Theology of the Body and HOOTERS

[promethius]

Seriously?
Ugh.
There’s a strip bar near my house that has $7 PRIME RIB!!!
Me loves some prime rib, especially for $7.
I’m still not going.

I’m going to guess you live in Portland. If so, one of my friends knows the owner of the place. They do that because the guy also owns a cattle ranch, so he gets better selling prices than he could with the butchers, and the customers get better buying prices than they could from most restaurants…

But… I still never went and don’t intend to.

 

[stbruno]

Hey, if we are authentically Catholic and regularly say the Lord’s prayer…
how hypocritically are we if we do not live the words…
especially since it is the prayer given to us verbatim from the Lord.

'AND LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION." So Hooter’s you won’t see my money in your store…ever!

 

[BSHoop96]

Your judging, it is not your place. That belongs to God. In that case, do not take any children to any restaurant. Because most waiters are women anyway.

With peace and love.

Are you just trying to appear naive or are you really? The message at Hooters is an obvious one. The women are hired to bring in customers by using their physical “attributes”, to be looked at by others who find them sexually attractive. Yes, they willingly work there but this society carries a great deal of the guilt for teaching our children that physical looks are that important, and that “sex” sells and that’s it perfectly okay to do so. We can’t even run a TV commercial on selling toothpaste without sexuality in it. Even a popular deodorant ad implies that if you smell good you will having women flocking all over you…women are portrayed as getting what they want using sex…and on and on. Believe me, I am in no way a feminist but would not want my children to base their value on their sexuality and looks. Anyone who takes their children to Hooters needs to stop and think about what message they are condoning. Wake up.

 

[cthulhubryan]

I love good wings, I’ve never been to hooters but have had them. They are almost as bad as the wings from Wingers. BW3 is better, made at home is even better. If you’re in my neck of the woods go to Madison Gardens, their wings rock.

As to the statement: “I only go for the food”, this reminds me of another statement “I only read playboy for the articles”

 

[Newbie2]

As to the statement: “I only go for the food”, this reminds me of another statement “I only read playboy for the articles”

Exactomundo. Pretty thin excuse, eh?

 

[djrakowski]

Are good chicken wings and cold beer worth risking a near occasion of sin?

Would you be comfortable with your wife/daughter/sister parading around in the outfit of a Hooters girl for the enjoyment of men?

Thankfully, the Hooters in our neighborhood closed about a month ago - and good riddance, too. Now I don’t have to explain to my young children - especially my daughters - why those ladies are wearing almost no clothing in the coldest part of winter.

 

[JLSamuel818]

samuel, i see that you have quoted john paul ii for your signature. …]

he’s my inspiration. =]

…]i was looking up what john paul ii said about what is objectifying,
and i found an article on this very topic. This is straight from the themes in theology of the body on shame and shamelessness, and incorporates it with his writing of objectification in love and responsibility.

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/edwardpsri/loveandresponsibility/09.asp

please read it, and you will get a little taste of what our bodies are meant for.
Our bodies are created in order to inspire love and not lust.

Can you read this article, and let me know how we could apply the lesson in this article to going to hooters?

Thank you. I appreciate it. It’s actually harder than it looks!

Please pray for these kids, while i might be a knowledgeable and willing teacher, it’s the holy spirit that has to do the work.

*ah… Interesting. “a woman should dress in a way that inspires love for her as a person.” “a woman dressing immodestly may deliberately elicit a sexual reaction to her body. And she may attract men to view her body as an object of enjoyment”.

I understand fully what you mean. i do not think anyone should go to hooters for looking at women*. It is wrong to objectify a woman, and look at a woman with lust in his heart.

Teenagers, like your students, and adults as well should most likely not go to that establishment. I’m going to look up the book you requested, perhaps i should be corrected. I blissfully welcome correction.

However, there was one flaw in the article. Hooters, as a place is promoting sex. No doubt. Nevertheless, i don’t look at the women. I sit, talk to my girlfriend, she orders the food, we talk, eat, and leave.

I don’t see any sin there. Except that i went there to eat for my satisfaction of eating, and not for living. Any food eaten by a man to satisfy themselves is called sin of gluttony.

But that’s not the issue.

Very good article, i understand your message.

With much respect,
_[samuel]

it’s not judging. It is what it is.

I think this section from the article i previously mentioned sums it up well.

You can’t continue to say that objectivization is not going on at hooters.
It is what it is.
Shoot it’s called hooters for goodness’ sake!

*understood. The title of their company is wrong. It doesn’t objectify women though, it promotes sex. Which i would agree to being wrong.

You assume, everyone, going to hooters is objecting woman as an object. Your wrong there, not only that, it is called judging. Perhaps if you said “in my opinion” i would understand. Also, if what you say is true, do not take any children to any restaurant because the fact is, most waiters are indeed women. This, is a fact.*

“chastity is a difficult, long term matter; one must wait patiently for it to bear fruit, for the happiness of loving kindness which it must bring. But at the same time, chastity is the sure way to happiness.”
pope john paul ii
ps: Love the quote.

are you just trying to appear naive or are you really? The message at hooters is an obvious one. The women are hired to bring in customers by using their physical “attributes”, to be looked at by others who find them sexually attractive.

true, i do not deny this. However, i do not look at them, i’m looking at my girlfriend.

yes, they willingly work there but this society carries a great deal of the guilt for teaching our children that physical looks are that important, and that “sex” sells and that’s it perfectly okay to do so.
*
it is not perfectly okay to promote sex. It is wrong the way the world promotes it. I agree with you there.*

we can’t even run a tv commercial on selling toothpaste without sexuality in it.

very true.

even a popular deodorant ad implies that if you smell good you will having women flocking all over you…women are portrayed as getting what they want using sex…and on and on.

very true.

believe me, i am in no way a feminist but would not want my children to base their value on their sexuality and looks.

good, i do not want my children to think that their morals and principles revolve around sex and looks.

anyone who takes their children to hooters needs to stop and think about what message they are condoning. Wake up.

very true, children should not go because they are young, and their minds are like a sponge, they absorb anything into their minds, i would fear that my children would think it is okay to wear low cut tight shirts.

now, you need to understand. You say it like Hooters is the only place that uses female waiters. Their not, I went to a freaking Taco restaurant, and I didn’t see a single male waiter. There were only waitresses, should I stop taking my children there too because women work there? I am using your method of thinking, I think.

Much love to everyone,

_[Samuel]

 

[JLSamuel818]

are good chicken wings and cold beer worth risking a near occasion of sin?

*No, it is not worth risking sin. I have to play the sin of gluttony here though, by your method of thinking, you should never, ever go to any restaurant, of fear of eating so you can full your belly. Remember, your only supposed to eat unless you have to. Anything else is gluttony.

There are small sins, venial, and mortal. As a matter of fact, smoking is technically a sin, because any harm to your body-being the temple of God-is a sin, unless it is to save your life of course. But I’m just saying.*

Would you be comfortable with your wife/daughter/sister parading around in the outfit of a hooters girl for the enjoyment of men?

*No, because there are men that actually LOOK at the women with lust in their hearts. That’s just wrong!

However, I don’t go there to look at women, I just let my girlfriend orders some wings and that’s that. HECK, they can call it “Hell’s Kitchen” and have only men in tight shorts and I’d STILL go just for the wings. But then there probably be people saying it promotes homosexuality and objectifies men as objects for homosexual people, I think. [Promoting saying “i think”, this way, not judging the world or anyone]*

Thankfully, the hooters in our neighborhood closed about a month ago - and good riddance, too. Now i don’t have to explain to my young children - especially my daughters - why those ladies are wearing almost no clothing in the coldest part of winter.

How would they know this? Did you take them there?

To everyone, much love.

_[Samuel]

 

[BSHoop96]

now, you need to understand. You say it like Hooters is the only place that uses female waiters. Their not, I went to a freaking Taco restaurant, and I didn’t see a single male waiter. There were only waitresses, should I stop taking my children there too because women work there? I am using your method of thinking, I think.

If you are going to have a rational discussion you need to quit twisting the point. No one has said that having a female waitress is bad. Dressing a **male or female **waiter in a provacative manner and using a slang word for a part of their anatomy as the name of the restaurant is using sex as a marketing tool and the waiter as a tool in this propaganda. It’s demeaning (whether the waiter/waitress sees this or not) and is reflective of the sickness that pervades our society. The simple fact that you justify it in your roundabout way only proves that moral relativism is alive and well. I think we’ve said just about everything that can be said about this.

 

[shannyk]

I make WAY better wings than Hooters could ever hope to, and I wear a shirt I can breathe in when I serve them to boot.

Yeah, nothing like a restaurant full of men being served by ‘Hooter girls’ their daughters’ age to make me run the other direction.

Why anyone would go there is beyond me.

 

[yellowbicycle]

I’m going to guess you live in Portland. If so, one of my friends knows the owner of the place. They do that because the guy also owns a cattle ranch, so he gets better selling prices than he could with the butchers, and the customers get better buying prices than they could from most restaurants…

But… I still never went and don’t intend to.

Actually, Detroit.

But I think it’s funny that there are other strip bars that have $7 prime rib.

 

[sonofourlady]

I make WAY better wings than Hooters could ever hope to, and **I wear a shirt I can breathe in when I serve them to boot. **

Yeah, nothing like a restaurant full of men being served by ‘Hooter girls’ their daughters’ age to make me run the other direction.

Why anyone would go there is beyond me.

Shoot Shanny, you are such a hoot!!!

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

Maybe it’s worth mentioning here that supporting awful things with one’s time and money might be considered a sin. If I go to Hooters, I am reinforcing the business model of a restaurant built around the exploitation of sexuality. Hooters has its place on the Porn-Prostitution continuum.

Sure, it’s at the softer end of the continuum, but I’m not sure that makes it less dangerous. For starters, the fact that it’s not a flat-out strip club gives supporters more wiggle room to defend it. “Sure, the whole thing is built on objectification and immodesty, but they don’t give lap dances, so what’s the problem?” Just because there’s something worse doesn’t mean that Hooters isn’t something awful.

You can also excuse a TV show like Friends or Desperate Housewives because there’s no actual nudity. How bad can it be, right? Well, since those shows help to propagate a culture that is obsessed with having sex without making any attempt to understand the sanctified nature of sexuality, it can be very, very bad.

It’s the more subtle stuff in the mainstream that’s killing us.

 

[BSHoop96]

Maybe it’s worth mentioning here that supporting awful things with one’s time and money might be considered a sin. If I go to Hooters, I am reinforcing the business model of a restaurant built around the exploitation of sexuality. Hooters has its place on the Porn-Prostitution continuum.

Sure, it’s at the softer end of the continuum, but I’m not sure that makes it less dangerous. For starters, the fact that it’s not a flat-out strip club gives supporters more wiggle room to defend it. “Sure, the whole thing is built on objectification and immodesty, but they don’t give lap dances, so what’s the problem?” Just because there’s something worse doesn’t mean that Hooters isn’t something awful. You can also excuse a TV show like Friends or Desperate Housewives because there’s no actual nudity. How bad can it be, right? Well, since those shows help to propagate a culture that is obsessed with having sex without making any attempt to understand the sanctified nature of sexuality, it can be very, very bad.

It’s the more subtle stuff in the mainstream that’s killing us.

Once again, moral relativism. Excellent post.

 

[mystified]

Does this not fall in the same vein as buying Playboy just for the journalistic articles?

 

[Gerard_Nadal]

Sure I believe that the teacher goes to Hooters for the food.

I also believe teenage boys when they say they read Playboy for the articles. :hypno: :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

 

[JLSamuel818]

If you are going to have a rational discussion you need to quit twisting the point.

*What’s the point of the argument between you and me from the beginning? It was that it objectifies women. I actually stuck to that point. But go on… *

No one has said that having a female waitress is bad.

Okay?

Dressing a **male or female **waiter in a provacative manner and using a slang word for a part of their anatomy as the name of the restaurant is using sex as a marketing tool and the waiter as a tool in this propaganda.

Ah… I see.

It’s demeaning (whether the waiter/waitress sees this or not) and is reflective of the sickness that pervades our society.

Very true.

The simple fact that you justify it in your roundabout way only proves that moral relativism is alive and well.

Not justifying anything. I’m just saying, I go there to get wings, and me and my girlfriend leave. You however, I assume you think that I am trying to say that Hooters is a good place and what there doing is good. I don’t think that way. Seems to me you are twisting the point.

I think we’ve said just about everything that can be said about this.

So be it.

Much peace and respect toward you.
_[Samuel]

 

[Writer]

Amen.

Amen…Amen.

 

[Steeltemplar]

I think that the name of Hooters alone is an indication of the sinful attitude that the establishment promotes in objectfying women.

I mean, who would look at that name and think, “Oh yes, that sounds like a lovely restraurant where I would take my family or parents.”?

Of course, a place called Hooters, which is famous for waitresses in tight fitting clothes, is promoting the idea of sexualizing the women who work there. And it does not matter that they work there voluntarily. They are still being objectified.

Actually, I have had a conversation about this place with my gf and, to her great appreciation, I said firmly that I would not go to such an establishment.

Seriously…there is food elsewhere, you know.

 

[Steeltemplar]

A good test occurs to me: Would you feel comfortable taking your Priest to the restaurant in question?

Naturally, I would not want to take my Priest to eat at Hooters And if I would not want to do that, then I should not be going either.