Twin Peaks and Hooters: Sexist and Misogynistic?

[Forty Two]

You know, just look a bit objectively at the Hooters outfits. Are they really that big of a deal? They are outfits you can see some women wear on warm days just aout and about. T-shirts and shorts. A little tight, but a lot of women wear tight outfits.

I googled "manhatten women t-shirts shorts" and here is image number 1 --



These folks are wearing outfits hardly any different in character from the Hooters outfits. The only difference, really, is the body fat percentage of the women involved.

And, let's not forget that in some cities in the US and elsewhere, it's legal for women to walk around in public topless. So, if they can walk around in public topless, are tight t-shirts a problem?

[pErvinalia]

What makes it different is that it's tied to employment. Essentially, wear this skimpy clothing or lose your job. It's still a choice in the broadest sense of the word, but it's not the same level of choice as the women in that photo.

[Forty Two]

Well, I mean, get a job at a strip joint, and "take off your clothes, or you lose your job." Or, get a job in a warehouse and "lift heavy boxes or lose your job." That's the nature of that kind of choice. Here is the job I need/want done. Do the job, or lose it.

[pErvinalia]

Sure. But it's still not equivalent to people choosing what, or what not, to wear in public.

[pErvinalia]

Active Hooters parody should be merged with this thread.

[mistermack]

It will never change. Waitresses will always be chosen on their looks.

[Forty Two]

Sure. But it's still not equivalent to people choosing what, or what not, to wear in public.

Well, it's not "equivalent" to people choosing what or what not to wear at the beach vs. on Main Street, but if you can wear a bathing suit at the beach, not sure why it would be unlawful to wear one on Main Street, or at a restaurant.

The only rationales I've heard offered are hygiene rationalizations, suggesting that failing to wear more clothes is somehow a health issue. However, I don't see as how that is the case for anyone but the food preparers, at most. And, the rest of the rationales are moral ones -- usually offered by the religious and other zealots.

When talking about "choosing" what to wear at hooters, the clothes are not particularly revealing. This is the interesting part. It's a t-shirt, and shorts. We're not even talking about clothing that is dedicated only to one certain area, like a beach. A Hooter outfit is of the kind that can be worn walking around the mall, according to societal custom around here, and in fact some women choose to wear clothing much more revealing, whether at work or in public.

Even understanding a difference between doing what an employer is saying is a condition of employment vs wearing what the law says is allowed in public, the fact remains that a person need not take that particular job. Some jobs and schools require uniforms of varying kinds - the same lack of choice is involved there. What if a student doesn't want to wear the school uniform?

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

Some jobs and schools require uniforms of varying kinds - the same lack of choice is involved there.

The additional thing here is that jobs at Hooters and the equivalent require a particular body type, and a willingness to put up with sleazy men.

Oh well, if Stormy Daniels can manage to, I guess anyone can...

[mistermack]

It takes all sorts.
I'm actually put off by the blatant stuff like the hooters brand of women. I find the glimpse more sexy than the whole full frontal thing.
Medium knickers are far more sexy than thongs. And a fleeting flash of thigh above stocking tops is far more sexy than a micro skirt ending at fanny level.

[pErvinalia]

It takes all sorts.
I'm actually put off by the blatant stuff like the hooters brand of women. I find the glimpse more sexy than the whole full frontal thing.
Medium knickers are far more sexy than thongs. And a fleeting flash of thigh above stocking tops is far more sexy than a micro skirt ending at fanny level.

I actually agree with something MM said.

[JimC]

It takes all sorts.
I'm actually put off by the blatant stuff like the hooters brand of women. I find the glimpse more sexy than the whole full frontal thing.
Medium knickers are far more sexy than thongs. And a fleeting flash of thigh above stocking tops is far more sexy than a micro skirt ending at fanny level.

I actually agree with something MM said.

Simply because you have similar perversions...

[mistermack]

Simply because you have similar perversions...

It's true! Ripping my cock off as I type :

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

Some jobs and schools require uniforms of varying kinds - the same lack of choice is involved there.

The additional thing here is that jobs at Hooters and the equivalent require a particular body type, and a willingness to put up with sleazy men.

Not sure why requiring a particular body type is a problem. Models on the catwalk. Porn stars. Actors for particular roles (they require a thin Abraham Lincoln, for example). Flight attendants have to be able to fit in the aisles. There are other jobs that don't require that particular body type.

Also, willingness to "put up with sleazy men," that's yes and no. They aren't required to put up with harassment or touching. They are required to put up with what everybody else has to put up with in life. But, really, if you've ever gone to Hooters, there is not a whole lot of "sleaze" going on there. It's not like Hooters waitresses are being groped or sexually harassed. In general it's good natured banter. If the waitresses feel harassed, the management will address the situation.

Oh well, if Stormy Daniels can manage to, I guess anyone can...

Stormy is a porn star. If she refused to take her clothes off, or take a load to the face, she'd probably lose her job.

[Forty Two]

It takes all sorts.
I'm actually put off by the blatant stuff like the hooters brand of women. I find the glimpse more sexy than the whole full frontal thing.

Then you'd love Hooters. They don't even show cleavage.

Medium knickers are far more sexy than thongs.

Hooters doesn't have thongs, and their shorts cover their entire ass.

And a fleeting flash of thigh above stocking tops is far more sexy than a micro skirt ending at fanny level.

They wear tights on their legs - like those thick cheerleader type hose.

This is the uniform:



In reality, it's the girls that are the problem for the anti-Hooters crowd. If they put "average" looking girls in those uniforms, nobody would care. It's only because the girls are above-average in appearance that folks are upset. The uniforms are not skimpy or revealing. Nobody would care if a 12 year old wore that to the middle school pep rally.

[pErvinalia]

Forty Two wrote:

Some jobs and schools require uniforms of varying kinds - the same lack of choice is involved there.

The additional thing here is that jobs at Hooters and the equivalent require a particular body type, and a willingness to put up with sleazy men.

Not sure why requiring a particular body type is a problem. Models on the catwalk. Porn stars. Actors for particular roles (they require a thin Abraham Lincoln, for example). Flight attendants have to be able to fit in the aisles. There are other jobs that don't require that particular body type.

The work they do specifically requires a certain body type. Serving food shouldn't really require a certain body type. Unless the claim is that they are in the entertainment industry.