While I was out driving today, I had to stop behind a large pickup that was slowly turning into a local Hooters parking lot, and I thought, well, you can always count on a pig to eat. But then, I remembered a very interesting and unamerican hooters story.
I had a Spanish coworker, from the south of Spain, who told me about something she taught her sons in a unique way. She didn't want them to feel or react as if a naked or underdressed female was anything but natural. So if they were at a newsstand and saw a skin magazine, she didn't want them to fall into American adolescent boy goofiness. And she took them to eat at a hooters when they were still in their early high school years. No ogling, no puritanical reactions. Her moral: naked doesn't equal pornography. It has always struck me that violence is no biggie on film but nudity gets the R-rating, nursing mother exposure included.
A good perspective. It's hard for a woman, though, to realize, to have any conception of, how VISUALLY oriented men and adolescent boys are.
Women are NOT as visually oriented, despite Chippendale dancers and appreciation of a good butt or set of abs. They're generally driven by a sense of "How physically secure will this man make me?" or "How much personal affection will this man show me?" or "How financially secure will I be with this guy?" not "Look at that bulge. Wonder what he's packin' in them jeans?"
I've raised boys, and I wouldn't go that way, taking them into a Hooters and letting someone that might be their sister or cousin (in another place and time) wave their cleavage at them. That won't end well.
You've stated a problem, but even though I don't go for your solution, I don't have one of my own.
Sexual continence was concomitant with Western greatness. It probably also contributed to it (sexual tension found outlet in non-sexual ventures). The Frankfurt School's agenda of eroding sexual mores has been highly successful.