Personally, I'm not even sure why this is a news story. What's the big deal? It's not against the law, you don't have to go there if you don't want to, they're not the first restaurant to sell sexiness, and the waitresses there are probably better dressed than they are at certain other establishments. What's the problem? The mayor of the town is all upset about it. He says it's not appropriate for a community of that size. Why not? Who is it hurting? Little granny down the street? Her five year old grandson? Single moms at home? Truck drivers? It's not like anybody hasn't seen such things before. I'm trying to rack my brain for arguments against it, that I can dismiss. I can't seem to think of any...help me out, if you don't agree with the whole lingerie idea.

Well, in Ontario (and Quebec), if I recollect correctly, it's also not illegal to have a woman walk down the street topless . . . something about equality rights in the news some time ago.

Well, I'm not sure about the arguments against either, but why did Hooters get so much criticism for their "family" restaurant?

Perhaps, one might it encourages married men to freely lust after women (other than his wife).

Sure, you can easily get that anywhere, but hey, tis free entertainment for the price of one meal! And since it is not illegal, minors can enjoy their share in public as well . . .

or maybe the ladies will object b/c the men get to gaze at the women, whereas the women are left out...HAHA.

else, I'm assuming that smaller towns are more conservative (that's the feeling I got from the mayor's spiel), which would be a foundation of the criticism, especially since conservatism is often associated with religious beliefs, which may relate to beliefs against sexual immorality. . .

Me.

If married men want to freely lust after women, that's their responsibility. Nobody else's. Married men should be accountable for their own actions, no matter what the circumstances are. So that argument doesn't hold up. Minors can enjoy their share, sure. But isn't there somewhere else that minors are supposed to be in the middle of the day on Monday and Tuesday? And besides, if a parent does not want their child to see such a thing....shouldn't it be their responsibility to prevent it? Women are left out? I would have no objections if a woman restaurant owner decided to have males in g-strings strutting around as waiters on Mondays and Tuesdays. Onus is on them to do it, not on male restaurant owners not to do it. Hooters got a bad rap BECAUSE they portrayed themselves as a family restaurant. Clearly they're not. Neither is this one. And they're not claiming to be. Basically, the arguments against this restaurant that you present, are purely reactionary, and trying to place responsibility elsewhere, that should be shouldered yourself. The key thing is that nobody is forcing you to go there.

As for the idea that smaller towns are more conservative....well, is it or is it not a capitalist society? I'm not necessarily in favour of it, but the fact remains, it is. Restaurant owners do what they want. If they lose business because of it, then they won't do it anymore. But if they gain business because of it....well, who is it who decides the character of a town anyways? The population or the mayor? I would argue that it's the general population. You can't have one autocratic mayor deciding things about a town. What if the mayor was a neo-Nazi? Would he be running Jews and blacks out of town? It would be ridiculous and very unfair. And Christians...okay, I can see why they would object. But the government in Canada, unlike Islamic countries, is not run by religion. In fact, there's a conscious effort to separate religion and government. At least there was in the past; the line may be blurring these days....

"So for two days a week, his family-style restaurant has been transformed into a testosterone-filled pub with waitresses donning skimpy lingerie." (Quote)

Well, it's prolly the paper's use of rhetoric, but the impression I got, was that the restaurant was more-or-less a family restaurant that parents and kids went to ... (that's my main pt, the rest are just thoughts and comments).

. . . as for lunch hours, kidz aren't necessarily as school for lunch. We wandered into restaurants and such during high school b/c we had 1 hr and 10 mins for lunch ... ;P

Blame the parents; make them hold responsibility. Though, how much does society these days give credit to parents? Parents cannot use disciplinary force for fear of "child abuse", parents often have no say in what the child learns academically and socially...even "filtering" a child's access to the Internet is next-to-impossible these days. I'm not saying that parents should not be responsible for their kids, but one can only do so much as a parent...

But I think it's rather gross anyhow to be like lusting after a woman (you can argue that they don't but how likely is that if men go just so they can look at woman in lingerie?) while eating food, or being served food. . .I think it can get rather messy, possibly in more ways than one. . . but then again, strip clubs serve food too . .. so that argument won't hold any water either ;P Actually, I wouldn't mind checking that place out, just for the fun of it :P

Although, this idea is rather creative and original. I've heard of Hooters, but they have yet to step so far as having waitresses in lingerie at a "family-styled" restaurant.

Me, yet again

Addressing your main point, I reiterate one of my points. There's no little kids going to go to this place on a Monday and Tuesday daytime without express consent of their parents. As far as I know, elementary school kids are not supposed to be leaving school property without permission. So if they show up there, they're either not supposed to be there, or they are there with consent of parents. In the first case, the parents may or may not want to discipline the children for breaking the rules and going off school property. In fact, the school might want to discipline the children as well. In the second case, the parents might want to do some self-examination. But ultimately, it's up to them what they want to expose their kids to.

By kids, I'm not talking about high school age, okay? By high school, they're not kids anymore. They're old enough to make decisions and be responsible for those decisions. I have no problem whatsoever with high school kids going into a restaurant like that. High school students have long since lost their innocense. They've been exposed to porn, explicit scenes in movies, even prime time tv. Half of high school students have had sex. Don't tell me that they haven't seen a woman in her underwear before.

I'm not blaming the parents on anything. What I'm saying, is that the responsibility lies with the parents. They have plenty of control. It's not that they can't use disciplinary force. They can. They can spank, if you're talking about physical force. What they can't do is abuse their children. And you know what? I think that's a good thing. That's not eroding parental authority, because parents shouldn't be throwing their kids against the wall, or taking baseball bats and stuff to them in the first place, okay? That kind of thing really makes me mad. There are plenty of ways to discipline your child without crippling them for the rest of their life. They do have some say in what their kid learns academically. They can choose where to put their kid in school -- private school, public school or home school. They can join PTA boards, they can run for school trustee or whatever it is that they call those things. Socially? Parents are supposed to instil values in their children. At least that's what I always thought. I mean.....aren't parents the ones who are supposed to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong, that kind of thing? Internet? Come on. Who says you have to have internet in the first place? And if you do, there are plenty of inexpensive products on the market to keep it child-safe. I agree with you, certainly, that one can only do so much as a parent. But keeping your small child from entering a restaurant like this, surely, is within your reach as a parent. I mean, come on.

And you think that lusting after women is gross? Well first of all, what do you mean by 'lusting'? I'm not sure if I understand your connotation about it getting messy. I mean, are you saying that these guys are going to be jerking off in the middle of lunchtime? That seems to be what you're implying....I think that's rather unlikely. I doubt that the owner has that in mind. And unlikely dressing skimpily, exposing yourself in public IS illegal. He can just call the cops and have that problem dragged away. Alternatively, if what you mean by lusting is just like....thinking about that woman, then what the hell is the big deal? I hate to break it to you, but people lust after people all the time. Men lust after women, women lust after men. I mean.....it's just a part of everyday life. You can't stop it. If the woman is pretty, she'll probably lusted after even if she's fully clothed. There's really nothing you can do about it.

Calvin

Exposing yourself in public is illegal perhaps in British Columbia, it's probably illegal in Ontario if it was sexually done, but like I previously mentioned, it's not illegal for a woman to be topless in Ontario or Quebec (unless I'm wrong).

When I meant kids, I meant youth who were still under the age of majority. Sure they can make decisions, sure they drink, etc. but why then does the government have laws against selling tobacco, alcohol and permitting minors to go into clubs (strip or otherwise)?

Me

If you note the context in which I used exposing yourself in public, I was referring to male genitals. Which is illegal everywhere. I don't even know why women going topless is an issue here. No women are going topless anywhere in this story at all!

Why does the government have laws against minors going into clubs? Ostensibly to protect them, I suppose. I don't think they should have such laws. I think that the age of majority should be much younger.

Calvin

"I'm trying to rack my brain for arguments against it, that I can dismiss."

"Ostensibly to protect them, I suppose. I don't think they should have such laws. I think that the age of majority should be much younger."

Well, I think that the age of majority should be consistent across Canada as well. But you wanted arguments against the lingerie idea, wouldn't you say that you posed one angle to answer your own question? The government is trying to protect someone, or a group of people, or in that--themselves, which might suggest why the mayor is not liking the idea.

Moi

Well okay, I guess you could say that. I would respond in the following way. Those who need protection, will get it from their parents or school, and those who don't need protection, shouldn't be protected. I think that pretty well explains how I think of it. If parents or schools are not providing that protection, then, that is the problem that needs to be solved, not the problem of the restaurant.

Calvin

Back to main.