Fringe Christian group finds Starbucks retro logo offensive.

See that Starbucks logo to the left here? (Click to embiggen) Tell me what’s wrong with it if you can. Personally I can’t find much to be upset about, but that hasn’t stopped one fringe Christian group from throwing a hissy fit over it:

A Christian group based in San Diego found grounds for outrage over the new retro-style logo for Starbucks Coffee.

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 and has found a place on the fringe advancing various conspiracy theories, is calling for a national boycott of the coffee-selling giant.

Uh, dude, that’s a two-tailed mermaid and it’s actually toned down a bit from the original logo when the chain launched in 1971. In the original logo you can see her nipples! Oh how did we innocent young kids survive the 70’s with such smut gracing the cups of over-priced specialty coffee? Where were these nutcases in 1971?

What’s interesting to me is this entry over at Dead Programmer’s Cafe from back in June of 2005 that discusses the origin of the Starbucks logo. Which, as it turns out, is not an entirely original graphic but a slightly modified wood graving of a Melusine dating from the 15th or 16th century. That original graphic surely would have traumatized the good folks of “The Resistance” to the point of catatonia given that the tails on it were actual separate and looked much more leg-like.

For its part Starbucks appears to be ignoring these idiots, as they should, and they say that the retro logo will run on cups for a couple more weeks and then become the permanent logo for their Pike Place bags of coffee. I’m not a huge fan of Starbucks coffee, I like it but won’t go out of my way for it, but I do like how the company keeps managing to piss off Republicans and fringe Christian groups and refuses to back down or apologize for doing so.

9 thoughts on “Fringe Christian group finds Starbucks retro logo offensive.

  1. It’s the Evil Satanic Dangling Parts syndrome again.

    I think that fundies (of all stripes) actually believe that our satanic dangling bits no longer exist when they are hidden.

  2. We all know that Starbucks is just a front company set up by Number One as a cover for world domination and ransoms of ONE MILLION DOLLARS.  ergo this logo is evil, and the Republicans and Christians are protecting us, the way they protected us by wanting to fight Al Qaida in Iraq.

  3. “Slutbucks”, eh?  I like it.  There’s one in Vienna now too.  I don’t patronize them unless I’m in Boondocks, CA, where there’s no other choice if you want half-decent coffee.

  4. I prefer to call them Starfucks.  I don’t see anything wrong with the logo, but then I don’t give a shit about nudity in artwork. 

    I would prefer to see a hairy chest partially covered by a long beard rather than a woman’s tits.

  5. The Resistance says the new image “has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,”

    Now why can’t she have her legs spread “like a woman ready to make love to her husband for purposes of procreation,” or “like a woman ready to give birth to our lord and Savior Jesus Christ?”

  6. One would have thought the focus of fundie objections to have been the paganism of the figure represented and that that would have been more offensive than the nudity, which is incidental.

    There’s no pleasing the pedantic.

  7. Now why can’t she have her legs spread “like a woman ready to make love to her husband for purposes of procreation,” or “like a woman ready to give birth to our lord and Savior Jesus Christ?”

    Thriceberg, if you have to ask, you’ll never get it.

    One would have thought the focus of fundie objections to have been the paganism of the figure represented and that that would have been more offensive than the nudity, which is incidental.

    faith- the paganism is a concomitant of the nudity; and nudity is never incidental.

  8. zilch says:

    faith- the paganism is a concomitant of the nudity; and nudity is never incidental.

    From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

    Incidental-

      • adjective 1 occurring as a minor accompaniment or by chance in connection with something else. 2 (incidental to) liable to happen as a consequence of.

    Concomitant-

    • adjective naturally accompanying or associated.

    Are we really in disagreement here?

    I guess some people are just pedantic.  wink

    When I use the word incidentatl, I don’t mean by chance, I mean all of the rest of the definition.

  9. faith- I’m pretty pedantic too.  No, I don’t think we are really in disagreement here: when I use the word “incidental”, I mean to stress the minor nature of the accompaniment, not the chance nature.  And nudity is never minor, although minors are sometimes nude.

    cheers from rainy Vienna, zilch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.