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.

i take issue with one thing some commenters here have noted, saying that women take these jobs primarily because they pay more. from what i've read, *sometimes* that is true, but i've also read in numerous places that a specific type of personality is often *drawn* to work of this kind. some strippers, especially, seem to find the exhibitionistic nature of the work rewarding on some level; i don't personally *understand* that, but i have no doubt that it's true. (i'm sure there are also women who don't like it but do it solely for the money.) so let's acknowledge that these women are doing what they're doing for most likely an array of reasons, of which economics is merely one.

numerous studies of workers of all kinds have repeatedly shown that the majority of workers will in fact accept marginally *less* pay if they have good relationships with their coworkers and bosses, flexibility, and other favorable working conditions.

having said all of that, i would assert that the *reason* women of some stripes find this sort of work rewarding/empowering has to do with a sense of power they feel working within a patriarchal framework. in my view, any sort of power they might feel would be illusory, and i personally don't *want* the kind of "power" that comes from a very one-sided interaction based almost entirely on my looks rather than my talents, but i only get to live my life, not theirs.

SarahMC, you beat me to the punch. Although my own phrasing was a lot less eloquent:

Please STFU with the 'sex sells' crap. Thank you.

Sing, SarahMC! I truly hate the way whenever a magazine is doing their special "sex issue," it's nine times out of ten a picture of a convetionally attractive, white woman used to personify sex (and in that tenth time, it'll be a woman of color). Men have sex, too, and men can be sexually attractive, so why not feature them?

Deplorably, I remember awhile ago, a study came out linking oral sex to throat cancer, and the AP (I think) write-ups of the story featured a picture of "sexy" red woman's lips. Inappropriate!

Portland truly is the one of the worst. It has a reputation for being super-progressive and liberal, but it's a pretty sexist, racist city. Perhaps you'll remember the vegan strip club story that originated out of there? I feel like the same could be said for Seattle (where I live): both cities have a surface of liberalism (and in Seattle's case, is truly liberal on a lot social issues) that covers the conservative power and money that rules the city.

And apparently the pay isn't minimum wage either.

They make bank: They make minimum wage plus 100 percent of their tips

Sure, "sex sells", is a truism, but its also shorthand.

Its a trivialization to equate selling on the basis of sex to the wholesale objectification of women. The interest in sex is a biological imperative so, in itself, its healthy.

True objectification occurs when women are judged solely on the basis of their sex appeal. I hardly think 6 bikini clad baristas impact society more than Hillary Clinton's 18M votes.

In fact for every bikini clad barista you could find a hundred female executives, attorneys, and professionals. Its lamentable that so much marketing is focused on sex appeal--we'd be a smarter, better, more self confident country if it weren't--but its not sexist.

SaraMC totally beat me to it but yeah, "sex" doesn't sell, women sell sex.

The article says they don't get burned, but when I was a barista I would be covered in coffee, steamed milk spray, and flavorings by the end of the day. It seems like a bad job to try to do in a bikini. Even at Starbucks they give you an apron.

However, if they work for tips (we weren't allowed to get tips) I would imagine they make decent money for someone their age and probable lack of education, despite the article's declaration of their smarts. And they probably get their ego stroked, which some people require.

I have no problem with this. I'd be pissed if my husband or boyfriend were going to a place like this and over-tipping the women, thereby paying seven bucks every morning for a cup of coffee he could have gotten for $2 at Dunkin Donuts, but that's more of a money thing than a sex thing.

I think the men are the ones being exploited here with the assumption that this is what they all want. I would be offended to be told that I must want my coffee served by a bunch of young college guys in cutoffs.

They even have this out in rural Washington state in a town near the Oregon border (perhaps the Oregon influence is to blame?). But the coffee stand of which I speak is owned and run by a woman. She employees the bikini-clad babes (perhaps is one herself?). And it's only on Fridays in the summer. But still.

What I can't figure out is why you'd want to make coffee wearing only a bikini top -- what about burn issues? Ouch!

@ Cedar:"Sing, SarahMC! I truly hate the way whenever a magazine is doing their special "sex issue," it's nine times out of ten a picture of a convetionally attractive, white woman used to personify sex (and in that tenth time, it'll be a woman of color). Men have sex, too, and men can be sexually attractive, so why not feature them?"

Word.

So where the fuck are the men in board shorts and speedos?

Spike, head over to Jezebel - every day for the past week they've been posting *really good* pics of male (and female) athletes. It'll do you body good, according to sly. ;)

Anyway, it'd be dishonest to insist that the only reason women would work at places like this is because they're financially desperate. When you teach girls, starting at a very young age, that the path to "empowerment" is getting sexualized male attention, many of them will believe it.

I'm not sure what freaks me out more- the article or the comments.

Yeah for free speech and it's bastion, the internet. BOO for people who don't clearly think things out and used the tired "sex sells" or "it's THEIR choice" arguments.

Obviously- it's their choice, but as all of sociology would suggest, it's more complicated than that. What motivates these [obviously teenaged] women to work there? Maybe not something as obvious as financial distress- but how about wanting to be cool, found sexy by perfect strangers their father's age, or what's creepier, feel approval from customers their father's age? This store is just a symptom of the misogynist society that creates it, and that's my fucking problem with it.

When I was a barista throughout my teens, even with clothing on, I was sexually harassed, asked out, told how I looked today, and even forced to wear uniforms that were too small for me ("oops, I accidentally ordered a small- guess you'll have to wear it, but don't worry- you'll look great!" no kidding) It wore me down, made me feel less human, and I started feeling sick every time some guy walked up with that fucking smile on his face asking for a "latte, and your number, babe." I was there for a job, not the pick up lines, not to mention the fact that every man who harassed me was significantly older than me, and as a customer, in a position of power- the customer is always right.

When I imagine having to do that in a bikini, I feel enraged and scared for these women who will have to deal with the psychological consequences of being treated like a pair of boobs with a coffee maker attached- even more than I was wearing an apron. And the fucking boiling hot milk!

The position shouldn't exist, even if women willingly take it, because it harms them (don't argue with me, argue with psychology) and creates an atmosphere that says this objectification is A-OK. And, unlike prostitution, strip bars and other forms of sex work, it isn't labeled as such- hence the incredibly low compensation, and increased sexual objectification in what should be a relatively safe place- a goddamn fucking coffee shop!

Give me an ulcer, why don't you.

"I think the men are the ones being exploited here with the assumption that this is what they all want. I would be offended to be told that I must want my coffee served by a bunch of young college guys in cutoffs."

Really? Cause there are a gagillion other coffee shops where they can go to and not be "exploited". The customer is in no way constrained here. And voluntarily paying extra money for what is already considered an overpriced luxury is hardly exploitative.

Now if we were talking about say, a need like a food staple, and if there were no other place to get it without having to pay extra money to see someone half naked, then yeah---that would be exploitation.

Plus this idea of boobies & body parts for cash, is such a common feature of our society, and frankly I don't hear that many men complaining. Business in fact booms.

It's far more common the hear men complaining under their breath about the requirements for extra tips or cover charges required for places like these.

"When you teach girls, starting at a very young age, that the path to "empowerment" is getting sexualized male attention, many of them will believe it."

aaaaaand, sarahMC says it better than i did.....damnit. ;)

God, what next? Topless wawa clerks? Topless Deli women? lol
I just don't see why you need boobs to see coffee or any product. There is supply and demand for coffee without sex. This is just plain silly and I don't know how this can be appealing to anyone.
AND um 3rd degree burns on your boobs and stomach when you accidentally spill doesn't sound very fun.

Riotbabe, if you'd like to get inside the mind of a man who'd actually switch coffee shops to see bikini-clad young women behind the counter, our very own Ben has expressed his approval of this idea.

I don't know how others feel, but to me it seems like part of being a woman in a patriarchal society is that experience of double-consciousness. Yes, we have our own opinions and desires and make our own decisions, but at the same time, we are constantly bombarded with the societal view that tells women that our worth is based on how sexually appealing we are to men. We can't help internalizing this view, and it makes it really difficult to say that women do things like work at this type of establishment for their own edification. The point of feminism, to me, is to make our culture one where, if a woman wants to work in a bikini top, or if she wants to shave her legs/wear makeup, whatever, it CAN be for herself. I don't think that's the culture we live in, though. I participate in some of those things I just mentioned, and I don't feel infantilized by this type of analysis, I feel encouraged.

(that's at least part of the point, anyway)

I wonder what the response would be from customers and management if a mom went to this coffee house and proceeded to breast feed her baby.

Sounds like a line from Alanis, "isn't it ironic, dontcha think?"

jlw,
And I think it is part of the problem with feminism. It does not seem to want to acknowledge any restrictions on clothing. Basically, it seems that you don't want any standards. As I sit at my desk in my suit and tie, yes, I have the freedom to come to work however I want to dress. But my clients and the legal system have very different expectations about how I should appear. So, every day, a suit and tie, and I like it, and I actually think I look good in it.

But, if you are suggesting that feminism supports the notion that female lawyers should be able to show up in Court in a bikini, and that should be okay, you have lost me. As it is, professional women can "get away with" a lot more in the area of dress code than men can. And, actually, I do not mind it: what I lack in options saves me from the headache of trying to figure out what to wear in the morning. They have more options, but that just means they have added expectations.
-Jut

jut,

you lost me.

jlw was pointing out that women should be able to take a job where they wear bikinis without feeling ashamed of it. at the same time, women should not be trained to see their value largely in terms of how they look.

that's not a critique of feminism. that IS feminism. who doesn't want any standards? attorneys in bikinis? i mean, sure, if i hadn't read anything else, like, say the original post, i could see where you were coming from.

otherwise, this is just dumb. no one here is arguing for anything of the sort...

the point is, women are conditioned to see their bodies as marketable objects, the same as men are trained to see female bodies. this needs to be undone, but the answer does not lie with criticizing women for giving in to the social conditioning with which we all live (and which determines success to a large degree).

my. lord.

I've seen crap like this in Washington state for at least a year now. Sexually offensive definitely, but I also wonder like many of the others above about health and safety issues for the women working. Some twisted part of me wonders if they also hire men in speedos for the women who want their coffee with hot young thangs. And, of course, will the men wear hair nets on their chests for health regulation purposes?

We hates them we does, my precioussss.

OMG! I am from Oregon, in patricular, from Salem where that first one was built (though I live in Corvallis now because of school). I'm hoping that because I've never heard of it, maybe they aren't doing well?

I'm not quite sure where they are located (I googled it and all I got was the article). For the most part, Salem is a decently wealthy town, but in North Salem, the area of most diversity, it is pretty poor. I do know some women I went to high school with have had to turn to stripping and prostitution to make money. But who knows what the economic situation is for the women who work there...the lack of of other options may not be the issue. It certainly irks me that we have businesses like that, but its no surprise that these women make great tips (though the higher pay/health insurance/non-objectification at Starbucks seems like it would be a better choice for me.

puckalish,
This is what jlw said:

The point of feminism, to me, is to make our culture one where, if a woman wants to work in a bikini top, or if she wants to shave her legs/wear makeup, whatever, it CAN be for herself.

-Jut

yes, and, while jlw should speak for him/herself, i took that to mean that if a woman wants to do work where wearing a bikini is appropriate and part of the job, she can do that for herself; NOT that, if a woman wants to wear a bikini while presenting oral arguments at a trial, that she should do that.

i know you really want to find a double-standard here, but it only exists in the vagueness of the english language, not in jlw's actual point.

i mean, jlw, i'd love for you to weigh in on this one.

more to the point, i think jlw was getting at the idea that it would be nice if women could move through the world without either being turned into commodities or forced in covering their whole bodies.

ditto puckalish.

clearly jlw was talking about a job that requires a bikini (in an ideal world), not wearing a bikini to any job. don't be ridiculous!

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.

Sly, are you intellectually dishonest or just stupid? Do you make false equations naturally, or do you just not realize that "bikini baristas are exploitative" and "700lb man on a box of Wheaties" are not in any way parallel? Are you oblivious to the elision between "sex sells" and "we sell women's sexuality to male consumers", or again, are you just dumb?

And what alternate dimension do you live in where they have semi-nude teenagers hawking outside the Abercrombie & Fitch? I appreciate the eye-candy on the Abercrombie posters - which is ONE store against how many in my mall objectifying women that cannot be counted, and which are always accepted as being "homoerotic" in intent and NOT aimed at me and other women who like bishonen, either - but they don't have actual seminude men standing there as advertising. In fact, shirts are as required as shoes, in every store in the USA that I've ever been in from coast to coast.

(And I haven't experienced any less sexism on the West Coast - or in New England, for that matter - than anywhere in the South or Midwest when I have lived or traveled there. Not at all.)

if there were semi-nude teenage boys standing outside abercrombie, i might actually shop there. *sarcasm* seriously, why does anyone spend $40 on poorly-made cotton tank tops that you can get at target for $8?

just curious: does anyone know how hooters is doing financially? i mean, is that really an effective business model? and is there any valid research to show why a business that featured mostly nude, sexualized men doesn't seem to interest women to the same degree that a coffeeshop like this does? is it more of that tired, overwrought "men are visual, while women need LOVE to be aroused!" crapola?

"(real men don't drink coffee made by clothed women with health insurance!)"

I almost died laughing!

@baddesignhurts: "...is there any valid research to show why a business that featured mostly nude, sexualized men doesn't seem to interest women to the same degree that a coffeeshop like this does"

Good question. But note that men and women don't have to have the exactly same tastes to come up with a business model that capitalizes on male sexiness.

I'm guessing that most women are less inclined to wanting to see a full-on bare chest while consuming food. But what about being served by a hunky guy with big muscles busting out of a tight shirt? Why not?

I also suspect the the gap in male/female tastes probably has a huge cultural element as well.

The tourist industry is a pretty good indicator that there is a market for male-for-female eye candy. I can tell you from living abroad that many countries are not nearly as uptight as we Americans are about male nudity--say for example, seeing male asses in tight swim suits for example. Semi-nude male bodies are being used to sell products to the mainstream a lot more in other countries, so I'm assuming these companies have done their research.

*Helen Lovejoy voice*
Won't someone please think of the men?! These men go for an innocent cup of coffee and are bamboozled by these hussies' bosoms and tip them 120%, because men have absolutely no control over their sexuality. The women are clearly taking advantage of the men.
/snerk
It's so pathetic that it's increasingly normal to be disturbed by the quality of the comments at Feministing. Thank nogod for SarahMC and UltraMagnus, etc.

It's really frustrating to think of this sort of business model juxtaposed with the breastfeeding-in-public controversies. I think someone else brought it up upthread.
This really brings home the point that opposition to public breastfeeding is based on the twisted, patriarchal belief that women's bodies exist for male titilation exclusively. Apparently it's not disgusting or foul to be surrounded by breasts barely covered by string bikinis whilst eating and drinking. But substitute a baby's head for the triangle of fabric, and panic ensues.

Men love this stuff, always have, always will. You don't like it, got to Dunkin Donuts. And if there was a coffee shop with half naked servers it would be flooded with gay men.
A lot of haters around here. Hooters helped my homegirl get through college. Saw her the other night, and she's happily engaged. To a lawyer. Shoulda seen the rock on her hand.

Ooooo wow ZacRfron, great point! Hooters is obviously an OK place to work and a great establishment for women because your "homegirl" was able to get married to a nice, rich lawyer! This obviously justifies every decision she's made and makes her worthy of all our praise and admiration. She's finally reached her goal as a woman, to marry well! Now she can settle down and have kids and cook and clean and not get paid for any of it while her husband goes to get Bikini Coffee and chat it up with the girls about how if they're lucky, they too might marry a great guy like him!

Oh and you're SO right, all these silly feminist women are such "haters" - I mean really, why can't they just lie back and take what that white, middle-aged, male society gives to them? Gawd if they can't find a job or a husband, they obviously deserve it for being stupid enough to question the way things are run and the way women are thought of. They should get back to making samiches, popping out babies, and sucking penii - I mean after all, women are only there to be firstly fucked, and then married off. That way they'll be REALLY, TRULY happy because all the white, middle-aged men will accept them. And MEN'S opinions are what count!

/sarcasm

Can someone pass me a bucket now please??

Yes, puckalish, you seemed to understand what I was trying to say.

Jut Gory, honestly, the idea of a woman wearing a bikini top to work as a lawyer had not even entered my mind. I only used that example because this article was about women wearing a bikini top to work ... at a coffee shop. I could definitely be wrong, but I would tend to doubt that large numbers of women are just waiting for the day when they will be able to show up to work in a courtroom in a bikini top. My larger point was what puckalish pointed out. And that while women should be able to make choices about their bodies FOR THEMSELVES (they should be able to have their body not completely covered up without feeling shame about their body and without it being used as a marketing ploy, and they should also be able to cover up their body completely if they want without feeling like they're less valuable because they aren't making themselves sexually appealing for men). But at the same time, we need to keep working to make sure that these choices can be for the women themselves and that they aren't determined by what soceity has taught them to do in order to feel validated (cause I feel pretty confident that some of these choices are made for those reasons, through no blame of the women, and other choices would be the same even if there weren't these standards) (and by standards I am not talking about courtroom dress code)

@Cecilia: "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."

Ummm *cough*

As disgusted as I was when I read this story a while back in Willamette Week, and as much as I disagree with the whole business, I take offense at your statement a little bit. I live in Portland, Oregon, and have lived on the West Coast for my entire life, and I absolutely love it. No need to attack the area over this... I promise there are good people out here.

Studies have shown that men who look at women's breasts casually for something over 10 minutes a day actually have a increased, healthier blood-flow.

Vordreller: so do men who participate in aerobic exercise.

Vordreller: so do men who participate in aerobic exercise.

Vordreller: Do you have a source for the studies you mention?
And I am with earlier comments referring to the safety (or lack thereof) of handling extremely hot liquids in a bikini. Third degree burns are no one's friend.

I live in Oregon and I am not surprised to see these Hooters Coffee shops cropping up. I agree, there is a lot more misogyny perpetuated. Not to mention, Oregon has the most strip clubs per capita because there are no zoning laws. I also heard Portland is full of swingers. I don't know because that is not my scene. I have been told the dance clubs are hoochie central. Girl on girl, etc. In Washington, the smaller towns ie:Bonney Lake, is no surprise. These towns are full of right wing, conservative rednecks. I was, however, shocked to hear Seattle opened some shops. I thought that city was more progressive, but apparently not. Just shows how pervasive the raunch culture is.

source here

http://news.softpedia.com/news/10-Minutes-Of-Staring-Boobs-Daily-Prolongs-Man-039-s-Life-by-5-Years-72490.shtml

and also

http://www.breakitdownblog.com/staring-at-boobs-extends-male-life-by-5-years/
(beware of opening picture, ye easily offended ones)

vordreller, first of all, your sources are essentially the same source, since the blog post you linked to actually bases their information off of the first link you gave. Secondly, if you read the comments at the first link, you would see that snopes actually showed that there was no such research article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (which would have been your real source, as this is where the link you provided claims to get their information). (oh, and just a hint, if someone is actually discussing an article published in a scholarly journal, they should be able to provide you with specific publication information, as in which issue it can be found in)

Looks like you're going to have to get on that treadmill afterall.