* * *
I wonder how much of the controversy has been caused because society has lost the concept of temptation. John C. Wright once wrote about how difficult he found it to adjust to the Christian lifestyle because, prior to his conversion from atheism, his code of ethics was basically defined such that anything he wanted to do was morally allowable. Once he realized that certain things he really, really wanted to do were not OK, he struggled with keeping his passions in check. (I may be mis-quoting him. I don't have time to find the story.)
In today's society, where "anything goes", I suppose that many people simply are unaware that it can be difficult to order your appetites and passions to your intellect. The prevailing attitude is "I can do what I want, and it's your job to not let that affect you." Much of this attitude might simply be due to ignorance of human nature.
Of course, it could also be because the police officer violated the 1st commandment of the Post-Christian West: "Thou shalt not tell me what to do."
* * *
The interesting thing about the "Slut Walks" that have been going on, and the attitude "I can dress however I want" is that, in a perfect, unfallen world, that would be true. If there were no original sin, then there would be no sexual predation, and no need to protect yourself from it. Of course, in this fallen, sinful world we live in, prudence (and charity) demands that we take measures to protect ourselves from the weak-willed, as well as take reasonable measures not to tempt them.
Like all philosophies that deny God and original sin (Marxism and Nietzsche-ism come to mind), these ideas fall apart in their belief that man can be perfected in this life.