it's not that i disagree with you. i do agree with you. when you say that you ought to be able to wear what you want and feel comfortable and confident and safe, you're absolutely right - you ought to be able to. this is essentially a logical type of thinking.

where i run into difficulties with the line of thinking is trying to extrapolate it from the point of logical reasoning to the point of empirical enquiry. you ought to. but can you?

i'm not going to pretend like the science is here, but it is currently leaning towards male sexual responses being inherently impulsive. we're not quite dogs. but, we might not be as different from them as we'd like to think. generally, this argument applies in less mundane circumstances than standing in line at a tesco, but nonetheless...

now, the reason this is important is that the problem is often framed in cultural terms - which is a logical argument. we tend to think that if we just spend a lot of time explaining to these guys that they ought to smarten up and be more respectful then they will - that our logic will be triumphant. and we look at dude a and dude b and say "if dude a can be respectful, why can't dude b?".

the upcoming problem that may be necessary to very difficultly grapple with is that dude b might be acting out of a different genetic configuration that puts him in hormonal and cognitive states that cannot be effectively transcended without treatment.

i'm not exactly saying that that's true. i'm very much hoping it's not true. however, i'm pointing out that it very well might be true, and the sum of evidence is suggesting that it may actually be likely to be true.

which brings you back to the is/ought issue. you ought to. but...

[something about a shirt in tesco]