In this question, I'm going to assume there are strictly two human biological sexes, male and female. That assumption isn't exactly true (chromosomal variations), but it's a close enough approximation to ask the question. At restaurants such as "Hooters," provocatively-clad females serve food to patrons. There are no male waiters. No one seems to think too much about it. I think, however, that many people would be appalled if we had restaurants whose theme was to have provocatively-clad Jewish people serve food, or provocatively-clad African Americans serve food, or provocatively clad [insert religious or ethnic or national group] serve food. There are, of course, ethnic restaurants. So we might think of Hooters as nothing more and nothing less than another type of ethnic restaurant, this one peculiar to sex instead of ethnicity. Is this good reasoning? Maybe that reasoning is not valid. Women have a sex (female) and men have a sex (male). There can't be anything intrinsically more sexual about women than about men; they obviously both have a sex. Completely separate from biological sex, there is something we might call "sexualization," achieved through dress and behavior. So Hooters sexualizes one group -- women -- to the exclusion of another -- men. So maybe the correct analogy here really would be a restaurant to sexualize all waiters (both male and female) of a particular ethnicity. Is this good reasoning? Why is Hooters socially normative, while a restaurant based on the sexualization of an ethnic or religious group would be considered inappropriate?