Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

[Forty Two]

Should restaurants like Twin Peaks and Hooters be allowed to exist?

They hire only waitresses, and only those that are traditionally viewed (arbitrarily, of course) as "attractive." And, their required uniform accents their sexual attributes. The purpose is to attract CIS-hetero males to spend money on food and beverages there.

Is this a business that should be allowed to exist?

[pErvinalia]

It certainly should be discouraged.

Do any black chicks ever work at these places? I only ever see pictures of white chicks.

[laklak]

That one in the middle. I keep hearing ZZTop's "Pearl Necklace".

[pErvinalia]

Did she paint the fake tan on with a paintbrush?

[Forty Two]

Discouraged by whom? And, why should they discourage it?

Yes, black chicks do work there.

[Forty Two]

Did she paint the fake tan on with a paintbrush?

Doesn't look like a fake tan. Just looks like a lot of make-up.

[pErvinalia]

Discouraged by whom?

By society.

And, why should they discourage it?

It broadly promotes women as sex objects. Not really helpful in light of the rape statistics and broader problems women face in some segments of society (barefoot and in the kitchen).

Yes, black chicks do work there.

I've got a thing for Africans at the moment. Very yum. And you really don't see them in Australia. I wish we had an African slave trade back in the day...

[Forty Two]

And, here is one argument against Hootersish restaurants - https://www.girlscantwhat.com/mommy-what-is-hooters/

Here the lady says she is asked by her 10 year old "what's Hooters." The lady says she "tells it like it is" so she tells her 10 year old that Hooters is a restaurant that only hires women with big boobs.

Well, I like to tell my kids "like it is" too, but I would have just told my kids that Hooters is a restaurant that is famous for chicken wings.

I will state, however, that big boobs is not a requirement for Hooters, as plenty of waitresses there have average to smaller boobs. There requirement is to hire only fairly young women who are attractive and fit looking.

They aren't dressed particularly revealing there. T-shirts, and shorts. Nothing that can't be worn publicly on the street.

She thinks the restaurant is bad and that it's wrong to both work there and go there. However, she does not provide any explanation as to why, except to say that women should not be hired based on their looks. However, that doesn't seem to me to be a complete explanation, as some jobs do require particular looks. Models. Actors. Etc. Part of the job as a waitress at Hooters includes playing the part of a fun, hot waitress. It may be job not all people want, but how does that make it "wrong?" What moral code or system are we working under to declare it wrong?

[Forty Two]

Discouraged by whom?

By society.

How? Society is a collection of individuals. How does "society" discourage it, particularly since some part of society are patrons and supporters of these restaurants. From that part of society's perspective, such restaurants are to be encouraged.

And, why should they discourage it?

It broadly promotes women as sex objects. Not really helpful in light of the rape statistics and broader problems women face in some segments of society (barefoot and in the kitchen).

Why is promoting people as sex objects something to be discouraged? Is there evidence that too many attractive women in a small area causes rape statistics to go up? Are you suggesting that Hooters causes women to be barefoot and in the kitchen?

Yes, black chicks do work there.

I've got a thing for Africans at the moment. Very yum. And you really don't see them in Australia. I wish we had an African slave trade back in the day...

You oppressed the aborigines enough. Can't you direct your objectification of Africans at them for a while?

[laklak]

My ex-wife said going to Hooters was the same as rape.

This is one of the many reasons she became ex.

[Forty Two]

It's worse than rape. It's rape culture. It's a symbol of male entitlement to female bodies. We feel that if someone is out in public, we can just look at them if we want, and the male gaze is, of course, a tool of oppression of women. They're oppressed just by men looking at them.

[Forty Two]

Someone can open Peckers --

[pErvinalia]

Discouraged by whom?

By society.

How? Society is a collection of individuals. How does "society" discourage it, particularly since some part of society are patrons and supporters of these restaurants. From that part of society's perspective, such restaurants are to be encouraged.

And, why should they discourage it?

It broadly promotes women as sex objects. Not really helpful in light of the rape statistics and broader problems women face in some segments of society (barefoot and in the kitchen).

Why is promoting people as sex objects something to be discouraged? Is there evidence that too many attractive women in a small area causes rape statistics to go up? Are you suggesting that Hooters causes women to be barefoot and in the kitchen?

I can't be bothered "discussing" this with you for the next 30 pages. It's just a rehash of other topics we discussed endlessly.

Yes, black chicks do work there.

I've got a thing for Africans at the moment. Very yum. And you really don't see them in Australia. I wish we had an African slave trade back in the day...

You oppressed the aborigines enough. Can't you direct your objectification of Africans at them for a while?

Africans are hotter.

[Forty Two]

Can't be bothered discussing.... ah, the usual pErvinalia evasion.

...it should be discouraged... [purposefully vague and meaningless assertion -- discouraged by whom? how? why? by what means? -- use of the passive voice leaves pErvin with plenty of wiggle room -- often the next response would be to suggest a more specific meaning to what should be discouraged, how and by whom, which pErvin would then deny was what he was referring to, and then pErvin can switch the conversation to a back-and-forth personal battle, rather than a discussion of the topic - pErv would never provide an accurate description of what he is talking about, always deflecting to say that it was covered in some other thread, or that there is no point in addressing it --- the question was, should they be allowed to exist -- and pErvin's answer was that it should be discouraged - which says nothing, is not a position on the issue, and is a pointless and stupid answer - farting should be discouraged -- nosepicking should be discouraged -- ORLY???? so profound... how should "society" discourage farting and nosepicking? Oh, we can't talk about that - it's just a rehash.]

So, the followup question is: discouraged by whom, how and why?

Oh, by society.

Another meaningless blurt. Society who? Society how? Society why? What does that mean? How does "society" discourage such behavior? Are you talking activist groups? a vote? what? What's to be done, by whom, and why?

Oh, can't answer that - that's just a rehash. LOL. I.e., I'm not going to take a specific position, I'm just going to virtue signal that I'm on the right side of the issue, but I'm not going to actually address the issue itself.

It should be discouraged...by society.... Bwahahahahahhaha!

[pErvinalia]

Can't be bothered discussing.... ah, the usual pErvinalia evasion.

...it should be discouraged... [purposefully vague and meaningless assertion -- discouraged by whom? how? why? by what means? -- use of the passive voice leaves pErvin with plenty of wiggle room -- often the next response would be to suggest a more specific meaning to what should be discouraged, how and by whom, which pErvin would then deny was what he was referring to, and then pErvin can switch the conversation to a back-and-forth personal battle, rather than a discussion of the topic - pErv would never provide an accurate description of what he is talking about, always deflecting to say that it was covered in some other thread, or that there is no point in addressing it --- the question was, should they be allowed to exist -- and pErvin's answer was that it should be discouraged - which says nothing, is not a position on the issue, and is a pointless and stupid answer - farting should be discouraged -- nosepicking should be discouraged -- ORLY???? so profound... how should "society" discourage farting and nosepicking? Oh, we can't talk about that - it's just a rehash.]

So, the followup question is: discouraged by whom, how and why?

Oh, by society.

Another meaningless blurt. Society who? Society how? Society why? What does that mean? How does "society" discourage such behavior? Are you talking activist groups? a vote? what? What's to be done, by whom, and why?

Oh, can't answer that - that's just a rehash. LOL. I.e., I'm not going to take a specific position, I'm just going to virtue signal that I'm on the right side of the issue, but I'm not going to actually address the issue itself.

It should be discouraged...by society.... Bwahahahahahhaha!

Do you need a safe space? If you can't handle the fact that we've discussed this shit endlessly, then I can't help you. There's nothing new to be gained by discussing it for the 20th time. I think you are truly unaware of the utter total bore that you are.