A field trip to Hooters

[pam]

This isn't even about middle schoolers being taken to Hooters on a field trip anymore.

[Latter Days Guy]

Yes, I do.

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.

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.

So you admit that you equate thrill with a sexual response. You also said "I think that getting a thrill from the female body is masculine". You think, is what you stated. How is that prejudice when all I've got to go on is what you have stated?

You also say that this thrill/sexual response is very nearly universal among heterosexual men, I would have to disagree. As far as I know there are no hooters in the UK, but the sight of lady in tight clothes and shorts (which I guess is the dress of the female staff at hooters) doesn't give me or any of the male friends I know the same response as you seem to be indicating that you yourself get.

I believe that you have missed the point here, that just because you have had such feelings/responses to that type of visual stimuli doesn't mean that every other male or even the majority of males would have the same response.

I guess it also depends on where you live, I'm guessing that you live in an area with a large LDS membership and you mainly circulated in LDS circles. I don't live in such an area and doubt there is area's like that in the UK. During the summer here a large proportion of females walk around in shorts and crop tops, especially those of the teen to late 20's. Its just the way they dress, its the way my daughter dresses as that is the fashion. Where we holiday in Spain the summer uniform seems to be bikini's, yet I certainly don't get a sexual thrill like you describe just from seeing a woman in a bikini. I guess we are all just different.

[prisonchaplain]

Modesty is commanded by scripture, and certainly by LDS prophets and teachings. CTR might be correct that context has some impact on what is modest and what is immodest. However, it does little good to imply that those with more conservative standards may have impulse problems, might be "repressed," or are seeking to impose their "issues" on everyone. Frankly, that tact seems a bit underhanded to me.

We ought not impose our faith stances on society, but we certainly should point the way to godliness. Can we not iron out how to "be in the world but not of it," without resorting to subtle "friendly fire" against our own?

[Dravin]

I would have to disagree. As far as I know there are no hooters in the UK, but the sight of lady in tight clothes and shorts (which I guess is the dress of the female staff at hooters) doesn't give me or any of the male friends I know the same response as you seem to be indicating that you yourself get.

That isn't actually a counterpoint to the assertion that finding a thrill in the female body is masculine, unless it is somehow supposed to demonstrate that getting a thrill from the female body is feminine or I suppose gender neutral, which if it is it does a horrible job. If you have a bunch of women friends who get a thrill from such a situation you'd have a better counter to argue. Of course it wouldn't exactly be a slam dunk. Tomboys don't exactly make playing in the dirt with bugs feminine behavior.

You seem to be equating masculine as something that is universal, which is false. Take for instance playing cops and robbers is a masculine play behavior in children (in US society at least), that doesn't mean all boys will enjoy playing cops and robbers (or that only boys will) nor does a child who doesn't enjoy playing cops and robbers somehow mean the behavior is not masculine, or that said child isn't masculine.

This misunderstanding may be why you reacted the way you did to Vort's comment (that and I think Vort's comment was more general than you may be taking it as to the conditions thrill will be felt). You feel that if a behavior is masculine and you don't partake/enjoy/experience said behavior that he's implying you are:

1. Not masculine.

2. Not a man.

Which isn't the case (necessarily, it can be used that way but Vort has denied doing so). Viewing and playing sports is (well certain sports and at least in the US) a masculine behavior. I don't particularly care to watch football, which is a masculine behavior, this does not mean I am:

1. Not masculine.

2. Not a man.

Nor does it mean that viewing and playing football is a universal behavior for all men.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

Thank you for the cogent reply, Dravin. I have given up conversing with our British friend. From my point of view, he simply refuses to drop his prejudice and exert the least effort to understand what I'm trying to communicate. That's fine; he can win. This thread has already gotten too far off topic with his, Chouchou's, and LDSJewess's continued misinterpretations and assertions. But it's nice to know that someone, at least, can read what I write and interpret it as I meant it.

Signed,

The slavering uncontrollable sex fiend

[Latter Days Guy]

And? That isn't actually a counterpoint to the assertion that finding a thrill in the female body is masculine, unless it is somehow supposed to demonstrate that a male getting a thrill from the female body is feminine or I suppose gender neutral, which if it is it does a horrible job. If you have a bunch of women friends who get a thrill from such a situation you'd have a better counter to argue. Of course it wouldn't exactly be a slam dunk. Tomboys don't exactly make playing in the dirt with bugs feminine behavior.

You seem to be equating masculine as something that is universal, which is false. Take for instance playing cops and robbers is a masculine play behavior in children (in US society at least), that doesn't mean all boys will enjoy playing cops and robbers (or that only boys will) nor does a child who doesn't enjoy playing cops and robbers somehow mean the behavior is not masculine, or that said child isn't masculine.

This misunderstanding may be why you reacted the way you did to Vort's comment. You feel that if a behavior is masculine and you don't partake/enjoy/experience said behavior that he's implying you are:

1. Not masculine.

2. Not a man.

Which isn't the case (necessarily, it can be used that way but Vort has denied doing so). Viewing and playing sports is (well certain sports and at least in the US) a masculine behavior. I don't particularly care to watch football, which is a masculine behavior, this does not mean I am:

1. Not masculine.

2. Not a man.

Nor does it mean that viewing and playing football is a universal behavior for all men.

From my reading of what Vort's posts are saying is that the majority of men would get a sexual thrill from seeing females dressed in the way that those at hooters dress. I'm just disagreeing with that blanket statement which I can only assume he holds based upon his own experiences in said situations. Nothing more than just that.

[Dravin]

From my reading of what Vort's posts are saying is that the majority of men would get a sexual thrill from seeing females dressed in the way that those at hooters dress.

What I read is that Vort said that getting a thrill from the female body (I don't recall him limiting it to Hooter's waitresses) is masculine. I suppose he can come here and clarify what he meant.

[Latter Days Guy]

Thank you for the cogent reply, Dravin. I have given up conversing with our British friend. From my point of view, he simply refuses to drop his prejudice and exert the least effort to understand what I'm trying to communicate. That's fine; he can win. This thread has already gotten too far off topic with his, Chouchou's, and LDSJewess's continued misinterpretations and assertions. But it's nice to know that someone, at least, can read what I write and interpret it as I meant it.

Signed,

The slavering uncontrollable sex fiend

Sorry you feel that way. I have no prejudice towards you at all, sorry if that is the impression that you have received.

[Latter Days Guy]

What I read is that Vort said that getting a thrill from the female body (I don't recall him limiting it to Hooter's waitresses) is masculine. I suppose he can come here and clarify what he meant.

I was just using the example of hooters waitresses, but yes he did say the female body. My point was that not all men would experience such a thrill purely from just seeing a female body, which from my reading of Vorts posts is what he was saying they would.

[Dravin]

I was just using the example of hooters waitresses, but yes he did say the female body. My point was that not all men would experience such a thrill purely from just seeing a female body, which from my reading of Vorts posts is what he was saying they would.

If he said all then I disagree (with such a statement), but I don't think he did (or meant to). It's a moot point now though. *shrug*

[Latter Days Guy]

If he said all then I disagree (with such a statement), but I don't think he did (or meant to). It's a moot point now though. *shrug*

I think PC has made a valid point (as usual) that this is not getting us any where and is not really uplifting in any way shape or form.

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps I can help others see why some of us squirm at the idea of middle schoolers going to Hooters. What if the restaurant catered, in the same 'moderate' manner, to women? What if the staff were males, dressed in tight Speedos and skin-tight sleeveless shirts? Further, what if the waiters were encouraged to engage in light-hearted, mildly suggestive banter with the female guests? Oh, and occasionally, you might hear one of them say to a male custom, "Now, now brother, don't be jealous?"

Would this make most squirm enough to at least express displeasure at the choice of restaurant on the Middle School field trip? And, if so, what would make this different from Hooters?

[LDSJewess]

Ok I will simply say that everyone is obviously different in their reactions to such things.

I am not saying Hooters is choice number one to take middle school kids on a field trip, but I also know a couple of lovely young women, one of the 2 is happily married with children and the other engaged who have put themselves through college. The one with kids is now in her mid 30's and has middle school kids and I know her husband and kids have gone there while she was working. None of them are lds but they are good religious non drinking, non smoking and people of integrity.

I do think if kids are going on a field trip their parents should have the right to know where they are going, including restaurants so they can make the choice to say yes or no. But if it's a beach field trip for middle school kids you can bet those kids will see less clothing on both men and women on the beach. And if the field trip is out of the country it is possible on a beach they could encounter no clothing at all.

Regarding, Chaplains comment about what if it is men and the mention of jealousy; perhaps it is that I am a generation older and I am pretty oblivious to all this talk of jealousy. If you have a secure loving marriage there is no need for jealousy.

Have I and my husband EVER been to Hooters. Yes. Were the waitresses beautiful of course they were. Did my husband look. I suppose so but unlikely interested since they were young enough to be his daughter or even granddaughter. If he did look would I be jealous? Absolutely not. Why? 1. I trust my husband. 2. I am very comfortable in my own skin and happy with who I am and confident enough not to worry about some young girl taking away my husband.

I would feel no different if the waiters were young men in speedos. I live near a beach and see them all the time. Not interested too young.

Besides although sex is a beautiful part of marriage, it is not the focal point of our marriage. There are many other things to do and places to go that keep our lives full and occupied.

Will we go back to Hooters? Probably not. We are health nuts and seriously the food is not fit for my dogs consumption no less humans.

I honestly think we would be better off discussing what is healthy in terms of diet, exercise, education, keeping anxiety low and healthy relationships, rather than always worrying about how someone is dressed (or undressed). Perhaps I'll start a thread on other things that to me are far more disgusting than degrees of preceived immodesty.

OK off my soapbox. Not meaning to offend. Just my 2 cents. ;o))

[prisonchaplain]

LDSJewess, I get what you are saying. And, at the end of the day, you are right. The kids will be unscathed, and they will see worse in their lifetimes. On the other hand, although my wife is very secure in our marriage (I definitely married UP), she would be offended if I even thought to bring her to Hooters. And, although she knows I will not act on any appreciation I might have for girls young enough to be my daugthers (early 20s would fit), she would, NEVERTHELESS, be mightily offended if I took a 2nd or third look. 99% of the time lust does not lead to adultery. It's still not something we want to feed, tempt, or in any way titillate. THAT last point goes triple for teenage boys. Further, I would not appreciate the message Hooters sends to my daughters.

Oh...and this may well be generational. My age group (came of age in early 80s) was rebelling against the 60s, by going for the resurrection of social conservatism. :-)

[LDSJewess]

Oh...and this may well be generational. My age group (came of age in early 80s) was rebelling against the 60s, by going for the resurrection of social conservatism. :-)

Wow do I hear you there. My kids (mid 30's to early 40's) were in that 80's generation and huge change it was from what I remember in the 60's.

The Hooters thing I am sure is an age difference. Ladies my age tend to chuckle if your huhhy's take a second look at a pretty young girl and just give them a nod and let the old guy dream a little. Our husbands cannot afford those girls anyway and they know it.

As for the other cultures, we were in Martinique last month and there was a couple that could have been old enough to be MY parents (OR maybe the excessive sun exposure only made them appear that way) LOL But there they were strolling along the beach in all their glory. Obviously European tourists,and certainly not attractive but well each to their own. Not our cup of tea but other European kids on the beach thought nothing of it. It's all relative I guess.

[MorningStar]

For me it wouldn't be about the fact that my kid saw someone immodestly dressed. It would anger me that the chaperones (who are supposed to exercise good judgment) chose to take my children to an establishment that encourages the ogling of women. If you take my child to The Olive Garden, there will probably be some immodestly dressed customers who enter, but at least they aren't being taught to support a business named after women's breasts featuring only servers with breasts.

P.S. Vort is not a pervert.

[Carl62]

What about going to football games (pro or non-pro) where a lot of the cheerleaders aren't dressed any different than Hooters waitresses? What about supporting a business such as that? I live only two hours from Ocean City, Md. and I can see more bikini clad girls in a 30 second walk across the boardwalk than I can in a 30 minute sit down at a Hooters. And as far as Hooters girls talking "suggestively", I've been to Hooters at the beach more than a dozen times and every time the waitresses were polite and treated you with respect. There were no 'come-ons' or flirtatious talk of any kind. I took three of my nephews there and never once was there any oogling or lewd talk from them during or after the lunch. For those of you who are so uptight over this, go and check out a Hooters for yourself. You might be surprised how you may not need that cold shower after your dinner.

[MeaganSmith]

Worth of national news- no, but there is a lot out there that isn't

Would I be upset- Yes. I think it sends the wrong message to kids.

[MorningStar]

What about going to football games (pro or non-pro) where a lot of the cheerleaders aren't dressed any different than Hooters waitresses? What about supporting a business such as that? I live only two hours from Ocean City, Md. and I can see more bikini clad girls in a 30 second walk across the boardwalk than I can in a 30 minute sit down at a Hooters. And as far as Hooters girls talking "suggestively", I've been to Hooters at the beach more than a dozen times and every time the waitresses were polite and treated you with respect. There were no 'come-ons' or flirtatious talk of any kind. I took three of my nephews there and never once was there any oogling or lewd talk from them during or after the lunch. For those of you who are so uptight over this, go and check out a Hooters for yourself. You might be surprised how you may not need that cold shower after your dinner.

There's a difference between, "Hey kids! Let's go swimming at the beach!" and, "Let's go eat at the restaurant named after breasts!" We can't live under a rock and we can't control how people dress on the beach, but we can make the choice not to support businesses who use sex to make money.

[mordorbund]

Can I just say 'WOW!' I really didn't think I would see this day. You know what, let me clear my calendar. This is one LDS.net gathering that I CANNOT miss.

Hold on <checks thread name again> - Yeah, you can count me in.

[Latter Days Guy]

There's a difference between, "Hey kids! Let's go swimming at the beach!" and, "Let's go eat at the restaurant named after breasts!" We can't live under a rock and we can't control how people dress on the beach, but we can make the choice not to support businesses who use sex to make money.

I was of the understanding that hooters was a reference to your nose, but that could just be a US/UK difference.

[FunkyTown]

I was of the understanding that hooters was a reference to your nose, but that could just be a US/UK difference.

It's a reference to the owls they have on their shirts. Because owls hoot. I've read the history of the place. In Florida, a group of guys with an apparently love of owls decided they wanted a restaurant with good food.

If you associate owls with dirty things, I don't think it's the restaurants fault.

[Iggy]

If you associate owls with dirty things, I don't think it's the restaurants fault.

Did you forget your smilie? This was tongue in cheek, right?

From Wikipedia:

Hooters is the trade name of two privately held American restaurant chains: Hooters of America, Incorporated, based in Atlanta, Georgia, and Hooters, Incorporated, based in Clearwater, Florida. The Hooters name is taken from an American slang term for female breasts; its logo is an owl, an animal well known for its "hooting" calls.

The looks of the waitresses are a main selling feature of the restaurant. A Hooters Girl is a waitress employed by the Hooters restaurant chain. The girls are recognizable by their uniform of a white tank top with the "Hootie the Owl" logo and the location name on the front paired with the famously short nylon orange runner's shorts. Originally, the shirts were white cotton, pulled tight and knotted in the back to emphasize the breasts and expose the midriff.

Later, Hooters changed to a tight white spandex tank top and eliminated the knot-tying. The company also began using other colors and designs for their tops such as a camouflage theme on Monday ("Military Mondays"), black on Friday ("Formal Fridays"), some Sundays, for special occasions, and for important local football and basketball games, and the football uniforms of local National Football League teams during the NFL season, although this varies from state to state and by location. The remainder of the Hooters Girls uniform consists of the restaurant's brown ticket pouch (or a black one with the black uniform), pantyhose, white loose socks, and clean white shoes. Men who work at Hooters wear Hooters hats, t-shirts with long pants, Bermuda shorts, or attire more suitable for kitchen use.

This is from their employee handbook that the girls must agree to and sign:

Employee handbook requirements

An older version of the Hooters Employee Handbook (prior to October 2006), published in The Smoking Gun reads:[21] which notes that:

Customers can go to many places for wings and beer, but it is our Hooters Girls who make our concept unique. Hooters offers its customers the look of the "All American Cheerleader, Surfer, Girl Next Door."Female employees are required to sign that they "acknowledge and affirm" the following:

• My job duties require I wear the designated Hooters Girl uniform.
• My job duties require that I interact with and entertain the customers.
• The Hooters concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and entertaining conversations are commonplace.
• I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements, or work environment to be offensive, intimidating, hostile, or unwelcome.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Iggy

[FunkyTown]

Did you forget your smilie? This was tongue in cheek, right?

From Wikipedia:

This is from their employee handbook that the girls must agree to and sign:

Employee handbook requirements

An older version of the Hooters Employee Handbook (prior to October 2006), published in The Smoking Gun reads:[21] which notes that:

Customers can go to many places for wings and beer, but it is our Hooters Girls who make our concept unique. Hooters offers its customers the look of the "All American Cheerleader, Surfer, Girl Next Door."Female employees are required to sign that they "acknowledge and affirm" the following:

• My job duties require I wear the designated Hooters Girl uniform.
• My job duties require that I interact with and entertain the customers.
• The Hooters concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and entertaining conversations are commonplace.
• I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements, or work environment to be offensive, intimidating, hostile, or unwelcome.

From the Hooters menu, under the 'History':

Beginning in Florida, Hooters was begun by a group of guys who apparently really liked owls.

And... Wait... Wait. I had a big post written up asserting there was no undertone of sexuality to the restaurant.

That is patently false. You are correct.

However: The sexuality is not explicit. In the same manner that I wouldn't care if my grade eight child watched Scooby Doo despite the fact that Shaggy and Scooby are essentially just druggie caricatures who constantly make references to smoking marijuana, or that Bugs Bunny dresses up in drag and sexualizes himself, the sexuality is not so 'in your face' that I am offended by it.

It's the idea of plausible deniability. Until you know what you're looking for, you don't recognize that Shaggy is a stoner or Bugs is a transvestite, despite it being patently obvious when you pull outside of the context with which they're created.

Ultimately, the waitresses are no less modest than many other restaurants.

[Carl62]

Hooters offers its customers the look of the "All American Cheerleader."

Hmm. So let me get this straight. It's O.K. if cheerleaders are dressed like this who are at the football games that we take our kids to and thoroughly support, but then after the game we can't take these same kids to a restaurant where the waitresses are dressed the same exact way because we want to avoid the possibility of an immoral thought going through their head? If that isn't a bass ackwards double standard, then I don't know what is.