 |
|
The Resistance says the new image “has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,” Mark Dice, founder of the group, said in a news release. “Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks.”
The group, which claims more than 3,000 members nationwide, is calling for a national boycott of the coffee-selling giant. Messages have been left with the company seeking reaction to the objections. The logo is a throw-back to what the chain used when it first opened in Seattle more than 35 years ago. The explanation for that initial log design is explained in the book “Pour Your Heart into It : How Starbucks Built a Company One Cup at a Time,” written by company founder Howard Schultz: “[Creative partner Terry Heckler] poured [sic] over old marine books until he came up with a logo based on an old sixteenth-century Norse woodcut: a two-tailed mermaid, or siren, encircled by the store’s original name, Starbucks Coffee, Tea, and Spice. That early siren, bare-breasted and Rubenesque, was supposed to be as seductive as coffee itself.”
Seriously? Should I have put up a NSFW in the headline? I hope no one loses their job over this…..
God damn it! Where is my Christian coffee?
I saw this new logo a couple days ago. Yeah, it’s a bit, er, odd – but poor taste? Nope.
I chuckled at it for five seconds then drank my coffee. Big deal.
Greatest country in the world, but sometimes it IS embarrassing… People will take offense at the silliest stuff.
The same class of creeps and cretins who drag out similar issues with Proctor & Gamble every few years.
They must think an organizing tool like this works well with illiterate, ignorant Christians. Er…umh…
[Duplicate comment deleted. – ed.]
For people who believe they were descended from a man and woman who were naked in a garden when they were created, they sure seem to be hung up on nudity.
I don’t see any legs on that figure for her to have spread “like a prostitute”. Maye i need to see a bigger image. Looks to me like a chunky merman with saggy man-boobs.
“Slutbucks”?? Heh, that’s cute.
I think Starbucks should burn in an everlasting lake of fiiiiiiiiiiiiiire, but not because of their spread-legged mermaid.
In any case, it’s a tough week for us God-fearin’ folk here on dvorak dot org slash blog.
I assume this is new news. Because this logo issue is similar to one a number of years ago when SB was forced to change it to the close-up we are now all familiar with.
Of course they will lose this same old battle again, leading me to think they have purposely re-introduced the controversial one to gain some free publicity and strengthen their brand as being on the cutting edge of “hip.”
But what’s not to like? A depiction of a woman spreading her legs, pudenda proud, enticing, “Com’on baby, you know you want it. Gotta have it.” Clearly this is all a woman has to offer and that message needs to be passed down through the generations.
Personally I would have avoided the whole sexist issue and went with something more universal such as snorting coke.
Starbucks hasn’t a chance in Sirenum Scopuli of making this stick.
Here’s a little background history re the logo:
http://tinyurl.com/33kyf9
RBG
Holy Crap! Are people REALLY that uptight when it comes to NATURAL NUDITY? Even a DEPICTION of it?
Now we know why the Puritans were kicked out of Amsterdam. Why is it everything “Nature Provides” in league with the DEVIL to these folks?
4.00 Coffee and please leave a tip? Get a job, loser. I hear McDonalds is hiring.
I hate to say it, but that’s what is looks like, now that they mention it. I don’t have a problem with it, but now that’ve noticed it, I can’t see it any different, lol.
I’m sure their 3,000 members boycotting is really going to hurt Starbuck’s bottom line. They are just breasts people. If this logo has to go so do 300+ pound men walking around in public with their shirt off.
Is Jesus GAY? He looks GAY.
8. Dennis. Oh, so Starbucks was inspired and motivated by the natural beauty of the universe. Sort of like how Las Vegas got built. My mistake.
RBG
Don’t these nutball Christians have an abortion protest to got to or something?
>>Are people REALLY that uptight when it comes
>>to NATURAL NUDITY? Even a DEPICTION of it?
So you’re saying that a lusty busty topless mermaid with two tails is “natural”? Haw. I’ve never seen a real mermaid with more than one tail!
If you read the strib article and view the poll, you’ll see that 36.8% of the respondents agree that the picture is objectionable. I hope it’s because they all know that mermaids have only one tail. Minneapolis is a pretty liberal city, and I’d hate to think that folks were objecting to a cartoon rendition of the lady of the deep’s jubblies.
14. Excuse me, lmj3325. You’re probably new around here. We don’t speak of abortion here at Dvorak Uncensored.
RBG
Lol, morons being offended by mermaids. They should see the shellback certificate I got for crossing the equator on ship.
every time these people crop up it just reminds me how perverted religious conservatives are.
all religious conservatives ever think about is sex, they’re sick.
the see sexual innuendo in everything, they make beavis and butthead seem like choir boys
i would never let my daughter be around any religious conservative: they’re miscreants
>>They should see the shellback certificate I
>>got for crossing the equator on ship.
Those mermaids have only one tail.
http://tinyurl.com/626jpe
So they’re not mutants like the ones on the Starbucks logo.
#19, oh, good catch! Now I am offended.
The logo should go, but mainly because it looks dumb.
It’s funny. I had seen the logo several times, along with many normal people in Starbucks, and none of us even gave the logo more than a glance.
I agree with #19 in some ways: these Christians are so obsessed by sex they see it everywhere, even in innocuous logos (hint: Christians, artwork like this was considered art for thousands of years until you guys decided to promote the sin of nudity). They see their fantasies of perversion in all these things. I can only imagine the images in their heads as they look at these things. They are sick.
As a Christian, I’m personally embarrassed that people that are labeled as “Christians” are offended by a coffee store’s logo.
spread “like a prostitute”? How does he know this fact? Is there something he is not telling us?
maybe he needs to go to confession.
So it’s not a woman holding open her legs. What? it’s a woman, though. And she’s by the sea. Perhaps singing. And, what? two beautiful and magical fish swim by. In a communal gesture, she lifts them out of the water. But they begin to perform disgusting acts upon her. Damn! There I go again! I was doing so good, too.
RBG
I wonder how much of a market there is for christian coffee…….Perhaps with a bloody corpse nailed to a cross instead of a naked mermaid.
Also, I dont understand why hes calling the mermaid a prostitute. Its not like theres any money being exchanged in the image. Is he implying that all women who have sex are prostitutes?
This is almost as bad as the “Where’s Waldo?” controversy!
Good luck with that, Christian mafia. Starbucks is bigger than you schmucks.
You fucktards think boycotting Disney for allowing gays was ineffective? Try messing with our coffee.
Has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute
How does a prostitute spread her legs thats different from a christian woman spreading her legs?
More freely and with less guilt?