...welcome to the musings of the flawless amour...

Sunday, September 18, 2011


I have decided that I am going to open a restaurant called either Swangas or Mandingo and I will only hire sexy men who are packing a third leg or something really close to it.  Their uniforms will consist of black boxer briefs (brand of their choice) and baby oil.

This is the message I sent to a few of my close girl friends and my homeboy, JB, today.  Of course, the women were all excited, calculating how much they would be able to invest while JB deemed the idea 'not good'.  He said that no one would want to eat while having to stare penis in the face.  I agree because it is a sight to be left desired but my defense was that they would have on the black boxer briefs (they do a good job at camouflaging).  And it's not like the employees would be standing right at the table while patrons enjoyed their meals.

The conversation with JB took a much different turn than did the one with the girls.  Of course, I was just joking with the whole idea of such a provocative restaurant because, I, in my right mind, know that it would never be allowed but THAT reason alone is my issue.  I pass Hooters on a weekly basis going to and coming from church and I always wondered, if there was a restaurant of it's kind, geared towards the ladies, would it be as successful as Hooters.

JB's initial answer to the message was "lol...ummm that's not legal I don't think."

My response: "But Hooters is..."

He proceeds to tell me that nothing is hanging out at Hooters and that ultimately, there's a difference.  I countered that nothing would be hanging out at my establishment either (other than glorious man breast and all the muscles one girl could imagine glistening with a fresh coat of baby oil...*mind wanders....re-group*).  I even broke down and replaced the boxer briefs (thank God for them) with plain boxers or even pants.  The baby oil was non-negotiable.

JB shoots back that penises are "real private parts". And breasts aren't?  Yes, I agree that breast are widely accepted but why?  He said that they aren't private if you can't see the nipple...cleavage is seen daily.  I knew from jump that I was fighting a losing battle but hearing his viewpoint was what interested me the most.  I already knew most men, if asked, would be against such a thing.

My whole point in what started as a joke was the double standard we all are aware of.  Women are usually the ones in movies, bearing all.  Yes, money is usually the motivation and the overall decision of the actor but my thing is this: if I can go to a movie and have to sit and watch a woman expose T & A, dammit, I should be able to see a man's 'member' (for lack of a better term lol).  Not that I'm pressed to see one because I stated earlier that they aren't the prettiest looking things around but it's all about being fair.  Even if the man did agree to doing a full frontal, I honestly think they would find some way around it.  Like using some type of shadowy effect so the viewer really couldn't see his package, instead, just a silhouette.

Like I said before, I'm not (completely) serious about the restaurant but if I were, I'd be prepared for the myriad of "No's" that would follow.  Believe that I would fight hard, using restaurants like Hooters and Tilted Kilt as a means of comparison.  I would even be willing to compromise the boxer briefs as I had with JB, allowing them to cover up just a tad.  But I would also bring to their attention that something should be done about the waitresses at Hooters.  Regardless of if they are curvaceous or not, we know what the name implies and so do the young children that are allowed inside.  Deep down, I know I'd be fighting a losing battle but that's ok with me.  I just wanted to get my point across.

Would you frequent my spot (or one like it)? Why or why not?  What's your take on the double standard?  How do you feel about restaurants like Hooters and Tilted Kilt?

No comments:

Post a Comment