What Is "Anal Cleft"? The Bikini Baristas Suing the City of Everett Are Wondering, Too.


Wow, wtf?!?! This is going to get good. Go ladies with your bikini, I'm all for it! "Everett City Council members who sponsored the ordinances say bikini coffee stands lead to increased crime and STDs, decreased property values, and corruption of minors."
I don’t see being in a bikini as being sexual.

The men looking at you do, I can guarantee you that much.

I have changed as a person by being able to express myself as a bikini barista.

Oh, that's great. Congratulations. Never mind that you're reinforcing the sexualization of women as a class - you do you.
The city should post photographs of both forbidden attire and permitted attire. Then maybe we can figure out what an anal cleft is.
The city of Everette screwed up, instead of charging the baristas the city should be charging the male patrons like King County does in prostitution cases.
@4 the law contains significant penalties for employers, they're the primary target. The "issue" isn't the bikinis, it's that they're offering "extras" for sufficiently large tips and the city doesn't know other ways to combat it
The criminalization of sex services evidences our immaturity.
For those of you still wondering, "Anal cleft" is an alternate name for the gluteal cleft, popularly known as the butt crack. The only time I've ever seen the term "anal cleft" is when a one of our crazy-Republican Spokane politicians (contrails, UFOs, that kind of thing) undertook a similar crusade against bikini baristas over here in the Lilac City.
Won't somebody think of the goddamned motherfucking children?
Stds?!? They're making coffee in bikinis, not with used herion needles!

Pretty sure if the kids of today want to see boobs they'll just head on down to the local 7-11 and pick up a copy of some raunchy magazine in a sealed, non-transparent plastic sleeve and then hold that magazine at the correct near horizontal angle that allows them to peer down through the uppermost transparent portion at the very top of that sleeve and maybe see some boobage of the cover model. It's a multi-man operation though, as someone's gotta keep an eye on the shopkeeper so they don't get kicked out.
I suggest "anal cleft" should be the new name of Trump's hair style.
That'd be the buttcrack, Bob.
Do the bikini baristas make actual coffee drinks? Because as someone who has been on that side of the espresso machine, do you really want to be minimally clothed while you're that close to scalding hot steam on a regular basis? I am concern trolling, I know, but that's gotta be a burn risk.
@15 Having barista'd for a while, it's not what I'd choose. I even preferred long sleeves when weather permitted. I've laughed about that, too. And many bikini barista stands often can be notorious hotbeds for prostitution and exploitation. But banning them wholesale, or through such silly dress-codes as Everett did, opens up a whole new can of worms, and as Steven notes, penalizing the workers themselves is wrongheaded and maybe even mean-spirited (even if you want to characterize bikini barsita-ing as sex work, this isn't an effective or fair way to keep women from being exploited! The only people this dress-code/ban serves are the people who feel "offended" when they see one of these stands). Your "concern troll" here is ultimately benign, but it's a good reminder that what the Everett City Council did is, itself, an act of concern trolling.
@6 (Call me Scott) and @6 (The Guy I know in Spokane): how did you guys get the same number?
Treble clef, bass clef, anal clef
@17--ha! Brothers from different mothers, of a sort.
Will the anal cleft rule apply to plumbers?
@16 I'm not stupid either, but I still managed to burn myself more than once. I guess I'm also just pathologically incapable of being careful. I cannot count the number of times I've burned the back of my wrist taking things out of the oven. I worked at a Qdoba for barely over a month and managed to get two second degree burns (accidentally shut hand in burrito steamer one time, backed into quesadilla press another). I have a pretty high pain tolerance and I don't care about scars so I think I just don't care? The bikini baristas are probably a lot more cautious.
@17 the comment number is, for whatever reason, only ticked when the minute ticks. Hopefully one day slog/mercury will switch to a threaded comment system. I'd even accept Disqus.
@17 - yeah, I noticed that. BFDMsies!
@4 - "Charging men" as in the anti-sex worker "Swedish Model" has been shown to be bad as well. Sex workers themselves argue against it. Decriminalization is what sex workers are pushing for, and that comes with a number of benefits for a lot of different people.

Ultimately, this all comes down to what consenting adults consent to do with each other... Why should the State, in a democracy, be able to make any consensual interaction illegal? No one gets hurt, All parties are voluntarily involved.

It sounds like Everett has a bunch of moralistic puritans on the Council trying to delicately dance around an outright ban of something they just don't personally care for.

Anyway, this prohibition on particular clothing just returns us to the old Vice Patrol days, where cops were charged with "regulating" burlesque performers... a situation which they used to personally humiliate and punish said performers by physically harassing them (pinching nipples to make sure they weren't rouged), and extorting them for sex or money. Do we really want to return to those days? No.

Classify bikini baristas as sex workers, because they are. Decriminalize sex work. Give them rights, and set up testing and education. Make sure these coffee stands do not allow minors, and have them provide visual blocking so that no one else beyond the customer can see any nudity.
@24 Unless it works significantly differently than I've been led to believe, the actual job of being a Bikini Barista is as much sex work as the waitresses at Hooters or a short slide down the slippery slope from the hot Police Officer who, shall we say, "let me off with a warning". The salient point being exactly when, where and with whose participation is the alleged sex in this "sex work" taking place?

As for all you "feminists" despairing for these women or their apparently negative impact on feminism itself, please come back and try to discuss what decisions adults should be able to make for themselves and their bodies when you're done fucking yourselves.
It's weird how dudes who want to shame women for their choice of clothing and/or career think they are taking a stand for feminist empowerment.
@26 Keep in mind that it isn't always dudes. Do we know that the twits offering up their thinly veiled slut-shaming here at @2/@12 are dudes? Plenty of paleo-feminists still desperately cling to their conviction that there is some feminist rationalization for their puritanical beliefs, and nothing at all anti-feminist about treating adult women like children (as long as you have their 'best interests' in mind).

Slog is often barely functional.
@27 Of course, this is complicated by a variety of justice issues around the circumstances in which these choices are made, even here and now, but that should not generally invalidate the choices or the ability of those to choose.
@27, All true and i agree it's not always dudes. Not sure about @2 but @12 has been here for years under multiple aliases, and long-ish story short he (somewhat unwittingly) revealed his identity a couple years ago.
I'm @2. I'm a woman. This isn't about individual choices, guys.

The current situation is: There are two classes of people. One is the default class (men); the other is the class that exists in relation to the default class as an orgasm auxiliary (women). Women are perceived as existing for the purpose of sex, not as full humans.

Bikini baristas perpetuate this dynamic. If you're a bikini barista, you are reinforcing the subjugation of women as a class. I don't care how much you enjoy it; you're harming women and you should get another job.
To be clear: I don't think the baristas should be criminally charged. One can object to the practice without thinking anyone should be thrown in jail.
@31,32 I am not sure I follow your logic.

It seems like you're saying:
A) Women are not perceived as full humans.
B) There are things full humans might choose that somehow perpetuate point #A.
C) Therefore women should not do anything that meets the criteria in point #B.
D) This isn't about individual choices, only the societal dynamics on groups.
E) There should be a penalty for women who violate point #C, but it shouldn't be jail.

Do I understand your points correctly?
A) yes
B) yes
C) I don't understand either what you're saying or how it follows
D) yes
E) no, I'm not calling for a penalty, I'm just saying women shouldn't take actions that perpetuate the objectification of women. and if they do, they certainly shouldn't claim that their actions aren't harmful.
@34 You seem like a decent and thoughtful person.

You might get a better idea of the objection to your stance if you read the Wikipedia article on "respectability politics" and see where that takes you.
@35, I'm not saying women should keep their clothes on in order to pander to the right. I'm saying it because I think it's true.
@36 Did someone edit all the salient points out of the "respectability politics" Wikipedia entry before you read it?

I don't understand how a decent and thoughtful person could consider the theory and only come away with the idea that it's simply about "pander[ing] to the right".

Taking off their clothes is something that full humans can do and almost all of them enjoy under their personal set of correct circumstances.

Denying that option to women, even if only because it is somehow "reinforcing the subjugation of women as a class", is an attack on the individual agency of each and every woman.
I'm not denying them anything. I'm saying women should keep their clothes on, and pointing out the structural harm that ensues when they don't.