Okay. We’ll play out the logical extension of your argument. What should be optional and who should decide? Lets say my child feels uncomfortable getting into a bathing suit to attend a swimming lesson. They think its unnecessary to get into a half naked state and violates their right to remain covered up and completely clothed. Is that fair?

What about when we go to the doctors and they need a physical exam? Do they have the right to veto this? What about if I want them to come and see Gran and Grandad, but they don’t like Gran and Grandad because Gran and Grandad are old and it makes them ‘feel funny’. Do they get to veto this?

Who gets to decide what should be mandatory? You? Me? The Government or the child? That is the question that needs to be addressed. A society can’t function when it comprises of everyone creating rules and regulations on their own subjective experience. Laws, rules and guidelines have to be created that balance the rights and responsibilities of all the members — and that is a more complex and nuanced thing than this article, or your answer suggests. And I say that as a libertarian.

See… this discussion wasn’t about the dancing, it was about the logical extension of what comes from basing a society around subjective whims of individuals. For what it’s worth, I don’t think in this instance girls should be made to accept invitations and forced to dance withe people they don’t like. (Read my responses to the other commenter for a more detailed discussion on those points) — the approach was heavy handed and ill suited for the situation — but the knee-jerk response (nobody should be forced to do something they don’t like) is equally cack-handed and maladaptive.

I’m not going to respond to the final point, because it is largely a character attack without substantiation. I’m more than happy to discuss anything on Medium in a respectful way, but I won’t trade insults with strangers — that’s what Twitter is for (and why I’m not on it).