[dudifordMann]

I actually had a rather lengthy debate about clothing with my fiance. It comes down to perspectives and social norms which may need to change to have equality.

Disclaimer: I do understand that this is sociologically complex topic

A woman may choose to wear what someone might consider a revealing piece of clothing for no other reason than she wants to and finds it "cute" (omitting why she has gotten to that conclusion e.g. marketing, etc). To that woman, she chose to wear something that make her happy. She is NOT responsible for the actions of the people around her based on how they view that article of clothing. This ends up always with either victim blaming or claims of "common sense" when really she should be able to go around topless if she so chooses without having to fear others' actions.

In your case, you are already assuming reactions from others which is a whole other route in this conversation. When all is said and done, I find this to be a terribly interesting and complex topic.

[toyg]

I never understood that line of thought. It's like saying one should be free to shout "FIRE!" in a cinema just so that he can feel happy with himself ("hey, my shouting is terrific! I carry no responsibility for what you'll make of the words I say!").

Wearing clothes is a social act, not a personal one. That's why there are laws about it. We geeks should know, considering how we softly strong-armed entire swaths of dress-code rules to bow to practicality over other pre-existing social rules.

That does not mean one cannot stop himself from raping a woman if she wears X or Y (nobody loses control ever, and if one does he should be held accountable for it), but it's dishonest to pretend one should not feel attracted by people wearing clothes designed to make them look attractive.

[dudifordMann]

But that's just it, attraction is an inward feeling/biochemical reaction/etc. I am by no means saying that you cannot feel attracted no one can tell you how to feel. Rather, it is a matter of how you act on that attraction. That is where society says it is or is not okay to harass/act aggressive/etc.

in the context of the original post, a customer was attracted to the image of the fictitious support staffer. How the customer acted shows a perhaps a lack of control. In this case it was "innocent" hitting on (not flirting as one of the other comments suggested). But the fact that the customer felt compelled to is strange in the context of customer support.

Like I said, this is an interesting topic.

[vinceguidry]

> It's like saying one should be free to shout "FIRE!" in a cinema just so that he can feel happy with himself

But the difference in media and consequences matter. When the consequences involve a stampede of people, you best believe it's a different situation than if the consequences amounted to revving up insecure guys.

> Wearing clothes is a social act, not a personal one.

It's both. Until society tells you how you have to dress all the time, then there's a social component and a personal one.

[toyg]

Sure, differences matter, but the point is that there will be consequences. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that they should never be violent or threatening, but it is unreasonable to expect that there will not be any. That's just selfish entitlement: "the world should work this way because it pleases me so, regardless of facts".