I think it goes something like this:

"Do angels have free will?" is a trick question. Technically, the answer is yes, but in effect the answer is no. The angels have such a clear perception of G-d's reality that they do not dare rebel against Him. They see the consequences of their actions so clearly that to go against G-d's will, would be literally suicidal. The service of the angels is similar to having a gun at your head and being told, "give me a present." It's not a real present unless you choose to give it. There is no such thing as a gift under duress. If I put a knife to your throat and tell you to love me, that is not true love. Yet you would give the gift, and say, "I love you" because the consequence is so clear. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve's perception of G-d was similar to that of the angels. This is what our sages meant when they said that in the Garden of Eden the evil inclination was outside of man (Nefesh HaChaim 1:6, see note "VeHaInyan"). Internally, Adam and Eve had no desire to go against Hashem, because His existence was so clear to them.

The sin of eating from the tree of knowledge changed the human perception of G-d and the world. No longer was G-d's presence so immanent; the human scope of free will had been broadened. Somehow, G-d's existence had become cloudy.

Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed (1:2) explains that the disparity in the human perception before and after the sin as the difference between true and false versus good and bad. Before partaking from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve had no perception of "good and bad." They saw the world through a window of "true and false."

What is the difference between these two perceptions?

True and false are objective:
1+1=2 is true. Is it good or bad? That is an irrational question. It is not good or bad, it simply IS. 1+1=4,765 is false. Is it bad? No, it is simply false. With arithmetic one can have an objective reality.

Good and bad are subjective:
Is a sports-car good or bad? That depends; if I care about gas-mileage, then it may be bad. If I care about "looking cool," then it is probably good. Is killing people good or bad? Even that depends on if the person is innocent or on death row. Depending on what ones goal is, his definition of good and bad will change. Good-bad is not an objective reality, it is subjective; it depends on what YOU want out of it. Killing people is not bad in the same way that 1+1=4,765 is false. In arithmetic, an answer is false because it is objectively wrong. However, even killing is not objectively wrong, because it is a subjective issue. [The only reason we have any objective morality at all is because G-d told us what is moral and what is not in His Torah.]

If a scientist could take his work home with him, he would never be attracted to a member of the opposite sex. Science tells us that human's are composed of muscles, nerves, bones, sinews, etc. That is what the scientist sees at the office. If we saw the world like that, the opposite sex would cease to be exciting. What attracts us to the opposite sex is not what is in that person, but rather what is in our heads. Similarly, when one buys a car, he seldom purchases an automobile. Usually, he acquires an entire kit'n'kaboodle of projected images. A "car," is a seat atop wheels powered by an engine that can get someone from point A to point B in a significantly short interval of time. While some consumers may be interested in mileage and getting their moneysworth, most want the image that comes along with a specific type of automobile. "The guy with the 'vette gets all the girls." The "babe-mobile" image is not objectively there; it is in his head. It's a good car, for what he wants out of it. If you want mileage out of your car, then a sportscar may be a "bad" car. If you want the image that comes with the car, then a mustang may be a very "good" car. It depends on what YOU want out of it.

Now we can understand the difference between Adam and Eve's perception of the world before and after partaking from the tree of knowledge. Maimonides said that before the sin, they had a true-false perception; an objective view of the world. After the sin, they had a good-bad perception; a subjective perception of the world.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve perceived the world as true-false, not as good-bad. In a world like that, being naked is not the least bit embarrassing. Sexual organs have an objective purpose. It is only when the subjective, "how is it good for ME" perception takes over that clothes become necessary. What resulted from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and bad, was that this new perception of good and bad entered the world. The scope of free will had been widened; the world was no longer as clear as true-false, now the world would have a subjective element to it. In a world like that, being naked can be very embarrassing. It is a sad situation when people only have value in a subjective sense; when a person's value becomes determined by how much you like him or her, or by how much pleasure YOU get out of that person. Yet, we do not live in the Garden of Eden, so how can we deal with our reality, and regain our lost perception? How can we make the world a more objective place?

The world today faces a major problem: Many men treat women as objects. Worse then that, many treat them as sexual objects. This is the problem at the forefront of feminism today, and is a direct result of the sin of the tree of knowledge. The Torah has an approach, and feminism (L'Havdil) has the exact opposite approach. A few years ago, a Canadian Supreme Court decision was made stating that women are permitted to walk around outside barechested. Many feminists were actively supported this decision. They argued that a woman should have the right to stroll barechested, since men do. Of course, the reaction of the average male citizen to the thought of seeing barechested women on the street was that it was a great idea (even if he didn't support the decision, he would still love to see it for free!)! Who needs magazines anymore! Doesn't such a decision therefore defeat the purpose of feminism? The feminist response was that if women strolling barechested became the norm, then breasts would cease to be a sexual object and men would get bored gawking at them. Of course, this decision is not enough. In order to accomplish the feminist goal, women would have to be REQUIRED to go barechested. In fact, they would have to go altogether naked, in order to assure that no women will ever again be regarded as a sex object. This is the logical conclusion of the argument; however, no steps have as of yet been taken to legalize "indecent" exposure. (These feminists apparently want a world in which no one is attracted to anyone else.)

In reality, everyone knows that by dressing (or undressing) in a certain manner, it will attract the opposite sex. For example, when a man sees a barechested woman, he will relate to her as an object.
Should he? No.
Is she helping him view a woman as a human being? No.
Is she hampering his ability to view a woman as a person? Yes.
The result of such an exchange is that men will continue to relate to women as objects, because that is how they present themselves.

When a woman dresses modestly, a man may still relate to her as an object, or he may not, since that is not how she is presenting herself.
Should he relate to her as an object? No.
Is she helping him view women as human beings? Yes.
Is she hampering his ability to view a woman as a person? No.
In the subjective reality in which we live, the way to be viewed as a person and not as an object, is to present yourself as one. The more we try to attract the opposite sex, the more we maintain the subjective perception of the world, and the more women will continue to be viewed by some as sex objects.

This is part of the Torah's answer to feminism. The Torah commanded us regarding modesty in order to inculcate the perception that a woman is a person and not an object. Instead of making the situation worse, a modestly dressed woman makes the situation better. It is incumbent upon every man to perceive a woman as a person. Similarly, it is incumbent upon every woman to allow him to do so. One may not put a stumbling block in front of a blind man. If a woman walks around in a bikini, she may or may not be consciously declaring, "I am an object." However, that is how the average male will perceive her. It's her choice; she can either help the situation, or make it worse for everyone. Eve made clothes.

But don't I have a right to walk around in a bikini? Who cares what the men think, I want to be comfortable!

There are two things to keep in mind in regards to this issue. Firstly, no one lives in a vacuum. Whatever you do affects others as well as yourself. No matter what your intentions, all actions have reactions that we must recognize. If a woman wants to dress immodestly, there are at least three parties being affected: The woman herself, the man seeing her, and womankind in general. That being said, the second issue is "rights."

Here we enter into the realm of a more general problem. If one examines historical world philosophies, he will notice a general trend. Ancient philosophies focused on "duties," while modern philosophies focus on "rights." The philosophy of rights is a very selfish philosophy in which I am the focus. In a duties-based philosophy, the focus is on the person to whom I have obligations. The Torah does not focus on rights. Instead we have Mitzvos, commandments, or obligations to others. In other words, we have duties. It is interesting that when everyone is focused on their obligations, everyone's rights all somehow manage to be taken care of on their own.

One of the results of a "rights" philosophy is the increasingly high divorce rate around the world. People become selfishly focused on their rights and lose their sense of obligations. In other words, people become focused on themselves and forget that other people exist too. When the garbage needs to be taken out, I can view that as fulfilling a duty that I have as husband to help my wife out. Or it can be a burden and I can focus on my right to do other things and let her take out the stinking garbage. One's perception of garbage removal depends on his focus: is it an obligation, which benefits others, or a chore that I have a right to avoid. Do we care about anyone other then ourselves? Do we care about the Jewish people? Do we even truly care about womankind? There is a negative commandment not to cause another person to transgress a prohibition (do not put a stumbling block before a blind man). We have an obligation to look out for each other. The least a woman can do to help HERSELF, is to dress modestly and not make it more difficult for men to relate to women as human beings. This benefits her directly in that she presents herself and can be viewed as a person. This benefits womankind, in that women in general cannot be viewed as objects, since this one is not. This also benefits the Jewish People, because it is one more step back towards the Garden of Eden and an objective perception of the world. If a woman truly values the perception of women as human beings, she will dress modestly.

Part 2: Negiya - Touching the Opposite Sex
Jewish Law prohibits members of the opposite sex from engaging in any type of physical contact with one another until they are married (family members are excluded). If one understands the Torah's concept of modesty, this prohibition, called Negiya in the vernacular, should be easy to understand. As everyone knows, physical contact with the opposite sex is exciting. The doorway to treating members of the opposite sex as objects is physical contact. Let's be real, before a child is ready to be married, any "relationship" that he or she has, revolves around the physical element and has nothing to do with commitment.

A Rabbi of mine used to say that the most important person at a wedding is the photographer. He was not referring to the guy holding the camera. What he meant was that people today seldom know who they really are. We grow up and we are told what to do, what to wear, how to act, etc. either by our parents (yeah right!) or our teachers (ditto), or, usually, our friends. We are primarily products of our society and more specifically, a product of our personal social group. A school near me has a shop class in which they ask the senior students (8th grade) to make something that reflects themselves. These pieces are then posted on the lunchroom walls for posterity. Nine out of ten of these works of art, are either imitations of advertisements, or their favorite media personality. Is that who they are?! Is that how they want to be remembered when they die? I realize that we are talking about immature school children, but the point is just as applicable to older kids, just look at their High School yearbook pages. So two people like this "get married." They don't really know who they are, but they have a projected image that they identify with. So in truth, two pictures are getting together. They will have family pictures and baby pictures, but that is all they will ever be...pictures. These two people will never meet.

How can two people ever really meet? Step one is by getting to know the person. If a relationship revolves around the physical element, then it is in danger of being a completely selfish and superficial one. Take a look at a boyfriend-girlfriend "relationship" in High School. In general, they are two people using each other for self-gratification. Do they love each other? No, they love the physical pleasure their partner provides them with; they love themselves. Want proof? See what happens when the physical contact stops. If we want to have serious relationships with others, it has to begin with a serious attempt to see the other person, not ourselves. Using another human being for self-gratification is not a relationship.

Part 3: Shidduch Dating
This brings us to the final point. Before a person is ready for marriage, any relationship is likely to be a purely physical one. The reason is simple; neither party is prepared for a commitment. So what if a person is prepared to be married, what is the best way to find ones spouse?

You meet a guy/girl in a bar:
Why did the two of you connect?
Because you were attracted to each other.
Do you have anything in common?
Yes, we like the same TV shows, we listen to the same music, etc. (we identify with the same projected images).

Here we have a prime candidate for divorce. They could get lucky and form a serious relationship, but the chances are slim. What we have here is a "relationship" forming between two projected images that may not have anything real in common (they may not even be of the same religion), other then sharing the same forms of self gratification. I like to feel good, you like to feel good, let's feel good together.

The way that shidduch dating works, is that you decide what type of person you are looking for. You tell a matchmaker what type of philosophy you have on life, what type of lifestyle you wish to lead, what your primary values are in life, and the like. Then you are matched with someone who meets as many of those categories as possible. The two people already have their life goals in common, their whole outlook on life and lifestyle are identical. All that is left to determine is chemistry. On the date, they are forced to talk, since no physical contact is permitted. They will try to get to know each other in a relationship that is not focused on self-gratification and projected images. Is it guaranteed? Of course not. But, compare the chances of this couple, whom already have everything going for them, to the two lovebirds in the pub. Who has a better chance at a serious relationship?

The best way to go: Meet a modestly dressed girl on a shidduch date. She is not projecting herself as an object; he can perceive her as a person. They don't touch each other, so they have to talk and get to know each other. They already have the essential aspects of their life dreams and goals in common, so all that is left to determine is the ephemeral "chemistry." What more could you ask for?