In all fairness, this aunt should be a typical "enthusiastic aunt". For example, she said that "girls can't dress like this, and they are not used to it" and "we didn't dress like this before, and boys can't". The whole process just emphasized her point of view without strong accusations, which made the girls involved regard this behind-the-scenes "large-scale social death scene" (interesting experience) as "secondary communication". This emphasis is not to defend the aunt's words and deeds, but to feel that this matter is not easy to move towards absolute moral examination. You know, "cyber warriors" have raised their fists, and as long as the girl gives the order, they will flock to them.
On the contrary, girls bluntly say that public places are not suitable for breaking diplomatic relations. In this matter, she should consider from two aspects: on the one hand, although the aunt's words and deeds have crossed the line, because there is no malice and the scene is humorous, the girl is not angry; On the other hand, even if the girls concerned use "freedom to dress" to choke back, it is estimated that it will have no effect. After all, it is not so easy for a person like this aunt to "persuade" through simple arguments, especially in the case of meeting by chance, which is basically impossible. The reason is that besides the premise of "dress freedom", "dress ethics" is still rampant.
Even though the age of the cognitive subject will show different changes, it is essentially the same strain. Let's make a comparison between "the aunt reprimands the girl wearing legless pants" and "the boy points at the girl wearing black stockings". Fundamentally speaking, it is actually a moral judgment. Aunt's starting point is that it should not be "like that" and that "like that" is indecent; For boys, pointing fingers mainly lies in obscenity, which is neither realistic nor pleasing to the eye. Therefore, we will find that just shouting "freedom to dress" can only seem reasonable and may not really solve the problem. In this regard, we will find that the handling of girls is relatively wise. Although she also feels a little embarrassed, she has skillfully resolved it through a sense of contrast.
In fact, this also gives us a revelation. In the face of "persuasion", even if the other party's opinion doesn't meet our wishes, as long as the other party doesn't force us to accept it, then we don't need malicious understanding or strong "response". Because Rawls has long said that "the burden of trial" has always existed. In this case, if you can't reach an understanding communication, you'd better leave it alone.
Of course, if the aunt is involved in all kinds of moral abuse of the girl, it is obviously not just a question of improper words and deeds, but has risen to the level of personal attack. In this case, the aunt has obviously gone beyond the scope of "persuasion", and the girls concerned can take self-defense measures (direct counterattack or help).