Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post Reply
User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by JimC » Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:01 am

Here's my take...

1. I think such places are fairly crass, and are part of a culture that tends to regard women as playthings for men, in a rather juvenile way. It's a stretch, however, to take the standard ultra-feminist line and say they are part of "rape culture"

2. However, they do not reach a level where intervention/banning by society/governments is justified - to do so would be a step too far in the nanny state direction...

And 42, note that rEv didn't advocate them being banned, just discouraged. I agree that this is rather vague, but here's one version of "discourage". If both men and women had better educational opportunities to move towards a more authentic form of adult relationships, perhaps hooters and strip clubs might just gradually fade away, like most of us hope will happen to churches...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by laklak » Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:05 am

Alternatively they could just show us their tits more often, then we wouldn't have to pay to see them. It ain't rocket surgery.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13528
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by rainbow » Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:20 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Sean Hayden wrote:I've never been there. I'd die of embarrassment. I really just wanted to say titty bar. :hehe:
:lol:
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:41 pm

I find it a bit.... childish. I would not go in there that's for sure. Must be the stupidest of girls allowing themselves to be exploited.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by Svartalf » Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:42 pm

I don't mind a stupid girl if she's there to be eye candy... would likely not want to engage her into a long term relationship, but you go to those places for food and entertainment, not to find a girlfriend.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by Scot Dutchy » Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:44 pm

What's the entertainment? Push up bras and false tits?
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:09 pm

Yeah, can't say I'd find much enjoyment there. If I wanted to perv on hot chicks I'd go to a strip club. Not that I'd do that now, but back in the uni days there were a couple of trips there.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by Forty Two » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:16 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
You asked for an opinion and I gave it. What exactly is the problem here?
Not on the question posed. You voiced an opinion, but the question was not whether society should discourage it, or some general question of what should be done about. The question was whether such enterprises shold be allowed to exist.
pErvinalia wrote: That I won't engage in your pathological need to debate topics endlessly?
No, that you think you get to just state your opinion and never defend it, never back it up. You just declare something, and then walk away. That's the opposite of how you treat others on this forum, which is to demand evidence, probe, and debate their opinions, and you ask many questions, demanding that they be answered (but you rarely, if ever, clearly answer a question posed to you.

This thread is no different. The question was whether they should be allowed to exist (and implicitly why or why not - because a discussion forum that does not go into arguments and reasons is not a discussion forum, it's poll). But you didn't answer it. You posted a vague, meaningless comment that "society" should "discourage" it. If you think, on a discussion forum, it's unfair for you to be asked: "what do you mean by society?" and "how should the discouragement be accomplished?" and "why?" Then, well, I'm not surprised.
pErvinalia wrote:
This is why you are bore. You are like the Terminator of debating. You have no idea if you are doing the right thing, you are just programmed to keep going regardless until your opponents die of boredom/infuriation.
Then don't participate. That's the solution to your boredom, and it would solve your issue of being bothered by my boring-ness. You'd never be infuriated. However, you can't seem to keep away.
pErvinalia wrote:
I don't want to discuss the topic further with you at the moment.
That's normal for you. You don't answer people's inquiries during discussions. You think that your statement is some sort of default position from which others always have the burden to argue against. Well, when anyone states a position on a topic, it is very common and normal for participants in the discussion to probe that position and try to determine what you mean and whether it makes sense. There is nothing wrong with doing that, whether a given participant argues too much for your liking or not. It doesn't change the fact that you chose to adopt a position on an issue tangential to the OP here, and now you won't even explain what your statement means or why you adopt the position and on what basis.
pErvinalia wrote:
I've got other things on my mind.
Then do them.
pErvinalia wrote: Are you going to be able to handle that?
Sure, it's you that can't. You are not interested in discussing the topic of a thread, yet you still can't keep yourself from clicking on it, and posting. When I have other things on my mind, I focus on them. If it's a different thread or topic, then I go there. I don't go to threads that I'm not interested in discussing, post, and then bleat about how I'm not interested in going to the party after I've already stepped through the door and had a drink.
pErvinalia wrote: There's no need to blow it up into an incident. Can't you just accept that people aren't always going to want spend 30 pages watching you equivocate and misrepresent (among other things)?
LOL -- all you have to do is explain what you mean by "society"in this context, and how that society would act to discourage this kind of business.

Or, you could answer the question posed in the OP, and explain why you hold that view.

Or, if you really were not interested in it, and really found this repetitive, having been discussed many times before already, and if you really found it boring, we wouldn't see your screen name pop up in it at all. Instead, you want to state your position, have it left unchallenged and undiscussed, and then declare your participation over because you weren't interested in discussing such a boring, repetitive, topic in the first place.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by Forty Two » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:32 pm

JimC wrote:Here's my take...

1. I think such places are fairly crass, and are part of a culture that tends to regard women as playthings for men, in a rather juvenile way. It's a stretch, however, to take the standard ultra-feminist line and say they are part of "rape culture"

2. However, they do not reach a level where intervention/banning by society/governments is justified - to do so would be a step too far in the nanny state direction...

And 42, note that rEv didn't advocate them being banned, just discouraged. I agree that this is rather vague, but here's one version of "discourage". If both men and women had better educational opportunities to move towards a more authentic form of adult relationships, perhaps hooters and strip clubs might just gradually fade away, like most of us hope will happen to churches...
I never said he did advocate them being banned. I just asked what he meant by "discouraged" (how? why? by whom?) and he said "by society" (and I pointed out that that too is vague in meaningless, as "society" doesn't really mean anything, and doesn't tell us how society would act to discourage it, if indeed it could act as a single entity in the first place.

The only thing I did was ask Pervin to clarify his position, and say what he means. Then he decided to call the topic and me boring, and repetitive - claim it's already been discussed and answered before, so he's not going to repeat himself, and declare he was never interested in discussing the stupid topic in the first place because he's interested in something else. That bullshit happens too often. Look, when he wants to probe someone else's position, he does so, with vigor - he demands evidence, and argument, which is all fair. However, he rarely responds in kind when people ask of him the same thing. He adopts vague positions, and often will drop vagueries into a thread, and then when someone says "so, is what you mean....?" and introduces a possible interpretation of what he's saying, he then flips out and accuses people of strawmanning and other fallacies (which he normally misuses) and then refuses to actually clarify or support his position, often claiming that he's already done so when he hasn't, or already covered it in another thread. The goal is to start a back and forth not about the issue but about the persons involved, and then it easily descends into his usual personal namecalling because if anyone continues to probe or ask for clarification/support for his argument, he starts stating or implying that they're stupid, can't read, or are dishonest.

I think anyone who follows along his postings sees that pattern, but he's very aggressive about attacking others, and making demands of them in an argument. So, I don't think it's unfair to simply get a short and plain statement of what he means by advancing a given position - especially when his position is stated not even in a full sentence, but as a terse phrase that could mean many things.

That's all -- I mean, JimC, don't you see him vigorously challenging posts and forum members here? He does so far, far more aggressively than "what do you mean by discourage?" and "can you clarify your argument as to what society would do and why, and what you mean by society in the first place?" How does the mere request for someone to back up the argument they advanced in a discussion forum (especially when that self-same person commonly does the same to others) become something untoward?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Galaxian
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:11 pm
About me: Too old & too far away from the Beloved...
Location: Koreye-koor
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by Galaxian » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:39 pm

Forty Two wrote:[imgfit]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?
None of anyone's business. If they don't employ enough 'black' women, then let the negro population start their own Hooters and employ mostly black women. Nothing stopping them doing that.
Is this what the anal retentionists are proposing? : https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/f9/7c ... 148e25.jpg
Image
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8f/2e/1e ... 308b6c.jpg
Image

I notice that the Mary Whitehouse wowsers have retaliated to Forty Two's OP with demands that the pretty women should be wearing burkas. Well, fuck them: they can open their own burka covered women waitresses.
BTW, I don't agree that attractive is purely a matter of taste. It is scientifically proven that symmetry of features is a major component of what we find attractive, as is slenderness, good skin tone, nice set of teeth, etc. Some races are not as attractive as others, for example, central Australian Aborigines (you be the judge, if you're unbiased). The reason is that in those societies sexual selection (read it up) was not so important as in, say, Nordic ones, and so the things we find attractive were not selected for strongly. Take as comparison peacocks vs sloths.
So, yes, it should exist. I do NOT want a nanny state like Saudi Crapabia. Live & let live is my credo. SJWs go to Hell :coffee:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment._Sam Nejad
There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection! _Galaxian
The more important a news item, the more likely that it's a hidden agenda disinformation_Galaxian
"This world of sheeple has no hope!" Thus just 13 years left before extinction by AI_ Galaxian

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by Forty Two » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:40 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:I find it a bit.... childish. I would not go in there that's for sure. Must be the stupidest of girls allowing themselves to be exploited.
Yes, in Dutchland, they exploit the smartest of girls in a mature, adult fashion.

Image

Image

Image

:biggrin:
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:40 pm

Forty Two wrote:If you think, on a discussion forum, it's unfair for you to be asked: "what do you mean by society?" and "how should the discouragement be accomplished?" and "why?" Then, well, I'm not surprised.
Where did I say or suggest that it is "unfair"? This is just more of your empty rhetorical games.
pErvinalia wrote:
This is why you are bore. You are like the Terminator of debating. You have no idea if you are doing the right thing, you are just programmed to keep going regardless until your opponents die of boredom/infuriation.
Then don't participate.
That's exactly what I am doing. Yet you are getting your panties all in a twist about it. So should I spend 30 pages going back and forth with you, or should I not participate? Which one?
pErvinalia wrote:
I've got other things on my mind.
Then do them.
I am. That's why I'm not interested in spending 30 pages going back and forth with you.
pErvinalia wrote: Are you going to be able to handle that?
Sure, it's you that can't.
I'm handling it fine. I'm not discussing the topic with you other than my initial opinions. You clearly aren't handling it well, as yet another wall of empty rhetoric from you attests.
When I have other things on my mind, I focus on them. If it's a different thread or topic, then I go there. I don't go to threads that I'm not interested in discussing, post, and then bleat about how I'm not interested in going to the party after I've already stepped through the door and had a drink.
Who gives a fuck what you do? Are you under the mistaken impression that I want to be like you? :lol:
Or, if you really were not interested in it, and really found this repetitive, having been discussed many times before already, and if you really found it boring, we wouldn't see your screen name pop up in it at all. Instead, you want to state your position, have it left unchallenged and undiscussed, and then declare your participation over because you weren't interested in discussing such a boring, repetitive, topic in the first place.
You can discuss it as much as you like. I just won't be partaking in it for fear of a never ending equivocation and empty rhetoric fest.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by mistermack » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:41 pm

How long will it be before the churches get in on the act?

Come on down to the mercy seat, show us your ass and shake your titties for Jesus.


Actually, it's probably already happened somewhere.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:46 pm

Forty Two wrote:
JimC wrote:Here's my take...

1. I think such places are fairly crass, and are part of a culture that tends to regard women as playthings for men, in a rather juvenile way. It's a stretch, however, to take the standard ultra-feminist line and say they are part of "rape culture"

2. However, they do not reach a level where intervention/banning by society/governments is justified - to do so would be a step too far in the nanny state direction...

And 42, note that rEv didn't advocate them being banned, just discouraged. I agree that this is rather vague, but here's one version of "discourage". If both men and women had better educational opportunities to move towards a more authentic form of adult relationships, perhaps hooters and strip clubs might just gradually fade away, like most of us hope will happen to churches...
I never said he did advocate them being banned. I just asked what he meant by "discouraged" (how? why? by whom?) and he said "by society" (and I pointed out that that too is vague in meaningless, as "society" doesn't really mean anything, and doesn't tell us how society would act to discourage it, if indeed it could act as a single entity in the first place.

The only thing I did was ask Pervin to clarify his position, and say what he means. Then he decided to call the topic and me boring, and repetitive - claim it's already been discussed and answered before, so he's not going to repeat himself, and declare he was never interested in discussing the stupid topic in the first place because he's interested in something else.
I never said I wasn't interested in discussing the topic in the first place. This is a perfect example of the misrepresentation and/or empty rhetoric that you proffer up for page after never ending page.
That bullshit happens too often. Look, when he wants to probe someone else's position, he does so, with vigor - he demands evidence, and argument, which is all fair. However, he rarely responds in kind when people ask of him the same thing. He adopts vague positions, and often will drop vagueries into a thread, and then when someone says "so, is what you mean....?" and introduces a possible interpretation of what he's saying, he then flips out and accuses people of strawmanning and other fallacies (which he normally misuses) and then refuses to actually clarify or support his position, often claiming that he's already done so when he hasn't, or already covered it in another thread. The goal is to start a back and forth not about the issue but about the persons involved, and then it easily descends into his usual personal namecalling because if anyone continues to probe or ask for clarification/support for his argument, he starts stating or implying that they're stupid, can't read, or are dishonest.

I think anyone who follows along his postings sees that pattern, but he's very aggressive about attacking others, and making demands of them in an argument. So, I don't think it's unfair to simply get a short and plain statement of what he means by advancing a given position - especially when his position is stated not even in a full sentence, but as a terse phrase that could mean many things.

That's all -- I mean, JimC, don't you see him vigorously challenging posts and forum members here? He does so far, far more aggressively than "what do you mean by discourage?" and "can you clarify your argument as to what society would do and why, and what you mean by society in the first place?" How does the mere request for someone to back up the argument they advanced in a discussion forum (especially when that self-same person commonly does the same to others) become something untoward?
You still just haven't got it, despite me explaining it to you endlessly. I don't treat people who aren't worthy of respect with respect. They get disdain and ridicule. And you most certainly aren't worthy of respect (due to your dishonesty). Can you not see that I don't treat everyone like I treat you? Do I treat Jim, or Lak Lak or Sean Hayden like that? No. Why do you think that is? :ask:
Last edited by pErvinalia on Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:48 pm

mistermack wrote:How long will it be before the churches get in on the act?

Come on down to the mercy seat, show us your ass and shake your titties for Jesus.


Actually, it's probably already happened somewhere.
Almost certainly in Vegas.. :D
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests