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.
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.
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.