ew........ew..........EW! Is this sanitary? What about the DOH? How do you enforce health codes when the people serving food/drinks don't even have proper clothing on? I doubt they wear hair nets either...
(yes I'm a germ phobe, hence the health/safety concern over the omg this is sexist and disgusting)

Isn't this alot like the coffee truck that was in Seattle that had girls serving coffee and donuts in costumes and low cut tops? Back in 2007- still just as gross.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003535398_coffeegirls22e.html

Homophobia? Could you clear that connection up a little? I'm not seeing it. From your parenthetical, it seems that either clothed women with health insurance = men, or that what you really meant was male privilege.

@Lauren: The homophobia lies in the coffee shop's willingness to perpetuate stereotypical (what is supposed to be the hetero-normative) perception of male sexuality onto a cup of coffee. So they are trying to appeal to horny middle-aged men by providing barristas in bikinis. Basically, this sends the message that if you don't like this "Hooter's" approach to the morning cup of Joe you aren't a real man. Homophobia extends beyond the fear of seeing a same-sex couple holding hands. It also encompasses how we define male sexuality and female sexuality.

This is disgusting.

in addition to ew? HOLY OW! i worked coffee for years; i wonder how much spilled steaming liquid it'll take before no one will apply to the shop that requires its labor force to forgo protective apparel.

hyphen, I had the same question. My midriff hurts just thinking about it.

I like boobs as much as probably most guys and all, but I prefer an apron with my coffee. You know, so the person serving it doesn't get VERY BADLY BURNED and stuff. OSHA should be all over this place. I mean, the girls at Hooters don't work the fryers, at least. Are less "juggy" ladies fully clothed and in the back, like the Wizard of Oz, handling the hot coffee?

Most hetero guys, that is, and that first sentence's syntax reminds me that, actually, I need some coffee. From the fully clothed purveyors downstairs, even. Cheers.

"Basically, this sends the message that if you don't like this "Hooter's" approach to the morning cup of Joe you aren't a real man."

I don't know if I agree with this. Surely some men like this approach, and nowhere do they claim that they are providing what all men want. They are filling a niche. Yes, it's objectifying but sex sells, beautiful women happen to appeal to the demographic they are targeting, and they needed a gimmick. Such is life.

what is their hiring process? since they obviously wouldn't want gals above a size 4 working there (gasp!!), do you have to submit your measurements and get weighed weekly? Lol, what do you put on your resume under qualifications? "High metabolism" "hyper-active thyroid condition?"

::sigh::

I feel bad for both of them. They look about seventeen years old and they're being paid to sell coffee to people their father's age.

I wonder if pregnant women can sell coffee there? Pregnant women have big boobs, usually. Or would that scare people- sex leads to babies and all that? Hehe.

Surely some men like this approach, and nowhere do they claim that they are providing what all men want. They are filling a niche.

i don't know that this is a such-is-life niche. it's unsafe, sexist (unless men get to wear tiny tops and short shorts behind the counter, too), and heteronormative. lots of demands exist that we as a culture decide not to supply. i don't think it's overly idealistic to consider this one of them.

The women who choose to work there must not think themselves objectified.

well, or they don't work within a paradigm of objectification. which amounts to about the same thing.

But really, what's the problem?

I'm not going to assume these girls are stupid. They know exactly what the job entails. If they choose to work there, then it must be acceptable to them.

Which is worse? A few young women making a choice to flaunt themselves? Or everyone else telling them to be shameful and cover themselves up?

Since when has feminism been about telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

it’s a caffeinated sex oasis

That does not appeal to me.

Surely some men like this approach, and nowhere do they claim that they are providing what all men want.

But just because they don't literally say "If you don't want to see big boobs, you're a queer," doesn't mean they don't claim to be providing what all men want. They say it in other words such as: "cater to blue-collar 'average Joes' who they say shun Starbucks." And in the linked article, it says (as the last lines):
They might be your boo’s confidante for three minutes every morning, but they won’t torpedo themselves out of the drive-thru window into his car and suck his face off. Friendly chitchat is their specialty. “We’re kind of like therapists,” says Molten.

So instead of seeing a real therapist to deal with their issues, REAL men only need to big boobs to perk up. (No coffee or other 'perk up' pun intended!)

I would like to think that my masculinity doesn't hinge on demeaning women by demanding they wear bra tops to serve me coffee. I don't like coffee or Starbucks but I do like treating people like they are people - and Java Jugs can't provide that, either to the waitresses by having them dress as they do or to the customers by promoting the idea that all men think about, from morning coffee on, is breast.

What a great idea! I would definitely get my coffee there rather than Stabucks.

-Ben

Which is worse? A few young women making a choice to flaunt themselves? Or everyone else telling them to be shameful and cover themselves up?

I don't think anyone is telling them to be shameful. If these women were on the beach or near a pool where one typically sees bikinis there would be no issue here.

The issue here (at least one of them) is that the coffee shop is using these women's bodies as advertising.

Flaunting yourself because YOU want to is one thing - if going wild and topless is your thing, have at it. Using yourself (or having other use you) as an ad gimmick is another.

I too would be offended if I was the intended audience. However, the fact remains that a portion of that hetero, white dude population is going to love the idea, thus, the marketing plan will work. Personally, I feel that if you're such a jerk that you are going to specifically go to the bikini barista to see some titties, I will gladly take your exorbitant tips.

daoist, way to attack a strawfeminist. No one has attacked the women for working there, have they?

Holden, you bring up a good point. When I worked as a barista, I was "like a therapist" to many regulars with my clothes on. I'm pretty sure that there were even a few who had crushes on me but at least they had to talk to me and recognize that I was a human being before reaching that point.

Flaunting yourself because YOU want to is one thing - if going wild and topless is your thing, have at it. Using yourself (or having other use you) as an ad gimmick is another.

What other thing is it?

To me it's utterly the same: In both situations the women choose to wear what they're wearing when they're wearing it. You can wear pants and a t-shirt to the beach. You can choose to work at an innumerable places where the uniform is not a bikini.

You can choose to work at an innumerable places where the uniform is not a bikini.

A woman can only choose to work at "innumerable places" with clothes on now, because of feminists insisting that women not be objectified.

Since when has feminism been about telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

Where has anyone here said anything about the women working there being the ones who are wrong?

What is being bemoaned is the fact that society allows for the commodification of women's bodies to make money. I don't have a problem with women taking advantage of patriarchy to make money, but I still have a problem that patriarchy exists so that there are less options for women who don't want to use their sexuality to make money to find alternative (and equally lucrative) employment.

But personally, I'm not worried about this little franchise. The niche they're targeting is not your typical two-trips-a-day coffee drinker. Business will not be nearly as busy as they think it will be. And after the first scalding-related lawsuit, this company will fold like a lawn chair.

  You can choose to work at an innumerable places where the uniform is not a bikini.

Not always true, unfortunately.

You are kidding, right?

If every job required women to wear bikinis, this wouldn't be news. The mere fact that a place where bikinis are the uniform is news is a good indication that most jobs have non-bikini uniforms.

  Since when has feminism been about telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

Where has anyone here said anything about the women working there being the ones who are wrong?

These are big girls. They can make their own decisions. If they want to work there, we, as feminists, should support their decisions to do whatever they want.

Jumping in to save them from the big evil scary men only does further damage to feminism; we're saying that they're too feeble-minded to understand what is going on and they need protection. Women need liberation (to do whatever they want, including wearing a bikini at work), not perpetual victimhood.

If every job required women to wear bikinis, this wouldn't be news.

Exactly. It wasn't so long ago that skimpy outfits, weigh-ins, and sexism was required for flight attendants. It was wrong there, too.

Women need liberation (to do whatever they want, including wearing a bikini at work), not perpetual victimhood.

Yes. Because women have just been aching to sell coffee to leering middle age men while wearing naught but bikinis. Women are taking these jobs because they believe that the jobs will pay better (more tips) than the average coffee shop job. And they're right. They're not taking the jobs because of a yearning for serving men while in bikinis. They're doing it to make more money. This additional money is a manipulation to draw in women who would rather work fully clothed, but can't afford to.

Once the owners of this coffee businesses (or businesses in general) start regularly showing up to work in skimpy bathing suits, then I'll believe that people actually want to work that way.

Again, I have no problem with women working at a place where the dress code calls for a g-string and pasties if that's what they truly want to wear to work. I have a problem when women have no equally lucrative employment options to work fully dressed if that's what they truly want.

@daoist: it's not like these girls woke up and said, "I think I want to wear a bikini to work today." Their employers said that they were required to wear a bikini. Because that's his coffee shop's selling point.

Let me say that again. His employee's bodies are his business's selling point.

The point of this article is not to save the poor feeble girlies from the big scary men. The point is to say that it fucking sucks that our bodies are being used to sell anything. That these girls are being put in that position at all, regardless of what choice they make. That Oregon are being told that women's bodies exist for them. That the beauty hierarchy is being so blatantly enforced.

And no, those girls can't always get another job. If you haven't noticed, we're in a fucking recession.

You are kidding, right?

I personally know people who live in small towns that are economically depressed. And due to the sexism and racism of business owners, they find they can't even get an interview anywhere other than the local nudie bar.

People do not always have a wide choice of places where they can work. I certainly agree that most women have the luxury of being able to choose to work fully clothed, but I'm surprised you doubt that some small minority of people are not so fortunate.

Who are you to tell them what they want or don't want?

I think that's pretty presumptuous and that's exactly the attitude I'm talking about when I say these comments are perpetually victimizing these women.

They know what the job entails. They have weighed the pros and cons. And yet they chose to work there. Sounds awfully like they want to work there to me.

Maybe this is trying for too hard to find some silver lining, but does anyone know how many Java Jugs stores there are? I would think there aren't more than a handful of stores. Compare that to the number of Starbucks stores, and it seems pretty clear that a huge majority of men and women would rather not be served by bikini-clad baristas. If this store was really tapping huge amounts of latent demand for this kind of nonsense, then you'd imagine there would be more stores, copycat-stores, etc. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm happy that this doesn't appear to be the Next Big Thing in coffee to sweep the nation (at least not yet).

Small economically depressed towns such as Salem (pop 142,000)?

You have a point about the local nudie bar in Dog Bark, Arkansas. But a gimmick coffee shop in Salem? I'm sure the starbucks next door (and the one next door to that) is hiring.

these comments are perpetually victimizing these women

i'm not sure the objection is toward the laborers who are working under certain job requirements, but instead toward the business owners who are setting the job requirements.

the question isn't whether people will pay their bills doing certain things. the question is whether people who already have money, and who are trading it for time and effort on behalf of someone else, are allowed to ask certain things from their employees.

in this case, i would say probably not. again: the policies are unsafe, sexist, and heteronormative. even if people are willing to fill the positions.

At what point in this post did Courtney plead with women not to work at Java Jugs? At what point did she say anything negative about the women or insinuate that she knows best for them?
That's right - nowhere.
Posts like this always bring out the male "liberators," who are so very concerned with women's freedom to give them boners with their morning coffee.
This post criticized our sexist culture, our culture's consumerism and sexist business practices that commodify women. Take your strawman arguments elsewhere.

Its disgusting and very sad. Oregon isn't that progressive and green. I think the west coast is very overrated and would prefer to be in a place with real blue collar people like Michigan who can't even afford to go out and get a damn cup of coffee. This is the real blue collar living here.

I probably would not be able to work there because I have small breasts!

If you would like me to not attack strawmen, then please do not construct them yourselves with your comments.

daoist: I never said I thought it wasn't the case for these women. I said it wasn't always the case, as you seemed to imply. I'm glad we can agree that, for some people, the ability to work in clothing they don't consider degrading is not a viable option.

Sexist? Classist?? Homophobic???

That's pure farce. Plain BS. They were hired as bikini baristas in the 1st place. It was their choice.

Sex sells. You think they're going to put a 700lb man on a box of Wheaties? Selling on the basis of sex appeal is hardly sexism. Check out your local Abercrombie & Fitch, they have semi-nude teenage boys standing outside their shops hawking $70 shirts. I may object to the semi-nudeness of it all, but its hardly sexist.

And as for the classist & homophobic claims, they don't even begin to make sense.

On general principle, the entire business idea sucks. I was a barista for 14 years (from my first job until I finally started college, I'm one of those dorky latte art people). It's messy, you get burned, you get rude customers, and total weirdo customers- at a normal shop. And the pay is for crap, like ANY food service job. I can't imagine doing it in a bikini, it would suck. Bet they'll have a high turnover rate.
And sure, these girls chose to do it, maybe they just needed a damn job- and alot of "fat", "ugly" people got turned away. I am failing to see the positive in this... and I'm failing to see the reason it should be defended (other than you get bored hiding under your bridge and have to poke people with a stick once in a while).

On the bright side, someone tried to start a chain like this in my town, and didn't last a month. I guess our large population of blue-collar guys (which I made a lot of Mochas for when I was slinging coffee) didn't have to have bikini girls with their coffee. How insulting to imply that because they are working class males they just have to have boobies in their faces 24/7.

If you would like me to not attack strawmen, then please do not construct them yourselves with your comments.

No one is telling you to stop attacking strawmen.

They're telling you to stop BUILDING them.

I wish I never had to read the justification "sex sells" ever again.
First of all, what is meant by "sex?" Surely you don't mean actual or simulated intercourse? I don't see that here, and I don't see that in the majority of sexist advertisements/marketing. What I see is women's bodies, which are a stand-in for "sex" in this culture. Women's bodies are literally considered the personification of "sex."
Second, what we object to is the fact that "sex" (i.e. women's bodies) are used to sell products and promote causes. We are complaining about the fact that "sex sells," not denying it. So saying "sex sells" is actually quite redundant and does not amount to any type of argument.

I googled this and it seems that the shops' name is actually Bikini Coffee and Java Jugs is the title of another blog post about the subject.

Anyway, for all the talk of how heteronormative it all is, they do talk about their lesbian customers quite a bit. And apparently the pay isn't minimum wage either.