A field trip to Hooters

[MorningStar]

Which politician will you get to hawk your wares?

I'm not sure, but if I could find a guy with the last name Wiener, but would be great. Even better if he has had a recent scandal.

[Vort]

I'm not sure, but if I could find a guy with the last name Wiener, but would be great. Even better if he has had a recent scandal.

Heck, yeah! A guy like that would be a real weiner!

[MorningStar]

I can't wait for innocent children to visit my restaurant!

[Vort]

I can't wait for innocent children to visit my restaurant!

With all the waiters dressed in Speedos.

[MorningStar]

You'll see guys like that at the beach anyway, so might as well objectify them while serving people wieners and wienerschnitzel.

[MorningStar]

Also, the servers will be instructed to talk about their feelings.

[FunkyTown]

You'll see guys like that at the beach anyway, so might as well objectify them while serving people wieners and wienerschnitzel.

You had me at wienerschnitzel.

And MorningStar wins the thread.

[Blackmarch]

With all the waiters dressed in Speedos.

and you can use a bear as the restaurant mascot...

[Carl62]

The difference is in personal interaction.

Now, I'm not a sports guy at all. But if I went to a game, the cheerleaders are part of the entire experience and are to entertain a crowd.

Going to a restaurant like Hooters, they are to serve you as a waitress. A little more personal interaction there. Yes, it's professional, but there is conversation there.

Would you feel awkward if your Bishop saw you going into a Hooters restaurant? What if the kids from Primary saw you?

Neither of them would balk or question anything about attending a football game. Hooters or other similar establishments? I'll let you judge it for yourself.

And this is where the whole big double standard is which doesn't make an ounce of sense. I find it interesting how a Bishop will not say anything against going to a football game, yet Daddy can take his three sons to a game, sit anywhere in the first few rows right where the cheerleaders are, and oogle and lust after them (probably along with his 8th grade son) for the whole three hour game. What in the heck is the difference between this and Hooters?! You're paying to support something where women are exploited and degraded, yet one is o.k. and the other isn't? Don't get this at all.

[Blackmarch]

And this is where the whole big double standard is which doesn't make an ounce of sense. I find it interesting how a Bishop will not say anything against going to a football game, yet Daddy can take his three sons to a game, sit anywhere in the first few rows right where the cheerleaders are, and oogle and lust after them (probably along with his 8th grade son) for the whole three hour game. What in the heck is the difference between this and Hooters?! You're paying to support something where women are exploited and degraded, yet one is o.k. and the other isn't? Don't get this at all.

One problem with this is that not all football teams have inappropriate attire for their cheerleaders.

And to be fair I don't ever recall Hooters or football cheerleaders being mentioned during sunday classes that I have attended when the subject was on chastity and virtue, and generally when the leaders speak at the podium, the message is generally along the line of something like "Avoid immoral situations, and situations that will tempt you to get into them"... and the usual example of whats used is either pornography or partying. (we also don't have a hooters in town either, so generally that is not a concern)

Now if a bishop did say don't go to hooters because it's immoral, and then attended the football game because it did have a skimpily clad cheerleaders.. yes that is a double standard.

[john doe]

And this is where the whole big double standard is which doesn't make an ounce of sense.

No, it's where your argument turns from being silly to being absurd. The vast majority of people who attend sporting events don't go to 'oogle and lust after' cheerleaders, they go watch an athletic performance. Now, I could kind of see your comparison if you had said they were attending a Lingerie League game, but you are making a direct comparison of Hooters, a restaurant which focuses on serving wings and breasts, with a sporting event where a peripheral portion of the ambiance is cheerleaders who, truth be told, are dressed no more skimpily than many of the attendees. The cheerleaders are not the main focus of the event nor a big reason why people go to those events. You will rarely see a sporting event where attendance can be traced not by the wins and losses of the team, but by how scantily their cheerleaders are clad. But people will still go to Hooters to eat merely to enjoy the view, no matter how bad the food is.

I find it interesting how a Bishop will not say anything against going to a football game, yet Daddy can take his three sons to a game, sit anywhere in the first few rows right where the cheerleaders are, and oogle and lust after them (probably along with his 8th grade son) for the whole three hour game. What in the heck is the difference between this and Hooters?! You're paying to support something where women are exploited and degraded, yet one is o.k. and the other isn't? Don't get this at all.

I can actually agree with this, if the intent of the father is attending the game to lust after the women on the sidelines who have no bearing on the outcome of the game. He would be going for the wrong reasons. If a man goes to a football game to look at women he is doing it wrong, and more expensively than he needs to. But if he is going with his son to bond with him at an event where exciting athletes are displaying their skills, I'm not going to judge the man poorly if there also happen to be cheerleaders urging him to cheer when his team does well.

I'm not sure how you can not see the difference between the two things. If in your mind there is no difference, then I suggest you stay away from both places. Personally, I go to athletic events to watch the athletes, not the cheerleaders, female or male. I choose not to go to Hooters because I hear the food is not worth it.

[Carl62]

No, it's where your argument turns from being silly to being absurd. The vast majority of people who attend sporting events don't go to 'oogle and lust after' cheerleaders, they go watch an athletic performance. Now, I could kind of see your comparison if you had said they were attending a Lingerie League game, but you are making a direct comparison of Hooters, a restaurant which focuses on serving wings and breasts, with a sporting event where a peripheral portion of the ambiance is cheerleaders who, truth be told, are dressed no more skimpily than many of the attendees. The cheerleaders are not the main focus of the event nor a big reason why people go to those events. You will rarely see a sporting event where attendance can be traced not by the wins and losses of the team, but by how scantily their cheerleaders are clad. But people will still go to Hooters to eat merely to enjoy the view, no matter how bad the food is.

I can actually agree with this, if the intent of the father is attending the game to lust after the women on the sidelines who have no bearing on the outcome of the game. He would be going for the wrong reasons. If a man goes to a football game to look at women he is doing it wrong, and more expensively than he needs to. But if he is going with his son to bond with him at an event where exciting athletes are displaying their skills, I'm not going to judge the man poorly if there also happen to be cheerleaders urging him to cheer when his team does well.

I'm not sure how you can not see the difference between the two things. If in your mind there is no difference, then I suggest you stay away from both places. Personally, I go to athletic events to watch the athletes, not the cheerleaders, female or male. I choose not to go to Hooters because I hear the food is not worth it.

While I realize that there is a big difference between the emphasis on sexuality between Hooters and sporting events, you can't deny that sexual immodesty is somewhat of a tag along with sporting events. If this isn't the case, then why aren't cheerleaders clothing more like band uniforms? Or why is the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the most popular each year? Yet while a person pays their money to go to sporting events, they are indirectly, and on a smaller scale, supporting such things. So I guess it comes down to where people draw the line on supporting immodesty on a smaller level vs. in-your-face immodesty.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Carl62

[skippy740]

[...]you are making a direct comparison of Hooters, a restaurant which focuses on serving wings and breasts,

[...]If a man goes to a football game to look at women he is doing it wrong, and more expensively than he needs to.

LOVE IT!

[MormonMama]

Other than their name, they have waitresses that look like... Pretty much any other waitress. They wear short shorts and tight tees.

I've never eaten ANYWHERE ELSE where the waitresses dress like that.

[prisonchaplain]

I've never eaten ANYWHERE ELSE where the waitresses dress like that.

Still waiting for the "Women of Denny's" calendars to come out...though I am trying to keep on with my life as I do so.

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh my stars and garters. Let us pray that day never comes . . .

[HEthePrimate]

I'm probably missing out on some vital cultural experience, but I've never actually been to Hooters. Is the food any good?

Does this remind anyone of that episode of Seinfeld when Elaine applies to work at a diner were all the waitresses are well-endowed? She thinks the owner is a sexist pig, but the women are actually his daughters!

[RipplecutBuddha]

The food at hooters is good. It's not that good though....burger king makes better burgers IMHO, and buffalo wings....well, you can get them anywhere now. If you're looking for great food, there are lots of better places to eat.

[HEthePrimate]

The food at hooters is good. It's not that good though....burger king makes better burgers IMHO, and buffalo wings....well, you can get them anywhere now. If you're looking for great food, there are lots of better places to eat.

Dontcha worry--I don't have any particular desire to go to Hooters!

[rubondfan2]

As much as I don't really want to see this thread blown up again...

Lest there be any doubt as to the theme heralded at Hooters being anything other than about women's breasts... check out this video clip about Hooter's suing a restaurant called "Twin Peaks". See the video here: Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

If the Hooter's concept is about owls, then why would they be suing another outfit that clearly is based on the woman's breast as a marketing tool?

Despicable... both Hooter's AND Twin Peaks.

[pam]

[Vort]

Given the nature of this conversation, I think the double face palm is more appropriate.

[pam]

Oh sure Vort. One up me

[Guest mormonmusic]

Would I be upset of my daughter went to Hooters? Only if she went without me....

(just kidding, not appropriate for a school field trip.; Although I see how some people who are naive wouldn't get the link between the Owl's eyes and the anatomy. Unless, they were fans of Al Bundy...)

[Guest]

A certain very good man with whom I am very well acquainted but shall remain nameless once thought there was no harm in going to Hooters if just for good wings. His wife, who shall also remain nameless, set him straight by asking him if he'd be okay with one of his daughters waitressing there when she's old enough. I knew I had him by the look on his face. I mean she did.