’s right! That’s respect people, and then again wouldn’t that conflict out young ideas of absolute freedom? Yes it most certainly would, but nevertheless that’s how society works and you might be expected to already know that, so let’s carry on…

If “freedom” implies the “liberty” of acting however anyone likes, and expressing however one decides to, then again the love expressed by the nudists by having intercourse at the park would be perfectly justified, since it is a public place, which means it does not belong to anybody, or that it belongs to everybody (depending on the way you see it), the same as the street the girl walks by, and since they’re expressing themselves (we’re talking about the nudists again) not just by their actions but by how they go on public, and we’re supposedly free to do so, nobody would be able to complain about such scenario.

Some may even say “well, we all know having sex in public is wrong, the law says so, society tells us so”, but I would then argue (just to prove a point): and what if the law doesn’t state so explicitly? And regarding society, well… in the middle east sometimes women who don’t cover their face are frowned upon or even considered immoral, and since almost every country has got immigrants from all over the world, an Islamite in our country (whichever it is) may consider it “wrong” to see women on the street without a burka, or maybe a Brazilian could consider it irrelevant to see a woman going topless down the street, so we might have to render all unwritten laws and society considerations as inapplicable to the problem at hand you see?

Therefore we get again to the initial question, if someone dresses, acts or says something that seems either offensive (and I use the term offensive as it is said that most of the sexual-related crimes are based on a feeling of aggression rather than attraction) or inviting to others, are they entitled to respect for such actions or is the rest of society allowed to act against it?

So then again people, I’m not advocating in pro or against miniskirts or nudism, I’m just wondering, where do we draw the line?