E.G.

As Scott (via Richard) suggests, the Hot Abercrombie Chick probably isn’t really a chick.  I don’t think this should surprise anyone who has read HAC’s blog.  Despite having written a post on the subject, Scott seems to think that thinking about HAC’s real identity is a waste of time.  I’ll agree to that, but it’s a topic that interests me nonetheless.  So here you are — more wasted time. 

Whether HAC is real or not, HAC’s blog is clearly designed to exploit people’s eagerness to know what’s going on inside the head of an attractive person.  Is there anything wrong with taking advantage of that eagerness (which appears to be a near-universal part of human nature)?  Not always: Attractive restaurant employees, for instance, do nothing wrong when they rely on their good looks to get bigger tips. 

The difference, of course, is that, if the rumors are true, HAC is not really an attractive person, or at least not really an attractive female, whereas attractive restaurant employees are usually just about exactly what they appear to be. 

It is usually wrong to deceive people.  But nowadays there circulates a view that certain aspects of one’s identity are malleable and pretty much fall under one’s personal discretion.  Many people will say, for instance, that cross-dressers are not engaging in an unacceptable act of deception when they go in public dressed as a member of the opposite sex; if a cross-dressing man says he is a woman, it now sounds strange to say that he is lying.  HAC seems to be a sort of blogospheric equivalent of a cross-dresser.