Furthmore, Valerie,

I strongly believe that we all have equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but to do so without unjustly infringing on the legitimate space of others. I believe these rights are inalienable and correct for everyone, from all cultures. Thereto, I believe in freedom of expression, as long as it doesn't directly endanger others (as in shouting, "Fire", in a movie theater when there isn't any fire).

The Saudi culture/government is obviously in conflict with this belief and, just because they have a political boundary defining the borders of their nation does not mean that the definition of freedom is any different there, or even should be different as defined above, in this post.

With your ideas, and correct me if I err, that each nation can set a new definition of what freedom means, progress or change for the better can and will be critically hampered. They need to question their beliefs, as we all should, and truly determine the real reasons for their oppressive laws.

I submit this law is based on a cultural assumption that males have a right to not control their sexual impulses and that, therefore, the laws should cater to them by preventing anyone in society from expressing sexual inducements that may excite a male. How's that for male dominance?!

Women must, thereby, walk about completely covered, regardless of the weather conditions while men can dress as they please, as long as their head is covered. Women are killed if they are raped while the man gets a relative slap on the wrist, if that.

You don't see something wrong with this?