455 replies to this topic

[BeefontheBone]

They don't serve you coffee in the morning at Hooters, though. And the fact that it's been done before doesn't make objectification any more acceptable. The funniest bit for me is the fact that the two things don't go together at all - I for one wouldn't want to see scantily-clad women while drinking coffee (in a public place, anyway). If you're having to go to such bizarre lengths to compete because there are so many coffee shops, maybe doing something else is a better idea than getting your baristas to get their kit off, even if that does let Starbucks win.

[Juni Ori]

Well, problem is that what actually is objectification? Or even better said, is it a problem? Those girls are not forced to do what they are doing and even still I think there's far more problematic issues than goodlooking eyecandy waitresses barely dressed up. There will always appear prostitutes in some form - which is far more complicated matter in moral and juridic way. Juridic in that sense that what is prostitution and what is not?

[A. J. Raffles]

Juni Ori, on Feb 5 2007, 11:13 AM, said:

Well, problem is that what actually is objectification?

Simple. When the tight skirt/bikini/negligee/whatever becomes more important than the coffee the waitress is serving.

Quote

Or even better said, is it a problem? Those girls are not forced to do what they are doing...

Well, why do you think they're doing it, then? Because they need to earn money or because they enjoy wearing silly outfits and like being ogled while serving coffee? There are plenty of reasons why someone might be forced to accept pretty much any job as long as the pay is OK.

Quote

...and even still I think there's far more problematic issues than goodlooking eyecandy waitresses barely dressed up. There will always appear prostitutes in some form - which is far more complicated matter in moral and juridic way. Juridic in that sense that what is prostitution and what is not?

Hang on a minute: how exactly did you get from "goodlooking eyecandy waitresses" to prostitutes? Never mind what they're wearing, but unless I missed something, their actual job is still to serve coffee.

[Tulac]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/6311619.stm

Well we all knew hobbits exists, didn't we Frodo? BTW I've watched a documentary about it on National Geographic, back then the thesis were not confirmed, but it seems to be real now.

[greywolf]

I posted that "sexpresso" article because I think it's sad that the sensualization of things here in America (I don't know what Europe is like) has gone so far as to apply to a formerly perfectly innocent occupation. It's disgusting, really - people want more buisness so they exploit the attractiveness/sensuality of their employees, and not only that, but make it a requirement for working there, thus discriminating against other women as well. If you think there's nothing wrong with that, then... :\

[Tulac]

I don't see where the problem is sex has been used to sell stuff since the "liberation" in 60's this is nothing new.

[greywolf]

You don't see anything wrong with using sex to sell things?

[Tulac]

Yes, but I don't see why this example should receive any special attention from me and why it started this debate. And also why nobody made any comments about the hobbits discovery.

[greywolf]

I think it's worth of attention because it shows society's increasing sensualization; there's hardly a product that's not sold without some hint of sexuality surrounding the ad campaign (except for toys, of course - kids don't care about that stuff... yet).

And don't worry about the hobbits; Frodo probably hasn't seen it yet.

[Juni Ori]

I took prostitution into the discussion because I see it is a problem, not sex used to sell things. It's been done forever. Women have been using their looks (as well as men too - just in a different way) to improve their position. We all like beautiful people, good looking faces, sexy bodies. There are topless men in roadside ads - which is a bit strange, unless the company wants women to smell masculine... Anyways, it's not that I'm not kind of agreeing you. It's just that it's ridiculous to send fire department to put out some camping fires, when there's couple of acres forest burning mile away - as a figure of speech. It's good that people are striving for women's rights etc. but why don't same people take focus on cheerleaders, nude pictures or pornography in general, for example? I understand how some may think they are evil and corrupting, but I can't understand why bother to upset for waitresses in revealing clothes? Possibly because they are losing the battle in other fronts?

And yes, I've heard of those hobbits already. I bet Frodo is the last living one.

[A. J. Raffles]

Juni Ori, on Feb 6 2007, 05:56 AM, said:

I took prostitution into the discussion because I see it is a problem, not sex used to sell things. It's been done forever. Women have been using their looks (as well as men too - just in a different way) to improve their position.

Uh, yes, fair enough, but that wasn't really the point here. The article was about the owner of some coffee place using his female employee's good looks to sell his coffee. That's not quite the same thing as "women using their looks [...] to improve their position".

Quote

We all like beautiful people, good looking faces, sexy bodies. There are topless men in roadside ads - which is a bit strange, unless the company wants women to smell masculine...

Now that you mention it, yes, adverts have become increasingly bizarre. Just thing of all those strange shampoo ads. I mean, when I wash my hair, I just want it to be clean - nothing else.

Quote

It's just that it's ridiculous to send fire department to put out some camping fires, when there's couple of acres forest burning mile away - as a figure of speech. It's good that people are striving for women's rights etc. but why don't same people take focus on cheerleaders, nude pictures or pornography in general, for example? I understand how some may think they are evil and corrupting, but I can't understand why bother to upset for waitresses in revealing clothes? Possibly because they are losing the battle in other fronts?

And who said the fire department has just a single fire engine?

[Juni Ori]

A. J. Raffles, on Feb 6 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

Uh, yes, fair enough, but that wasn't really the point here. The article was about the owner of some coffee place using his female employee's good looks to sell his coffee. That's not quite the same thing as "women using their looks [...] to improve their position".

Btw, do we know is it he or she, the owner I mean? Anyways, the employee can always look for another job, you know? So actually they are using their looks to improve their position. If they didn't do that, then they couldn't do this job. And to think of it, I bet their tips are worth "humiliating self" by showing little flesh.

A. J. Raffles, on Feb 6 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

And who said the fire department has just a single fire engine?

No one, but the point actually being in the question is this actually that big thing? No one's forced to do that job...

[BeefontheBone]

The quote in the story was from a woman I believe.

This has got to be the strongest evidence yet that American legal system has lost its sense of proportion:

http://news.com.com/..._3-6156516.html

Jeez.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Bloody hell... what a ridiculous story.

[Tulac]

We can't joke about Jews, Muslims, now Scientologists, what's next?