A field trip to Hooters

[Guest Chouchou]

I'm not going to quote because you're just being annoying now and i want to comment on more than one post.

vort, i replied to you with all the quality with which you always reply to me. I do not wear a bikini in public. and i don't think it's very hard to tell that you might just have an "intense preoccupation with the female body". from your posts, i'm imagining you having to practically wipe the drool off your chin every time you see a woman. you seem to be implying that you can't do anything about your passions, and i think you're more doing yourself a disservice... =/

and if talking about screaming and yelling isn't important than why must we continue to bring it up? i was stating how i would react to the situation and how i would not. and i don't see how that isn't on topic. unless you've actually forgotten what the original topic was....

[NeuroTypical]

Assuming for a minute that you are 100% correct: Hooters is still taking advantage of this society, to attract customers by objectifying, packaging, and presenting the mammary glands of women for the viewing pleasure of their male clientelle.

and how would you combat that (hooters and things like it i mean) i would work to change society's view of nudity/sexuality/female bodies and make that less of a thrill for males.

I combat it by not spending my dollars on such things, discussing things in the public forum, and by trying to raise healthy righteous kids. I'll leave the radical alteration of society to others.

if my child was taken to hooters or went with friends perhaps. i would definitely talk to them about it, and help them see why that is not the best choice for a night out on the town. but i wouldn't freak out over it.

Me too. Do you see anyone "freaking out" about the issue on this thread? Not sure why you brought it up.

[MorningStar]

I'm not freaking out, but if someone took my kids to Hooters, I would definitely freak out.

[Vort]

So Vort you base your masculinity on getting sexually excited by the female body?

So it appears that you, LDSJewess, and Chouchou have reached this conclusion. I'm curious: Why? What have I written that even suggests such a thing? The two other ladies have both confirmed that they have no intention of dialog; they prefer to throw out barbed comments and baseless innuendo.

Can you do better than that, GB-UK? Can you actually cite something I have written that suggests that I "base [my] masculinity on getting sexually excited by the female body?" Or is yours merely another baseless, thoughtless, vacuous accusation?

Is that every single female you see gets you sexually excited? Do you walk around in a constant state of sexual arousal or do you lock yourself away in a room to limit yourself from those harlots who are tempting you in such sexual ways that you get exited by mealy just looking at a woman?

Again, please provide some justification from what I have written for such ridiculous assertions.

[Vort]

I'm not going to quote because you're just being annoying now and i want to comment on more than one post.

And yet, you don't...

vort, i replied to you with all the quality with which you always reply to me.

This is false. I consistently reply to all your assertions and answer most or all of your questions. In contrast, you refuse to address my assertions, completely ignore my questions, and in addition make things up out of whole cloth and then attribute them to me.

I do not wear a bikini in public. and i don't think it's very hard to tell that you might just have an "intense preoccupation with the female body". from your posts, i'm imagining you having to practically wipe the drool off your chin every time you see a woman.

Yet you refuse to cite anything I've written that would justify this absurd idea of yours. Why is that?

you seem to be implying that you can't do anything about your passions

Yet I have implied no such thing. Ever. That is purely your own inference, and of course it is wrong. If you believe that I have implied such a thing, then again, for the thousandth time, cite something I have written that makes such an implication.

and if talking about screaming and yelling isn't important than why must we continue to bring it up?

***NEWS FLASH***

Chouchou brought up screaming and yelling, not Vort. Vort merely asked why she was bringing up screaming and yelling out of thin air, implying that those who disagreed with her were guilty of said screaming and yelling

i was stating how i would react to the situation and how i would not. and i don't see how that isn't on topic. unless you've actually forgotten what the original topic was....

As I recall, the original topic was a news item about elementary school teachers taking their school children to eat at a Hooters restaurant. The question was whether it was inappropriate and whether it merited being national news. I replied "yes" to both questions. No one said anything about screaming and yelling until you brought it up.

[Jennarator]

I find it interesting that people men are picked on for finding the female body a turn on. Aren't they suposed to turn on a man? I know i would be pretty disappointed if I didn't turn on my husband with my body. No body said that men should run around gawking at women, but at the same time Hooters has the women dress in a way that they know provokes a man to gawk. Sure, a man can bridel his passions, but it is harder when bodies are being flaunted in front of him. Just makes his tempations harder. (As would it be hard for women if a man's body was flaunted in front of them.) And for a young teen or tween, that is just learning his (or her) sexual feelings I would thing that Hooters would not be a good place to take a child.

[Guest Chouchou]

I combat it by not spending my dollars on such things, discussing things in the public forum, and by trying to raise healthy righteous kids. I'll leave the radical alteration of society to others.

not very radical. just a world with less men who enjoy gawking at women's breasts as a serious past time. would that be such a bad thing? if there were less men who wanted to go to hooters then they would eventually go out of business. you're not really disagreeing with me. i'd just like men to say "i'm above this kind of trash" and shun it more.

Me too. Do you see anyone "freaking out" about the issue on this thread? Not sure why you brought it up.

again with this. when i originally said this (several pages ago) i was talking about how i would react to my child going to hooters on a field trip. answering the question "would you be upset?" yes i would. but not to the point of freaking out about it. i would not be that upset. is that clear enough for everyone? it's not really relevant anymore because this thread has moved way beyond talking about middle schoolers at hooters so stop talking about it.

[NeuroTypical]

not very radical. just a world with less men who enjoy gawking at women's breasts as a serious past time. would that be such a bad thing?

We don't disagree about whether it would be a good thing or not. We disagree very much about how easy/possible/radical it is.

if there were less men who wanted to go to hooters then they would eventually go out of business.

That little word 'if'. It seems so innocent. So tiny and unremarkable. And yet it assumes the power to obfuscate. Picture any utopian ideal, no matter how radically different or implausible. Stick that tiny little word in front of it, and suddenly every complex or difficult problem facing humanity, no mater how deeply entrenched or complicated, becomes so easy to solve that even a 6 year old can understand.

if people would just be nice to each other, we wouldn't have any more wars.

if healthcare was free, everyone could have it.

if the color of the sky was red instead of blue, I'd look better in this hat.

if there were less bad people, then we could let our kids play in the streets again.

Again, good luck with your radical restructuring of American culture and the God-given male sex drive. I'll check back with you in a hundred years, and we can see if there are still restauraunts attracting customers by displaying the female form.

[Guest Chouchou]

We don't disagree about whether it would be a good thing or not. We disagree very much about how easy/possible/radical it is.

That little word 'if'. It seems so innocent. So tiny and unremarkable. And yet it assumes the power to obfuscate. Picture any utopian ideal, no matter how radically different or implausible. Stick that tiny little word in front of it, and suddenly every complex or difficult problem facing humanity, no mater how deeply entrenched or complicated, becomes so easy to solve that even a 6 year old can understand.

if people would just be nice to each other, we wouldn't have any more wars.

if healthcare was free, everyone could have it.

if the color of the sky was red instead of blue, I'd look better in this hat.

if there were less bad people, then we could let our kids play in the streets again.

Again, good luck with your radical restructuring of American culture and the God-given male sex drive. I'll check back with you in a hundred years, and we can see if there are still restauraunts attracting customers by displaying the female form.

but does that mean that you shouldn't try to find a way to bring it about? if it turns out to be impossible, fine. but i don't think it is. it's more about teaching boys when they're young that the don't have to act like a bunch of slobbering dogs when it comes to women. because they don't. they can be attracted to them. and should be. sure. but it doesn't mean that they can't have some self control.

and vort, the reason that LDSJewess and I came to that conclusion is because to us (to me at least, she can speak for herself) this conversation sounds like

Me/ LDSJewess: "Men can have self-control."

Vort: "No they can't. I am a slave to my sexual desires. rawr."

regardless if it's what you mean or not, its what you sound like. and if i didn't respond to it, then i didn't see it worth responding to. we've been debating sexuality for two or three threads now and i don't see the point in going around in circles with you about it anymore.

[Connie]

This is reminding me of a thread we had a while back. http://www.lds.net/forums/relief-society-womens-issues/37680-worthless-women.html

Interesting blog from a male perspective. Look a little further in the thread for his other blog to the ladies.

[Vort]

and vort, the reason that LDSJewess and I came to that conclusion is because to us (to me at least, she can speak for herself) this conversation sounds like

Me/ LDSJewess: "Men can have self-control."

Vort: "No they can't. I am a slave to my sexual desires. rawr."

regardless if it's what you mean or not, its what you sound like.

Then for the ten thousandth time: Show it. If that's what I "sound like" to you, then show my words to me. I maintain that I said no such thing, and only a fool or a liar (or someone acting criminally incompetent) could maintain that I had said or suggested any such thing.

Now's your chance, Chouchou. Just show what I said that justifies such a view.

It's as easy as that.

[LDSJewess]

"Vort: "No they can't. I am a slave to my sexual desires. rawr."

Well as my Grandpa used to say..... "are you bragging or complaining?" LOL

Seriously Vort, what brought me to this thinking is that you repeatedly stated that women dress such as Hooters waitresses and women on the beach wearing bikini's were a sexual distraction and that you believed that this was how the majority of men think.

Perhaps what prompted my responses to you were your often specific and graphic descriptions of what YOU experienced or saw when looking at such women. Using terms like "camel toe" and "aerola" imply that you were looking specifically for these parts of the female anatomy to appear.

The fact is hooters waitresses do not show these parts with perhaps a few exceptions, and it seems ironic that you happen to be the one who sees the exceptions rather than the norm. Or could it be you are looking specifically for these things. Or could it also be that you see these things in your mind regardless of what is actually being seen to the majority of the world.

You addmittedly posted elsewhere that you lived a sheltered life growing up and there is certainly not a thing wrong with that. But others have not been so sheltered and take in stride what you seem to view as porn.

My debate with you has not been about you or me rather our differences in symantics in the defining of what is pron and what is immodest.

To me prom and immodesty are not the same thing.

AS I said before porn is the exploitation of sexual acts. Hooters waitresses and beach girls in bikinis are NOT pornographic.

Are they immodest, sure they are. But there is a huge difference.

As to do I feel something is disgusting, yes I think pron is disgusting. As for immodesty, for the most part I believe it to be in poort taste. It does not disgust me though as porn does.

I think we could come to a better understanding if you would define what porn versus immodesty is to YOU and if, how and why either disgusts you.

[Dravin]

Me/ LDSJewess: "Men can have self-control."

Vort: "No they can't. I am a slave to my sexual desires. rawr."

That's a hardy dose of misconstruction you've got there. It may very well be going both ways mind you, but Vort hasn't been arguing that men can't control their sexual desires. Actually his clarification that being sexually attracted to a female in part because of skimpy dress (regardless of how you want to define skimpy) doesn't justify a "She asked for it" rape excuse is pretty opposite such a position.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

LDSJewess, you seem like a decent and sincere person, so I've been trying to exercise patience in my responses to you. But there is an element in this conversation that you seem to be missing completely. Let me illustrate:

Suppose I got it in my head that you were an alcoholic. Doesn't matter why I think this; the point is that, for whatever reason, I think that LDSJewess is an alcoholic. So when you post on an alcohol-related thread, I respond to you with things like, "Look, just because YOU have a weakness for booze doesn't mean everyone else should abide by your narrow-minded ideas."

At first, you're taken aback, and maybe you even say, "What? Wait a minute. I don't have any weakness for alcohol. Where did that come from?" But I continue responding to you with statements like, "You have admitted that you're an alcoholic, so therefore maybe you should quit pushing your alcoholic viewpoint onto others." You then say, "Wait! Stop! I never 'admitted' any such thing! Please point out to me where I ever said I was an alcoholic! That's completely false." But I blithely ignore you, all the while continuing to harp on your supposed "alcoholism".

Can you sense how irritating that might be?

Now, to your post:

"Vort: "No they can't. I am a slave to my sexual desires. rawr."

Well as my Grandpa used to say..... "are you bragging or complaining?" LOL

This might be funny, even LOL-worthy, if I had written what you quote. But of course, I did not write what you quote. Chouchou did, as a portrayal of her (and your) understanding of what I have been saying.

Please point out where I have ever said any such thing.

Seriously Vort, what brought me to this thinking is that you repeatedly stated that women dress such as Hooters waitresses and women on the beach wearing bikini's were a sexual distraction and that you believed that this was how the majority of men think.

Please point out where I have ever said any such thing.

Perhaps what prompted my responses to you were your often specific and graphic descriptions of what YOU experienced or saw when looking at such women.

Never happened. I never described what my response was to looking at a Hooters waitress.

Using terms like "camel toe" and "aerola" imply that you were looking specifically for these parts of the female anatomy to appear.

It implies no such thing. That is simply false. Perhaps you inferred that -- but then, that's your business. You should not be putting it on me.

The "camel toe" reference is obvious enough. When a woman dressed in shorts/bikini bottoms so tight that her anatomy is obviously outlined, that's immodest. You might say, "Well, don't look." Fine. But then, why shouldn't she just walk around naked? What's the difference, if the response is to tell the other party, "Don't look if it offends you"? Seriously, if the answer is "Quit looking", then no one should be expected to wear any clothing at any time.

As for "areola": It's a medical term. What else would you have me call it? "Brown spots"? "Nipples and neighborhood"? Or would you prefer vulgar street language? Many young women today dress in swimsuits with bikini bras that barely cover their <insert whatever term for areola you prefer>, leaving the rest of their breast perfectly visible. I know your response -- "Don't look if it bothers you!" -- but the point is that such clothing cannot reasonably be considered modest in a society that considers female breasts to be private body parts.

The fact is hooters waitresses do not show these parts with perhaps a few exceptions, and it seems ironic that you happen to be the one who sees the exceptions rather than the norm.

See, this is what's amazing to me. I have never said anything even approaching this, yet you confidently assert that I have been saying this.

Please point out where I have ever said any such thing.

Or could it be you are looking specifically for these things. Or could it also be that you see these things in your mind regardless of what is actually being seen to the majority of the world.

Or could it be that you are making this stuff up out of whole cloth? Or could it be that you are paying so little attention to the thread that you are mixing up various elements from various people, taking those elements out of context, and then attributing the absurdity that results to me?

My debate with you has not been about you or me rather our differences in symantics in the defining of what is pron and what is immodest.

Yet in my other thread I made it clear, again and again and again and again and again, that I wasn't interested in what you thought qualified as pornography or immodesty. Rather, I was inquiring why porn and immodesty disgusted you. Somehow, that never quite came through to you, though.

To me prom and immodesty are not the same thing.

They aren't the same thing to anyone. That's why we have two different words for them.

I think we could come to a better understanding if you would define what porn versus immodesty is to YOU and if, how and why either disgusts you.

I doubt it, especially seeing as how I already posted a rather detailed (though not exhaustive) example of what I found disgusting about pornography, but which you apparently either never read or have already forgotten.

But I'm willing to give it a shot.

Pornography is that which is designed to pique prurient interest by the improper and unholy display of sexual activity and images. It disgusts me primarily because I prize sexuality as a holy and godly thing, and its prostitution reduces it to a cheap profanity. In addition, I am disgusted by male pornography because it resembles to me a dinner consisting of a steaming helping of dog excrement. And I am additionally horrified by child pornography because it not only degrades the sacred institution of sex, but does so in a way that harms and destroys our little ones, those who are dependent on us for their protection and who ought to be insulated from such things.

Immodesty is acting in a way that belies modesty, whether in dress, thought, or action. To the extent that it disgusts me, immodesty disgusts me because it betrays a character deficiency in the immodest individual; pride is almost always ugly. Immodesty in dress partakes of the character of pornography in that it cheapens sexuality and attempts to use what should be sacred and private parts of our bodies as decorative enticements.

Your turn.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Vort

[Latter Days Guy]

So it appears that you, LDSJewess, and Chouchou have reached this conclusion. I'm curious: Why? What have I written that even suggests such a thing? The two other ladies have both confirmed that they have no intention of dialog; they prefer to throw out barbed comments and baseless innuendo.

Can you do better than that, GB-UK? Can you actually cite something I have written that suggests that I "base [my] masculinity on getting sexually excited by the female body?" Or is yours merely another baseless, thoughtless, vacuous accusation?

Again, please provide some justification from what I have written for such ridiculous assertions.

You said:

Even in my Stone Age childhood, women's swimsuits were revealing, and I got a lot of sex education ogling the women on the beach.

If you think the sight of a woman's crotch (even if covered by a piece of fabric) doesn't rivet a man's attention and awaken his desires, you do not know anything about men.

Is there something wrong with men getting a thrill from the female body?

I think that getting a thrill from the female body is masculine.

Need I say more?

[Vort]

You said:

Even in my Stone Age childhood, women's swimsuits were revealing, and I got a lot of sex education ogling the women on the beach.

If you think the sight of a woman's crotch (even if covered by a piece of fabric) doesn't rivet a man's attention and awaken his desires, you do not know anything about men.

Is there something wrong with men getting a thrill from the female body?

I think that getting a thrill from the female body is masculine.

Need I say more?

Indeed you do. How do any of these, or all of them together, suggest that I base my masculinity on getting sexually excited about the female body?

[prisonchaplain]

But frankly, I would have been just as concerned over Hooters BECAUSE of the unhealthy food served there. I want to be sure my children follow habits of good nutrition and not wind up with an early death due t obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease. To me this is far worse for my children than them seeing a waitress wearing short shorts and a tight tank top.

A couple of thoughts. First, restaurant eating is an occasional pleasure for us--not a primary source for meeting our nutritional requirements. Our personal pig trough is the Old Country Buffet. We limit our kids to one glass of flavored drink (no sodas) and one dessert. Otherwise, we may cringe a bit at the salt, but again, this is an occasional pleasure/convenience.

So...no, I'm still more bothered by the intentionally immodest atmosphere of Hooters--especially for middle-schoolers.

That said, I'm with you and Michelle Obama on the general need for our kids to eat better. American culture is pretty horrific in our throwing sweet fatty deserts into any celebration we may have.

[Latter Days Guy]

Indeed you do. How do any of these, or all of them together, suggest that I base my masculinity on getting sexually excited about the female body?

I think that getting a thrill from the female body is masculine.

[Latter Days Guy]

Hope that is big enough for you to read.

[Vort]

Indeed you do. How do any of these, or all of them together, suggest that I base my masculinity on getting sexually excited about the female body?

I think that getting a thrill from the female body is masculine.

Hope that is big enough for you to read.

Indeed. Very considerate of you.

But saying "Enjoying the female body is a characteristic of masculinity" is much different from saying "I base my personal identity as a man on my getting excited about the female form." You are confusing the two. I said the first; I never even implied the second.

Is that clear enough?

[john doe]

Let's tone it down and stop the yelling before this thread gets out of hand.

[Latter Days Guy]

Indeed you do. How do any of these, or all of them together, suggest that I base my masculinity on getting sexually excited about the female body?

You said:

I think that getting a thrill from the female body is masculine.

[Vort]

You said:

I think that getting a thrill from the female body is masculine.

Yes, I did. This is an obvious truth. But where did I suggest that I base my masculinity on getting sexually excited about the female body?

[Latter Days Guy]

So do you not mean thrill to equal sexual exited? If someone came to me and said they got a thrill from seeing the female body I would automatically assume they meant a sexual thrill. You then went to to say that this thrill was masculine. Therefore I came to the conclusion that to you to be masculine you have to be thrilled (sexually excited) by the female body.

[Vort]

So do you not mean thrill to equal sexual exited?

Yes, I do.

You then went to to say that this thrill was masculine.

Not quite. Instead, I made the observation that men thrill to the sight of a female body. It's part of what it means to be male. It is a masculine characteristic, very nearly universal among heterosexual men. I doubt many would dispute this rather obvious point.

Therefore I came to the conclusion that to you to be masculine you have to be thrilled (sexually excited) by the female body.

You concluded wrongly. It is not a cause/effect, but an observation of typical characteristics. Your conclusion did not follow from what I said. Instead, you appear to have reached some (incorrect) conclusions about me, then allowed your prejudice to color your view of what I had said.