bikini coffee stands

It was reported in the most recent online edition of the KP News that the Key Peninsula area now has not one, not two, but three new coffee stands, all in the 'bikini barista' tradition.

Considering we had none of those just a few short months ago, the change is dramatic. (note: one of these stands, Bare Espresso, had a brief opening run and now appears to be closed again. I heard through the grapevine it has something to do with a lawsuit against the former owner, but have no personal knowledge to corroborate that story).

It would be easy to become offended at this point; in fact, most might expect we Christians to get our noses out of joint, to become righteously indignant about the decay in morals in our society. It would be all too easy to go Church-Lady on these new establishments. But, no, I'm not going to be offended. I'm not going to thump my Bible over anybody's head.

Instead I'm going to simply be honest, and say that I am utterly disgusted at the thought of these places doing business, here on the KP or anywhere else.

"Why are you so disgusted?" you ask.

There are primarily two reasons:

1) I respect women. I'm glad I live in a day when women are rising to some of the highest areas of leadership in our country. I'm glad to serve in a church that believes in full equal leadership rights and responsibilities for women. I believe women, like men, are created in the image of God, and are worthy of full respect. But even there, quite often 'respect' carries the wrong connotations. It can sound borderline patronizing. To put it simply, in God's eyes, women are the equal of men. And I'm glad I live in a world that is finally recognizing that.

To carry it a step further, believing that women are created in the image of God is also to believe they have enormous, immeasurable intrinsic worth. God's image is shown in their intellect, in their wisdom, in their leadership skills. Both women and men come to the table carrying around the image of God. We do well when we show each other respect and honor as humans created by, cherished by, loved by, and honored by our God.

All rhetoric aside, bikini coffee stands take us back to an uglier world, where a woman's primary worth is her attractiveness to men. Now, two of the managers of these new stands either lied or are just clueless, because they tried to deflect this view. "Don't be judgmental because of the bikinis,” [one] said. “The girls are nice, but our business is coffee." Sure. Go with that.

At least one of the owners was honest. "The girls will be our big draw," said Matthew, the owner. "And we aren't going to hide them. We'll have a four-foot by four-foot window to put them on display." 

It is obvious to anybody paying attention that there is a backlash, a dumbing-down, if you will, against many of the gains made by women in the last 50 years. For every Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who have risen to Secretary of State, there is a Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, plummeting right back to the world where sex appeal and 'dumb blonde' is a badge of honor. For every serious female actor, working hard at garnering respect for her craft, there are hundreds of girls getting their 15 minutes of fame in a Girls Gone Wild video. For every image calling my daughters to find their worth in their mind, in their creativity, in their skills, there are too many more reminding them it's all worthless unless they look and act hot and available.

And lest you think I would promote a world devoid of physical attraction and admiration, I would add in the many marvelous examples of female athletes. WNBA stars, track and field champions, swimmers and gymnasts, tennis players and soccer players can all be admired for "their bodies." Not as primarily sexual creatures, but as powerful athletes who have created wondrous athletic machines with the bodies God has given them.

So why am I disgusted by bikini coffee stands? Because they stand as one more reminder to women that their worth is in their cleavage and their flat stomach, and (I'm assuming here), their ability to flirt with the men who drive through. And because they once again reinforce to the men who drive by the thought that women exist for their pleasure; that women are to be admired because of their sexuality, their bodies, and the way (I'm assuming here) these women flirt with them as they drive through.

Because, in the end, I highly doubt any guy's going to drive away from Smoking Hot Espresso thinking, "Wow, I admire her for her understanding of the geo-political situation in Central America." I even doubt most will drive away thinking "Wow, I admire the way she brews a cup of coffee."

2) I like sex. But I also happen to have a very high view of sex. To do the briefest of theological sketches, humanity (male and female) were (are) created in the image of God, and that image finds fulfillment in the sexual union. Genesis says the sexual union creates "one flesh." Paul use the sexual union of husband and wife as the model for Christ's union with the Church. He also goes so far as to say even fleeting dalliances with a prostitute creates a spiritual union between the partners. The church's aversion to sexual immorality and the cheapening of sex is not borne out of overly-sensitive sensibilities or old-fashioned, victorian aversions to anything tawdry, but instead out of a grander, more incredible vision of sexuality than anything the world can imagine. There is an incredible spiritual component to sexuality.

(btw - if I had more time and space I'd work that out to include all male-female relationships, not just the sexual act itself. This is not just the plane of the sexually-active; I think there is a component of healthy male-female friendship that exists even when there isn't sexual activity. But that's for another time and place).

Thus, any cheapening of sexuality is a cheapening of the deepest part of our very selves. Any divorcing of sexuality from true, abiding friendship and relationship does damage to who we are as humans.

And any usage of sexuality as an advertising ploy does great harm to our souls. And, no, it's not just bikini espresso stands. It's also Burger King and their "Paris Hilton washes a car" ads. It's the beer ads promising instant sexual satisfaction from hot girls (or guys) for all who drink their product. It's any and all advertisement that use sex as a gimmick. In fact, it's anytime anywhere in our culture when the sexual act is removed from a committed relationship, be it movie, music, or television. When we take what is perhaps the highest, most intimate connection between human beings, an act that goes back to the highest point in pre-fall creation, and turn it into "just sex," we deny ourselves as Human and move down the ladder to pure animal.

In other words, if you use sex, especially 'hot female sexuality" to sell your coffee, you are cheapening sex, and damaging your employees and customers by denying their humanity, their worth, and their ability to truly stand as whole, healthy human beings, knowing and being known by others in respect and true love.

That's why I'm disgusted with these bikini espresso stands. Not because I'm offended by sex, not because I'm frightened of female sexuality. Instead, it's because these places at their core cheapen women, turning them into one-dimensional caricatures for the enjoyment of so many men, and because they cheapen sex, the very thing they play on to draw the customers in.

One final thought: At this point, some would say "live and let live. If you don't like it, don't shop there. Don't judge others, don't foist your morality on others." Fair enough. Except for this: what these stands do cheapens all of us, it cheapens our community, it cheapens the lives of everybody out here. If I lived on the beach, and a mile or so down the beach a company was dumping raw sewage into the water, I wouldn't settle with "live and let live." What they do "up there" affects the environment down here. Any, be it bikini espresso stand owners or TV producers who use sex as advertisement, as ratings-producer, ultimately affect the larger culture. Even if I choose to ignore it, to turn off the TV, to drive by the espresso stand without stopping, those things still end up altering the world in which I, and my friends and family, live. So while I don't plan on standing outside with protest signs, I certainly do hope others will take all this to heart, and, eventually, these places either shut down or change their business practices. After all, we've got plenty of other coffee stands that are doing just fine without putting their girls in bikinis, tassels, and pasties.

Getting political for a moment

A week or so ago, Hugo wrote on his blog the story of a group of anti-abortion protesters on the campus of Pasadena City College. In that entry, he asked the following:

So the question I would have for my pro-life friends is about policy. What specific policy recommendations do you call for? If doctors continue to perform abortions once it has been made illegal, what charges do you intend to bring against them? What crime do you think a woman ought to be charged with if she seeks an abortion? If you believe that women are “victims” of abortion, do you see them as emotional children who cannot be held accountable for their actions? Do you think penalties should be enhanced for women who seek more than one abortion over the course of their lifetimes?

It's a good series of questions, questions we don't seem to talk about very much. In my experience, the push is all toward repealing Roe v. Wade and then outlawing abortion. But supposing that succeeded - what then? And why isn't this part of the conversation?

Perhaps it is, and I've missed it. But, as a pastor, I receive a fair amount of literature in the mail regarding abortion; as a reader of Christian newsmagazines and websites, I certainly hear many who labor tirelessly to 'end abortion,' mostly by working to have abortion made illegal in the U.S. But, honestly, I think this is the first time I've ever been asked "and then what?"

These are questions I admit I haven't really thought through, and questions for which I'm not sure I have any good answers.

Let me be clear about this: I am of the firm belief that life is a gift from God, be it life in the womb or life in a convalescent home, and that life ought only to be taken by God except in the extreme necessity of self-defense (even then I'm not so sure, thanks to those Mennonites. . .). I've read most sides of this debate, and, in the end, I believe that a human fetus is still human, and thus, killing it is wrong. Again, lest there be any confusion: abortion is a sin. Having an abortion is the wrong choice. Performing abortion is the killing of a human. So, yes, you could say I am against abortion, and would gladly vote for laws curtailing abortion rights, even making it illegal, just as murdering somebody on the street is illegal.

But Hugo's opened up some interesting questions. If we were to see abortion outlawed in our day, what, then, should be the consequence of having an abortion? Of performing abortions?

Just the other day I heard of a young woman, barely a teenager, who became pregnant; uncertain what she should do, she followed her mother's advice and had the baby aborted (the mother, btw, does consider herself a fine Christian woman, or so I am told. . .but felt her daughter was too young for this responsibility, so abortion was the 'sensible' choice). And this story is told time and again across our nation. Place that story into a world where abortion is illegal. What would we expect as a proper consequence? Prison? Paying a fine? Community service?

With the doctors, I suppose it may be an easier call. If abortion is illegal, and one performs an abortion, if one profits from performing abortions, I personally wouldn't have trouble with mandating jail time. Immediate revocation of one's medical license. Paying fines, doing community service.

Except. . .would it be equitable to give one set of consequences to the doctor, and another to the woman who sought the abortion in the first place? Would we think it fair to imprison the abortionist, while only giving a slap on the wrist to the one who wanted their child aborted? Because if not. . .then are we ready to start putting 14-15 year old girls into prison for this? Or 26-year old women, or 35-year old women who may just happen to have other kids at home for whom she is caring?

And what about the mother who pressures her teenage daughter - is she guilty? And what about the boyfriend/husband who pushes his girlfriend/wife into this decision?

In a moral universe, all share some of the guilt - the doctor, the pregnant girl/woman, the person pressuring them. None can claim complete innocence for causing the end of a baby's life.

But in a legal universe, are we ready to charge them all with the same crime? Are we ready to call these women "murderers"? (Okay, I know some are; I've seen the signs and bumper stickers. That's not primarily the crowd I'm addressing here). Do we want to make the case that aborting a baby is the same as murdering a child or adult? If so, do we want the same set of consequences?

Viscerally, when one hears of a woman throwing her child off a bridge, or a man murdering the little girl next door, we instantly think "lock them up," or at the least "stick them in an institution somewhere so they can get help." But what about our next-door-neighbor, the PTA president, the woman who volunteers at Little League, what about our teenage daughters - otherwise normal kids or upstanding adults, who just happen to have had an abortion.

Are we ready to lock them up? To institutionalize them?

So we have Hugo's question. What should be the penalty for performing abortions? What should be the penalty for seeking an abortion. If we were to see abortion outlawed. . .what then?

(final note: the assumption of this discussion is that pro-life people ought to have a discussion about the far-reaching consequences of acheiving their goals. It's not to have a debate on whether or not abortion is wrong/a sin. Please remember that, should you choose to leave any comments.)

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas (Or, One of These Things is Not Like the Other)

In the name of inclusiveness and free speech, the Washington State Capitol has three displays up for the holiday season - all paid for and set up by non-government people or groups.

The first is the expected: the Nativity Scene. The second is becoming more visible in our culture: a menorah.

The third is the one raising both cheers and consternation from the locals: a sign set up by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Now, understand this. The folks at the FFR have as much right to voice their opinion in public as anybody else. The state can't choose favorites, allowing one group to set up shop while leaving the other out in the cold. Personally, while I disagree with the folks at the FFR over foundational worldview issues, and while I won't hesitate to say that I believe their atheism is wrong (since, as you know, I'm pretty certain there is a God), I believe that in America the FFR has the right to publicly declare their belief that they do not, in fact, believe there is a God. So count me among those who don't really care that the FFR set up their sign.

Except for this - This is the content of the sign:

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Which is not the same as simply stating "Hey! We don't believe in God!" See, they've gone beyond "I" language and turned instead to judgmental language - the very same thing they claim they're tired of religious people doing to them. The other two displays are artistic symbols and representations of deeply-held religious sentiments. Both are positive: there is Life here! There is Hope here!

Whereas the FFR folks have essentially set up a combative, over-and-against signpost, a denigrating, insulting, "we're better than everybody else," snide, pompous sign. A sign that essentially tells 95% of the world that they are feeble-minded sheep, mindlessly following empty books and boorish leaders.

So, I ask you. In the end, which is actually more offensive? The Christian and Jewish displays, or the "we're offended by you all" display from the FFR people? Which better fits the theme of "human love and goodwill toward all?" Which of these three is not like the others?

Couple Random Things

In the next month, buses will be rolling through the Washington D.C. area emblazoned with ads stating "Why Believe in a God? Be Good for Goodness' Sake." It's a takeoff from a similar campaign running in London this holiday season.

article here

A couple thoughts:
1. Certainly one more sign of the times. As we become even more of a pluralistic society, Christianity is becoming simply one more voice among the many.
2. Many Christians will choose to be offended by this ad campaign (or so I'm guessing). Perhaps, instead, this may become an excellent conversation starter. After all, they ask "Why Believe in a God?" And we've already been given the challenge: "Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). So if they ask, let's give them an answer. (not forgetting that Peter said to carry out the above "with gentleness and respect".)

_____

Closer to home, next year a law goes into effect in Seattle and King County, requiring restaurants to hand out and display nutritional information for all the food they serve, in order to assist people in making more informed dining choices.

The P-I ran an article on this new law this morning, along with some pertinent nutritional facts from our local eateries.

If you want to remain in denial about those frappuccinos and chili burgers you're ingesting, don't go check it out. But if you're wondering why you just can't lose those last 15 pounds, maybe it's because that macaroni-n-cheese has 2430 calories and 128 grams of fat.