Please do . And there is no shame in comparing your blog to their novels , I would call it only a very mild exaggeration , if any at all . =p

ps : Did search , your story checks out

The reason I thought it was fine at first, and am still not sure, is because I was definitely in good company saying/doing that (not to sound pretentious or anything ): Atwood’s Oryx and Crake and Handmaid’s Tale, Bradbury’s Farenheit 451, and of course Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, not to mention Huxley’s Brave New World are all 300-page “runaway trains” for the same reason as mine (social if not feminist commentary), yet famous and lauded for the points they so excellently make about society, and for how they make them! And Atwood actually said that she wrote Handmaid’s Tale in order to show what the “logical conclusion, if followed all the way to the end” (paraphrased) of today’s society would be. And parts of all of those novels have actually come true to a certain extent, and they were all way ahead of their times.

Not that I’m comparing my blog to their novels of course, I don’t mean or want to do that at all, but just in terms of looking specifically at that technique of “exaggerating”, or following allllllllll the way through to the end of a certain line of logic or progression based on existing malfunctions in society.

So, that’s my excuse, but now I really want to answer the question myself why it’s okay to use it that way (or why I think so), but at the same time doesn’t really make sense to say, for instance, “Speeding can kill people so people should NEVER drive fast.”

I will get back to you on that!

p.s. Lol I swear, just do a search on it! =P

ps : I really want to believe you on your use of “nay is nay” , but still , it drew a chuckle

I should make one thing clear though, which is that I welcome devil’s advocates who play the role for the intellectual pursuit of it, not trolls who are just mean-spirited or deliberately trying to provoke (again, I mean provoke emotionally, not intellectually). Having said that, I’m happy to also say you seem to be of the former!

So, I’m not sure how much of your comment was answered when you went through the comments after leaving it, but I’ll just reply here, anyway.

You’re right that there’s definitely a difference of extremities between the two statements you started off with, and I can understand how you see it as a runaway train argument. But the thing is, to steal the metaphor, runaway trains only arrive at their end point quicker than other, speed limit-following trains. The road in between is still the same track. If you start at the “softer” statement and keep following it logically along the road it starts you on, the extreme statement is the eventual conclusion you come to, showing the danger or fallacy in the first statement, even if it doesn’t seem “that bad” in itself.

As for the “a person should be able to wear anything” part, I agree with you. I think I didn’t get myself across very well when I said that, because I meant that paragraph as in principle…in the real world, of course, it doesn’t work at all. I was trying to articulate what I felt should be, not what is. (Although…well, I don’t know if we’re just getting into semantics or metaphysics or what now, but I might also argue that the paragraph *does* describe what is, in a universal sense, and our society is just living messed-up-ly against that.)(I mean in the same sense that different races are equal, not “should be” equal, yet the world doesn’t live by that, either.) I hope that wasn’t too confusing!

“tippy-toe approaches towards horizontality”—hahaha! I think this line made my day XD

I don’t think women are surprised by such advances, but unless they act or speak like they’re soliciting them, then the woman being annoyed or bothered has a right to be so, if she’s being solicited against her will. It all goes back to assumptions, and what you said about not knowing who’s dressing for that purpose and who isn’t, so err on the side of respect rather than sexism/misogyny, right?

As for the ogling vs. looking accidentally/casually, I don’t think women should expect men to forever and always not look, and that it is unfair if they do. What women should expect is that if the men do look or see accidentally, they’ll still be treated and thought of with respect regardless of what they’re wearing. And respect means, to sum it all up in the ultimate cliche, respecting her decision and understanding that “no means no”. (Wow, that’s actually the first time I’ve used that phrase on this entire blog, believe it or not!)

As for the zen master, coming on to, hitting on, schmoozing, and picking up don’t count as inadvertent actions =P Inadvertent physical actions are fine! But saying certain words in a certain order with a certain tone, and most other things involved in “soliciting” are definitely not inadvertent. But of course I don’t blame any guys for blushing, sweating, feeling weak in the knees, or…other such reactions…lol.

” she should be able to wear anything and not be judged or derogated for it, because what you wear has (should have) nothing to do with other people. It’s a personal choice, it doesn’t’t change their personality or make them more or less anything they already are or aren’t’t, and really it’s none of anyone else’s business”

I personally believe that what a person wears *will* be looked at by others , so it inadvertent involves them . I also find that even though a personal fashion does not *change* a person , it is definitely an expression of that person , and in some cases ( let me type that again , in some cases ) is certainly meant to change the opinion of potential onlookers about that .
My point being that some women advertise trough clothing where others don’t , and men have a very tough time to figure out who is selling what , and what not . Therefore a woman should not be surprised to modest gentlemen-like advances and tippy-toe approaches towards horizontality , should she be dressed in a way that solicits that . I know that by now your hairs are undoubtedly standing on end , because this so easily translates to the whole ” she brought it on herself argument ” of which I wish to steer well clear .
Really , when it comes down to it , I only have one thing to add to the mayhem .

It s not the bit were women are provoking that upsets me , it s also not the raging male hormones that do , it ’s the part where only men are supposed to act like gentlemen .
” But if she’s changing and I accidentally see her, she freaks out and screams”
In these comments it is not okay for men to ogle women ( and it is not ) but it is okay for women to assume that men de not look at them accidentally or casually . It *is* okay for women to don whatever they want ( it is , within limits , so ) but it’s sexism when men inquire even in the softest of ways ?
This all is coming from a man with many many lovely testosterone drones silently undermining reasonable thought , but still I would like to believe that when push comes to shove , I would do neither of the two .
aaah good old ranting . It had been a while .
Oh and on a final tote , just for the fun of it , there are a great deal of inadvertent physical actions in a human body , controlling all of them would be impossible , even for a zen master .

Well , enough of my banter . Cu later