Mildred’s Temple Kitchen Promoting Sex in Bathrooms
Mildred’s Temple Kitchen Promoting Sex in Bathrooms
On 3rd February, 2010, the Toronto Star published a story about Mildred’s Temple Kitchen in Toronto that the eatery is promoting sex in its bathrooms. Those visiting the restaurant are invited to add flavor to their love by having sex in the bathrooms. The Liberty Village restaurant placed the explicit invitations on its website which said that the bathrooms will be open for sexual adventure during the valentine weekend. However when asked, Doona Dooher the restaurant’s chef/co-owner said that the eatery will not be providing condoms for the service. She added that previously they had little trysts in their restrooms referring to weekday lunchtimes as a popular time and therefore they were planning to take it to the next level. This was confirmed by the restaurant’s staff that had learned to watch lights flicker twice in a short interval of a few minutes meaning that two occupants had entered the same room (Pataki, para.1).
According to Toronto Public Health, provided no sex took place in the kitchen and the bathrooms are kept clean there is no trespass of its laws. In fact Jim Chan the manager of the food safety program said that body fluids associated with the sexual process were pretty much the same with other human functions that happened in the rooms. To check on the hygiene standards, Dooher said that she will hire a maid over that weekend to constantly be there with cleaning supplies to clean it up (Pataki, para.2).
Proponents of the idea will argue that no law was breached as is brought out by program manager of Toronto’s Public Health food safety (Taylor, para. 5-6). It also comes out that the restaurant identified a need in the behavior of its patrons and so it went out of their normal undertakings to meet that need. Particularly because it is the clients who started using the bathrooms for sex and the staff noticed it and as a result the management took a bold step to serve that niche of the market that was neglected or unnoticed. The food industry has also become so competitive and so if a proprietor comes with new ways to appease to his customers hence make more profits, then it is an advantage. This is true because no business can deal on what no one wants and expect profit from it, therefore there must people who enjoy this service and will be willing to pay for it. This is evident as seen in the comments elicited by some customers concerning this new development. For instance, Akiranowsaghost, a customer, says that he had been doing that before and is now glad that at least a particular restaurant has offered itself to legally meet his needs (Pataki, p. 1). Therefore it comes out that this is something that has been happening though in secret and hence the restaurant only made it public, hence by setting apart some bathrooms for the purpose makes those who come there aware that such activities may happen therefore no one is inconvenienced. At the same time, those who would have done that in other restaurants where such activities are prohibited get a place where they enjoy themselves without either bothering others or being disrupted.
On the other hand there are reasons that make such a measure unacceptable. For instance Dooher, the restaurant’s co-owner said that they wont be providing people with condoms and so every person intending to enjoy the service must carry with him condoms. However the practicality of that decision is questionable because mostly in such an environment patrons who had only come to have meals and then they have the sexual urge will go ahead and do it without protection. At the same time those who come to the hotel without their partners will be tempted to have sex with strangers and hence promoting promiscuity and infidelity because such sex can be done hurriedly and whenever one feels the urge. In addition it also may lead to prostitution as explained by Maggie Lahey, one of the former regulars at the eatery who have since stopped (Toronto Star, p.1). She says that those without partners will be willing to be offered sex for pay as long as there is a willing seller. One of the code of ethics in restaurants is that they should put more emphasis in serving food that is not tainted (Thompson, para.2). However under such environments of sexual activity there is doubt that those doing the act will carry themselves in hygienic ways as not to affect the foods they eat. Worse still are clients below eighteen years who are exposed to danger of premature sex, precisely because no one will be there to check the age of everyone who enters the bathrooms. Therefore, underage clients might end up involving in sexual activities or even being abused sexually. The other disadvantage is that those who loved the restaurant’s foods and are not interested in the sexual activity will be disappointed as brought out by Owestry who says that he was planning to pay a visit but as a result of the new service he has postponed his intentions. He also adds that this is an act of desperation for customers hence it shows that the quality of foods offered is pathetic (Toronto Star, p.1).
One thing that comes out from the article is the dilemma that most managers are faced with as far as ethics is concerned whereby they are required to meet their social responsibility as well as meet their profit objective and at times both are opposing each other. For instance, Dooher is to choose between promoting her business by introducing sex in bathrooms or adhering to societal norms of having sex in bedrooms. Most business men will prioritize profits over ethics even if it means trouncing other people’s rights. At the same time this brings out how society’s norms have been eroded since what would have been considered as an abomination in the past is now seen as a new way of life (Gebler, para.88-89). For example having sex in a restaurant’s bathroom has largely been unacceptable.
It is evident that the rules that are set up to ensure businesses are run ethically are either interpreted subjectively or are not effective such that they cannot handle some upcoming unethical cases. Particularly when a manger of food safety program claims that having sex in a restaurants bathroom is not unhygienic in spite of what sexual activity entails. This therefore calls for a review of our laws and examine if they still achieve the purposes intended when they were being designed. This also shows how in spite of the availabity of many articles that deal with ethics in organizations, it has only remained of philosopher and academicians to debate on. Not much is done to instill ethics in our institutions as every manager has his own interpretation of the codes of ethics.