• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hooters - should this teacher be suspended for this?

Was it correct to suspend this teacher for taking the students to "Hooters" restauran


  • Total voters
    81
So there's an age limit on viewing sexually appealing women??? :shock:

They can see sexually appealing women all day every day without going into establishments whose business model involves displaying them like merchandise. The world is full of sexually appealing women who don't have to go out in public half-dressed in order to demonstrate the fact.

All the other "family restaurants" that people are comparing here have dress codes that are more or less compatible with the dress codes in public schools-- notable exception being TGIFriday's because some schools are a little backward about students wearing those little buttons. The dress code for employees at Hooter's requires the servers to be dressed indecently because that is the primary appeal of the place.
 
They can see sexually appealing women all day every day without going into establishments whose business model involves displaying them like merchandise. The world is full of sexually appealing women who don't have to go out in public half-dressed in order to demonstrate the fact.

All the other "family restaurants" that people are comparing here have dress codes that are more or less compatible with the dress codes in public schools-- notable exception being TGIFriday's because some schools are a little backward about students wearing those little buttons. The dress code for employees at Hooter's requires the servers to be dressed indecently because that is the primary appeal of the place.

We've become a Culture of lame-o's.
 
They can see sexually appealing women all day every day without going into establishments whose business model involves displaying them like merchandise. The world is full of sexually appealing women who don't have to go out in public half-dressed in order to demonstrate the fact.

All the other "family restaurants" that people are comparing here have dress codes that are more or less compatible with the dress codes in public schools-- notable exception being TGIFriday's because some schools are a little backward about students wearing those little buttons. The dress code for employees at Hooter's requires the servers to be dressed indecently because that is the primary appeal of the place.
what exactly is 'indecent' about the way they are dressed? doesnt the uniform cover all the neccessary parts?
 
Ted Kennedy wanted to start his own chain of Hooters restaurants.....Unfortunately he didn't live long enough to realise his dream.


ted_kennedy_hooters.jpg
 
what exactly is 'indecent' about the way they are dressed? doesnt the uniform cover all the neccessary parts?

Those tan-skin colored leggings are misleading! and those shirts leave NOTHING to the imagination! I'm surprised that when people eat there they don't get a plate full of areola when they bring out the food!

I bet this Hooters place is responsible for a good number of sexually deviance in America.

DOWN WITH HOOTERS! SAVE THE CHILDREN! SAVE DECENCY!
 
Ted Kennedy wanted to start his own chain of Hooters restaurants.....Unfortunately he didn't live long enough to realise his dream.


ted_kennedy_hooters.jpg
:mrgreen::shock::rofl now thats funny, i don't care who you are!!
 
sure, the teacher could have taken them somewhere else...odds are that there might have been a couple of attractive women at this restaurant as well....is the teacher still guilty in your opinion of 'poor judgement' if she fed these kids in that restaurant as well??

Would those other places explicitly be choosing and dressing their waitresses to take advantage of female sex appeal?

I mean, it is a simple matter of where the line gets crossed. For some, the line is at Hooters. For others, They wouldn't care about Hooters as it is now, but would care if Hooters did wet Tshirt displays. Still others wouldn't care about that, but would care if the waitresses only wore little pasties over their aereolae. Still more others (though getting much fewer) wouldn't care about this, but would care about topless. And so on.

There is a difference between Hooters and Perkins. You may not feel the difference matters, but it is there.

As I said earlier, I think Hooters is harmless, and the teacher obviously thought the same. However, I would never have chosen what this teacher chose. My judgement would have told me that the decision would be controversial, and my job as a teacher would be to respect parental prerogatives and maintain good relations with all parents unless such relations are trumped by academic considerations.

This wasn't one of those occasions.
 
There is a difference between Hooters and Perkins. You may not feel the difference matters, but it is there.

Hooters is that nice hot chick who isn't quite slutty, but she runs with it.

Perkins is that annoyingly ultra-conservative chick who wears Amish-esque dresses and scoffs at dirty jokes or foul language.

They can both cook a good meal, but only one of them is going to deliver the total package.
 
Would those other places explicitly be choosing and dressing their waitresses to take advantage of female sex appeal?

I mean, it is a simple matter of where the line gets crossed. For some, the line is at Hooters. For others, They wouldn't care about Hooters as it is now, but would care if Hooters did wet Tshirt displays. Still others wouldn't care about that, but would care if the waitresses only wore little pasties over their aereolae. Still more others (though getting much fewer) wouldn't care about this, but would care about topless. And so on.

There is a difference between Hooters and Perkins. You may not feel the difference matters, but it is there.

As I said earlier, I think Hooters is harmless, and the teacher obviously thought the same. However, I would never have chosen what this teacher chose. My judgement would have told me that the decision would be controversial, and my job as a teacher would be to respect parental prerogatives and maintain good relations with all parents unless such relations are trumped by academic considerations.

This wasn't one of those occasions.
i worked in restaurants as a dishwasher years ago, in my early twenties, and we had hostesses/waitresses that would wear dresses similar to what jennifer lopez wore a awhile back at that awards ceremony(the green one that showed damn near everything)...they made good use of the two sided tape, showing enough , but not being illegal or something that would get them fired...if this teacher took these kids to this particular restaurant, and this hostess was assigned to them, is it still poor judgement to eat there?
 
I wonder, there was talk of the kids being asked their opinion. And while I know the teacher is the "responsible adult" if the kids wanted to go then good on them. It's not like the teacher forced them to go to Hooters.

This is the reason that I oppose the suspension. Teacher offered them a choice and they chose an establishment that it was entirely legal for them to patronize. I might be disappointed if my son chose to go there, and I might wish that the teacher had shown stronger moral leadership, but there's simply nothing I can point to that says the teacher was irresponsible or careless or even that she set a poor example for the students.

She offered a group of young men and women a choice that was well within community standards. They made a choice that I morally disapprove of, but that's no different than the millions of men and women that patronize Hooter's on a yearly basis.
 
Hooters is that nice hot chick who isn't quite slutty, but she runs with it.

Perkins is that annoyingly ultra-conservative chick who wears Amish-esque dresses and scoffs at dirty jokes or foul language.

They can both cook a good meal, but only one of them is going to deliver the total package.

I could get laid way easier by a Perkins waitress than a Hooters waitress.
 
what exactly is 'indecent' about the way they are dressed? doesnt the uniform cover all the neccessary parts?

There is more to proper public appearance than covering "all the necessary parts".
 
I'm sorry, allow me to dumb down my post since it seems to have slipped past you:

The women who apply, of their own free will, to Hooters are objectifying themselves, of their own free will, when agreeing to work there. Thus, Hot women who get these jobs at Hooters enrage ugly women who do not work at Hooters and who could not get work at Hooters, and they then complain that Hooters objectifies women.

capice?
Let me dumb down my reply for you.

Whether women choose to allow themselves to be sexually objectified is an independent decision (which nobody in this thread has disputed nor impinged) on their part and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a decision by a high school teacher about WHERE to take her underage charges for a meal. I am not an ugly woman, I am a father who has raised 3 great kids with the help of their mother, and I am not in favor of the school failing to provide a wholesome environment for our kids.

The school made the appropriate decision to suspend the teacher, who should not have even offered it as a choice to the kids. Hooters sexually objectifies women (beside charging above average prices for below average burgers!), and schools should not teach by example of patronizing the place that it is ok.


I wonder, there was talk of the kids being asked their opinion. And while I know the teacher is the "responsible adult" if the kids wanted to go then good on them. It's not like the teacher forced them to go to Hooters.

Irrelevant. The teacher should not have offered them a choice of an establishment with "sex appeal" as its primary "concept".

The school administration did the right thing. Thank god they have some responsible adults running that system.
 
Don't agree with your conclusion, but I applaud everything leading up to it.

edit: Except the unnecessary cheap shot at the beginning.
 
You still miss the point. It's up to parents to determine what is appropriate for their children. As this thread shows, some, for whatever reason, don't find Hooters to be an appropriate place for their kids. While I don't think I would have had a problem if I had been a parent of one of the kids, I also can clearly see that it is a potential problem, and when in doubt, you should err on the side of caution. That is why the teacher showed poor judgment.

We aren't talking 8 year olds here...we are talking high school kids who could go to Hooters any time that they want with their parents consent or behind their parents back. Hooters is an ALL AGE restaurant....they don't need "Adult Supervision" to get in.....sheeeesh!:doh
 
It's also not like a school teacher couldn't find a restaurant that does not simply objectify women, to take his underage charges to for a meal.

Here is what the Hooters employee manual says about the restaurant:


Hooters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, teachers should not be taking underage kids to a restaurant where sex appeal of the waitresses IS the concept of the business, if there are more appropriate places available, and in this case there always are more appropriate places. I'm not saying lock the teacher up, teacher committed no crime, but teacher exercised poor judgment.


OMG....!!! Exposing high school kids to an environment where "joking and entertaining conversations are commonplace."

We can't have that.
 
They can see sexually appealing women all day every day without going into establishments whose business model involves displaying them like merchandise. The world is full of sexually appealing women who don't have to go out in public half-dressed in order to demonstrate the fact.

All the other "family restaurants" that people are comparing here have dress codes that are more or less compatible with the dress codes in public schools-- notable exception being TGIFriday's because some schools are a little backward about students wearing those little buttons. The dress code for employees at Hooter's requires the servers to be dressed indecently because that is the primary appeal of the place.

As soon as high schools ban the same shorts and t-shirts for cheerleaders and drill team, dance squads....you might have a point.
 
We aren't talking 8 year olds here...we are talking high school kids who could go to Hooters any time that they want with their parents consent or behind their parents back. Hooters is an ALL AGE restaurant....they don't need "Adult Supervision" to get in.....sheeeesh!:doh

Note the bolded part, it's important. This kid did not have parental permission. I am not at all talking about what kind of place Hooters is, only pointing out that taking kids there without parental permission is poor judgment.
 
Note the bolded part, it's important. This kid did not have parental permission. I am not at all talking about what kind of place Hooters is, only pointing out that taking kids there without parental permission is poor judgment.

These are HIGH SCHOOL KIDS....not 8 year olds.

These kids can go to HOOTERS anytime they want (Without parental consent). Why? Because its an all-age restaurant.
 
I find it rather ironic the cross political idealogy views that this topic has raised.

Why is it that many of my liberal counterparts are taking the "conservative" view here....while many of the conservatives are much more "liberal"?

Just askin?
 
I find it rather ironic the cross political idealogy views that this topic has raised.

Why is it that many of my liberal counterparts are taking the "conservative" view here....while many of the conservatives are much more "liberal"?

Just askin?

Raising kids isn't a partisan issue.
 
I find it rather ironic the cross political idealogy views that this topic has raised.

Why is it that many of my liberal counterparts are taking the "conservative" view here....while many of the conservatives are much more "liberal"?

Just askin?

Why is it conservative to think children should have final say about what is right for their children? You keep twisting the conversation to what you think is important, while missing what others of us see as the key aspect.
 
As soon as high schools ban the same shorts and t-shirts for cheerleaders and drill team, dance squads....you might have a point.

Disagree. Drill team is typically not scantily clad, nor do they engage in rapid athletic moves that NECESSITATE short or fitted tops to perform their moves.

Cheerleaders and dance squads wear less clothing, to facilitate the rapid athletic moves they perform. There is a legitimate reason to be dressed that way for their performance. Do you think a cheerleader or dance team member could perform their routines in blue jeans and bulky sweatshirts? I don't. That is different than a Hooters waitress, who does not perform rapid athletic moves at all, and whose employer states the concept of the restaurant is "sex appeal".

The important question is not what the attire is, the question is what is the intent of the attire that is the issue, and Hooters states it is "sex appeal". The public school system has no business supporting such a business. If a parent chooses to allow their teens to go to Hooters, that's a totally different issue, but the school should stay out of the business of going to a business whose concept is sex appeal.
 
Back
Top Bottom