Feature
- Do You Hate Your Partner, Too?
- California Teen Avoids Heavy Sentencing by Passing the Buck
- Wanna Buy Your Teenager a Padded Push-Up Bra?
- Vampires in Texas!
- These Guys Are As Bad As Westboro Baptist Church
- Funny Letters Sent to Women's Magazines
- Women's Ski Jumping: Still Not a 'Real' Sport
- Will the World Be Pro-Choice Soon?
- Are We Getting Too Lazy to Even Divorce?
- Forever 21's Maternity Line: Glamorizing Teen Pregnancy?
Authorities in Yakima, Washington have passed new legislation that will fine residents up to $750 — and potentially jail them — for wearing “see-through dresses and G-strings in public.”
The change in the city’s indecent exposure laws is aimed at stopping what local authority lawyers describe as “cleavage of the buttocks” offending the public.
Yakima’s Mayor Dave Elder proposed the new law in response to an explosion in coffee shops featuring scantily-clad women. At least three coffee shops in the city have recently opened and use attractive “baristas” who serve customers wearing bikinis or skimpy clothing exposing their thongs.
Critics have dubbed the craze sweeping the US as “sexpresso” and say the businesses are using sex to sell coffee.
Council officials yesterday voted by five to two to make it a crime for women to be caught in public exposing a thong or G-string undies.
I have very close ties to Yakima. It’s where my dog was born. While living in Seattle, I found his sweet little face on PetFinder.com. He was living in a rescue in Yakima. I emailed the rescue’s owner, filled out some forms, and the very next day I headed off to Yakima — about two hours southeast of Seattle — to pick up my new best friend. I was not impressed with Yakima — a small, dusty, hot mess of tumbleweeds and forfeited dreams — and neither was little Leo. Still, I feel compelled to defend the residents of this Crapville, because this legislation is sexist and totally unacceptable.
Is there something wrong with using sex to sell coffee? We use it to sell beer, cigarettes, chewing gum, cologne, clothing, movies, music and basically everything else under the sun. If you don’t want to go to a coffee shop where the waitresses are scantily clad, I guaran-fucking-tee you there’s a Starbucks nearby. I can also tell you from experience that there’s a rest stop just a few miles outside of Yakima where church groups serve free coffee all day long to travelers. They certainly won’t be wearing G-strings, and the coffee is free! Get your caffeine fix there, asshole conservatives.
You start permitting cities to ban visible G-strings and before you know it women have to wear skirts that cover their knees. And then how are we going to sell beer?
You Might Also Like ...
-
-
47
I think the concept of banning sex to sell coffee or whatever is good. I hate advertisements that use sex just because
that they ban it on waitresses is ok with me, it a way to stop them from being exploited
but I think the method is not correct, the restrictions should go to advertising/marketing, and not to individual way of dressing
and yeah, some beer commercials are the f***ing mot sexist ads Ive seen: http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-thank-god-youre-a-woman/
Using sex to sell coffee is tasteless, offensive and degrading to women. I really don’t get where the “sexism” is this story. If it were men serving coffee in banana hamocks I would find it equally gross. What about all the religous folks in that town who want a nice cup of coffee without being offended? Why are only liberals allowed to be offended? Would it be ok to use people in black face to sell their coffee? Or wearing t-shirts that support Prop 8? Other people have feelings too.
Sex is used to sell pretty much every damn thing else in this world, so I am really not understanding why everyone is up in arms over damn coffee…unbelievable. They have outlawed women wearing thongs w/ see through dresses & “butt” cleavage, yet I’m sure they still have strip clubs. I’m sure there is at least one sign in that state that has a half naked person on it selling something. I am also sure that they still play the music videos showing women parading in close to nothing. But all of that is fine, just don’t let anyone show some ass why serving coffee.
Well it’s a little different. Strip clubs have to be in certain areas, usually the more industrial part of town and you have to be a certain age to enter them. Coffee shops are open to anyone and are in the middle of the shopping district so children could be exposed to them. What if someone doesn’t know what kind of shop it is and walks in with their kids? I imagine many people would be offended by having little kids witness that. I don’t blame them for not wanting their town turned into a red light district.
No worries about the kids that may see the billboards with the half dressed person on it. Someone might unknowningly drive by with their kid. You missed my point, with all the sex displayed every where, why isn’t anyone caring about that? I’m not saying the coffee shops are right or wrong, I am simply saying that we should open our eyes & look around us. Sex is thrown in everyone’s faces all day long. But for some reason now that it is mixed with coffee it is a problem
I think we’re all agreeing that using sex to sell products is a problem on billboards, TV, magazines, etc. But we have been so conditioned to it that it’s almost a given, which is what makes it somehow more offensive when it’s in person and not just in print. Furthermore, this whole situation leads to job discrimination. If skimpy clothing is required for working in this shop, there must be someone who decides who is and who is not pleasing enough to look at to effectively sell the coffee. It’s also sex discrimination because (I’m assuming) men cannot work there.
I really don’t think everyone agrees that using sex to sell products is a problem.
Sandra says:
“Using sex to sell coffee is tasteless, offensive and degrading to women.” “What about all the religous folks in that town who want a nice cup of coffee without being offended?”
The sexism comes from the fact that there’s a law to restrict the dress code of women, but not men. That is sexist.
I’m sure the women bringing home extra tips to support themselves (and probably their children) don’t find it nearly as degrading as you do.
I still don’t see how it’s sexist. Were men working at that coffee shop walking around with visible bulges and ass crack? The story said ONLY women working there were inappropriately dressed therefore only female dress was restricted.
And just because some women are willing to let themselves be sexually exploited for $$$ doesn’t mean it isn’t degrading to the rest of us who choose respectable professions. It’s still the objectification of women. It’s hard enough for women to get respect for their intelligence when the media keeps telling women they are only valuable for their youth, looks and sexuality, this kind of stuff just reinforces that mentality.
They didn’t just ban skanky clothes for girls who work at coffee shops. They banned it for all women.
If you don’t understand that a dress code for women, and not for men, is sexist then there’s really nothing that can be said to explain this to you.
there should be a law like this for the kids who have their pants pulled down below their ass showing off their boxers.
I agree! I totally don’t get that look at all or the sneakers with no laces. Or the backwards caps. HAHA I could go on and on about horrible fashion.
OMG y’all are right! And flannel shirts are really dumb too!! We should probably just make them illegal!
Totally! We should all wear completely shapeless concealing garments with only slits to see out of. That way there won’t be any chance of anyone getting a sexual thought!
You know what, if America wasn’t so back-asswards with S.E.X. this issue would be a moot point. This is deeper than people wearing scantily clad clothing. Why does the human body bother some people, and even more so, why is showing someone wearing a g-string a way to make cash? It is a vicious cycle…people are raised to think there is something bad about their bodies and sex in general, so it creates this sex crazed counter culture where peoples inner-most natural desires have to be fulfilled in other ways because people just couldn’t be honest and talk about how natural it is in the first place. GET OVER IT PEOPLE. Accept your sexuality and be comfortable with who YOU are.
The sexism is that someone is telling a woman there is something wrong with her body and she needs to cover up. You might think it is tasteless Sandra, and that’s totally cool, but you know what, some people are perfectly comfortable using their physical qualities just as some use their mental qualities. What makes one any better than the other? Regardless, like I said above, if we were not so weird about sex in this country, people probably wouldn’t think this was an issue, and sex wouldn’t be used to sell product as much as it does now.
Speak for yourself, I am just fine with my sexuality and so are a lot of other people. There is a time and place for sexuality and a coffee shop in a downtown area is not it. If I want to see g-strings and whatever I can easily find my way to the nearest strip club. Even in Europe sexual type stuff is restricted to red light districts. There’s nothing wrong with nudity either but that doesn’t mean I want to walk into work tomorrow and see my fat ass boss sitting their with his johnson hanging out ya know?
I agree completely. I’m no prude, but I agree one hundred percent.
This is what I’m talkin about, why is it about sex? Why in a “free” country can someone not wear what they want? And why can’t we choose not to frequent or watch things we find offensive…I would agree with putting a sign on doors equivalent to a “rating” or something…
You may be comfortable with your sexuality, but I have come across many people who are not. My comment was more targeted towards Americas attitude about sex.
Nah, I just agree with the part of seeing my fat ass boss sitting with his peter flapping in the breeze. Or even my big-boned boss hanging out with his junk in the trunk cracking out on me.
Oh, and yeah I wouldn’t want to see my bosses Johnson either, but then again my boss is an Aerospace Engineer, and if I did I would laugh hysterically and walk back to my desk. :-D
Daniela, how would you feel if I told you that you had to wear a wetsuit and then say shorts and a tshirt at the beach because your skin and curves are offending me and my family..I bet you would tell me to go to hell.
What if you took your kids to that beach and people were running around naked and having sex on the beach? Wouldn’t you think that was inappropriate? It’s about being appropriate for the situation. A coffee shop is a family type place, if it were a bar I would feel differently. You behave differently in a church than you would in a strip club… understand?
People having sex on the beach? Wha? I would take them somewhere else. I would then explain to them what sex is if I hadn’t at that point and go on with life. You didn’t answer question and your response was a stretch.
Apologies, your last point was valid and thats why I stated the “rating” system in my previous post. (for workers, and this law is targeting everyone).
I think the law is kind of ridiculous. I’m guessing the town doesn’t have a hooters, eh? I don’t care if a coffee shop wants to use sex to sell. I’m assuming in a smaller town, the residents would be quite aware what sort of coffee shop it was. If you don’t like it, just don’t get coffee there. It’s that easy. Just because a place exists doesn’t mean that you MUST go there. It’s not like the waitresses are dressed like that AND like, blowing all the customers or something.
I agree 100%
The…”And like, blowing the customers or something.” made me just lose it….. :-D
I think it’s a bit odd to claim that legal restrictions imposed on women are a good way of protecting them from exploitation. I’m pretty sure that similar arguments were used by Victorians and I’m damn sure similar arguments are used to justify the burqa. What does empowerment really mean? Is it the freedom from exploitation 9even if it has to be forced at the expense of civil liberties)? Or is choice?
If the market support scantily clad baristas, the market supports it. Nobody is forced to go to coffee shops. Nobody is guaranteed the right to go to a coffee shop in which the employees/customers dress how they like.
I just want to say, I sure hope there aren’t any public pools in Yakima.
Also, laws that ban pants around the knees and ankles are a little bit racist, in my opinion. It’s a style that has a demonstrable history and is perpetuated through a cultural solidarity. It’s not only black young men who do it, but many more black young men do it than white young men. People don’t find it offensive because it exposes peoples butts. All those butts are covered by plenty of t-shirt fabric and boxer shorts as well. There’s plenty more fabric covering the butt in that style of dress than in a middle-aged white man in bermuda shorts. The bottom line is, people find it offensive because it’s a black style.
The powerful in society have pretty much always exerted a huge amount of social control over sub-classes by means of control of the body, and dress is a primary and extremely potent mode of bodily expression.
BTW, if any of you ever try to tell me what to wear “for my own good” I’ll flash my butt cleavage in your face.
You read entirely too much into things. Racist? What the heck? Asking you to not dress like a slob isn’t racist it’s common sense. I find it totally offensive when I see anyone’s ass crack whether they be male/female or black/white. I also find it amusing that you had to reach back to Victorian times to justify the coffee shop deal. No one’s asking these women to dress like nuns, just cover the girly parts. It sounds reasonable to me.
I think Codger was trying to say that enforcing dress codes is just another way of removing one’s freedom and choices.
*frowns*
butts aren’t girly parts. every human being has a butt.
what i don’t get with this society is why everyone’s (and some more so than others, definetely) so concerned about censoring things that are natural, such as genitals and sex. why is sex ‘bad’?
of course, the fact that they are using scantily clad women to sell the coffee is the offensive part. it is demeaning to the waitresses themselves, and women in general. why don’t they have half naked men?
also, on another level it is wrong to every person, male or female, because of the fact that people don’t have have the freedom to wear what they want.
Racist my arse! (See what I did there?)
IIRC the droopy pants thing is a reference to prison, where belts are not allowed. Its the same with the no-laces thing. Is convict culture really something to defend and celebrate?
I don’t find it offensive because it’s a supposed ‘black style’. I just think it looks stupid*. So do ‘whale tails’, mullets, grills, and Uggs.
If a person wants to claim that it’s part of their culture to look like a moron, that’s fine, but they better expect people to laugh at them. Personally, I think it’s just fashion that’s to blame.
* and impractical! I once watched a guy with low-riding pants try to get up some stairs with crutches. His pants were around his ankles, red-striped boxers fluttering in the breeze, before he got half-way. Like I said – stupid.
LOL. Your rant made me think of the opening sequence in Clueless when Cher’s ragging on how stupid guys look.
Uggs are horrid! Don’t people get the memo when a trend is OVER?
I’m not saying I think it’s cool or fashionable. In fact I am completely neutral on the value of that style of dress. I’m just saying, if it’s not actually pornographic, no civic body should be able to legislate against it. If you don’t like it, don’t go places where people who dress like that are.
If the coffee shops were threatening to fire women who didn’t wear bikinis, that would a different matter. But it would require a much different kind of legislation.
Codger you pretty much summed it up when you said:
“The powerful in society have pretty much always exerted a huge amount of social control over sub-classes by means of control of the body, and dress is a primary and extremely potent mode of bodily expression.”
Nothing to do with race, religion, gender, etc.
Good words.
i would be okay with this if yakima would also pass legislation preventing men from wearing mesh t-shirts or tank tops with the sides cut out.
Why don’t we employ gays as fashion cops? Detain anyone wearing mesh t’s, member’s only jackets, pants that fail to cover ass/ass crack, laceless sneakers, mom jeans, and tank tops with visible bra strap? lol…..make them go to fashion sensitivity training.
Mom jeans alone are a crime against humanity.
I think the idea of woman selling coffee while wearing thongs should have been addressed as a health code issue and not a morality issue. If someone is serving food, they should be fully clothed. It’s not offensive, just disgusting.
This is just the first step, soon it will be no skirts that are above the knee. Maybe it will eventually get back to no bare arms…
I know it sounds stupid, but when people dictate what is proper attire and what can be shown acording to their own ideas it can end up going that far.
Who gets to draw the line?
My personal thought is that I don’t like seing the thongs poking out.
That’s because to me it looks trashy.
On the other hand a cute sexy outfit is o.k, and maybe even a bikini if it’s the hot weather months.
Other things I don’t like.. Stronge perfume, leather sandals with dirty toes showing, thick dreadlocks.
Obviously it is my own taste… I don’t have right to pass a law on it though. Nobody should have that right.
Well I have the same question about political correctness. Certain people have taken it upon themselves to declare certain words “hate speech” and therefore anyone who uses them faces severe consequence. Every day there are more and more things that “offend” this minority group or that so how long before we start putting people in jail for word “crimes”? I find it odd that liberals will support PC speech nonsense but get all bent out of shape over not being able to wear whorish clothes to work. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech not freedom of clothing.
Unless the “certain people” are the people who make laws, it doesn’t matter what they label hate speech, you’re still free to say whatever you want. In cases where they’ve pressed charges against people for “hate speech” it’s a clear case of inciting violence, and that’s been illegal.
In this case, women are being told by lawmakers that they can’t wear clothes that they want to wear. And men are not being told the same thing. This is not only sexist, it’s interferes in a very real way with the freedom of citizens.
What you brought up is a straw man argument, and it’s a sign of failed logic.
So can you answer the original question instead of deflecting it with a logical fallacy?
There are decency laws for a reason. If you want to wear a g-string to work and sex it up for money then you have to be in a certain area away from where children and general public are. What part of this do you not understand? You can’t just open a live sex show or porn shop on main street because the majority of the public finds such things offensive so they zone you into a certain area. It’s not a hard concept. Why can’t you make a point without insulting? We’re back to the old “if you don’t agree with me you must be stupid” crap.
I said you deflected a question with faulty logic because that’s what you did. I wasn’t saying it to insult you, I was saying it so we could move past logical fallacies and get to the answer.
You’re right about the reasoning for decency laws.
The main problem in this case is that they’ve made laws for women and not for men. Men can still walk around town with their pants hanging low showing off their underwear. It is sexist to make laws for only one sex.
However, I don’t agree that laws should be passed prohibiting women serving coffee in their lingerie. I’m not a prude and it doesn’t bother me for my children to see skin.
Overt sex acts in public would be a problem, but that’s not what was happening here.
Also, I don’t think it’s that hard to find a different coffee shop to frequent in Washington. I’ve lived there. There are literally coffee shops on every corner.
I’m not a fan of laws that are meant to shield the poor innocent children from seeing that sex exists. If I don’t want my children to see something, I take them somewhere else. For instance, I don’t take them to hooters for lunch. But I don’t think Hooters should be banned because my kids might see girls in skimpy clothes.
I don’t feel the need to stop other people from living their lives in order to keep up the pretense that the world is candy coated innocence for my kids.
Using sex to sell anything but sex is misrepresentation in advertising.If the sex is implied in said advertisement then I WANT THAT!The sex ,I mean.
Maybe I’m just weird, but I feel that people should be able to wear anything they want (including nothing). Private businesses have the right to establish a dress code, but the government (from local to federal) simply has no business doing so.
Hi there, I couldn’t see a way to contact you, and so I really hope that you see this comment. I have a website about ladies wetsuits, and thought you might like to exchange links with me. I have submitted my email address in case you would like to get in contact. Thank you.
Actually, as a Yakima city resident, Strip clubs are outlawed in city limits :). See through shirts can be cited… butt cracks and thongs are illegal to have showing… the coffee shops are heavily restricted… the list goes on, and on, and on. Yet we have escalating gang violence, horrid downtown conditions… Obviously the city officials are more worried about appearances than actual problems ;).