A group calling itself The Resistance complains about a new version of Starbucks' logo that the Christians say "features a topless mermaid with her legs spread." They want people to boycott the coffee company because of it. Of course, Resistance will only drive more people -- especially teen boys -- to Starbucks stores to check out this allegedly racy image. What fools! (Read the Huffington Post item)
> "The Starbucks siren is half-fish; she doesn't have legs to spread"
Ridiculous... Now, I'm Christian myself, so I'm not about to slam Christians, but I think some people go a little to far in their religious zeal. Still, it doesn't merit the webmaster calling them "fools." *tsk tsk*
Posted by: MusicGal | May 12, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I would personally like to extend a laurel and hardy handshake to "The Resistance" for creating more free advertising and customer traffic to my Starbucks. Thank you again for the increased business and for a fun topic of conversation for me to engage in with my enthusiastically satisfied customers :)
Posted by: Ettal | May 12, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Sex Bad. War Good. Crazy Christians. They're never happy till everyone is miserable.
Posted by: Bladerunner | May 12, 2008 at 10:52 AM
And don't forget to burn all fairy tales and Harry Potter books...
Posted by: Me | May 12, 2008 at 10:59 AM
They didn't even bother to post the real actual picture Starbucks is using right now. They took the really old (original?) version which still has the nipples exposed. On the cups today they aren't. I guess this was decided to take steam out of exactly these kind of propagandas. What happened to good journalism? Like research before you publish?
Posted by: Me | May 12, 2008 at 11:07 AM
My dad is a minister, and I grew up in church. I never understood this way of thinking. All they are doing, if anything, is drawing attention to what they see as a "problem" Like back in the 80's when all the "christian" org's protested 2Live Crew, all the did was make album sales explode. Its stupied, and it does work. At least in the press release, from what I read, they aren't calling for a boycott, they are just stating that they as a group are boycotting. Maybe its a small step.
Posted by: Ken | May 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM
This is just ridiculous.... getting beyond the whole "it's not a mermaid" thing, let's talk about the fact that even if it were a mermaid, mermaids don't have legs to spread.... Looks like someone never saw Splash...
Posted by: COFFEEISLIFE | May 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Only a person with an over active imagination and mind in the gutter would look at that logo and see it as this group does. People like this look for stuff that isn't there. Get a life.
Posted by: Kat | May 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Slutbucks?
I love it.
Posted by: STALElatte | May 12, 2008 at 02:13 PM
If your getting your jollys off or struggle of a "make believe character" on a coffee cup...perhaps you need to seek some professional help. Truly sad. I am a christ-follower and am embarrassed to be even "categorized" with people like this.
Posted by: Chris Baker | May 12, 2008 at 03:32 PM
I myself find the whole thing about the prostitute thing highly amuzing.
Say what you will but I am a pagan and I find the whole thing highly amuzing.
So reading this gave me a good laugh.
(:
Posted by: Rogue | May 12, 2008 at 04:06 PM
I myself find the whole thing about the prostitute thing highly amuzing.
Say what you will but I am a pagan and I find the whole thing highly amuzing.
So reading this gave me a good laugh.
(:
Posted by: Rogue | May 12, 2008 at 04:06 PM
This article gives more background on the objection by some christians:
http://www.christcenteredmall.com/news/starbucks.htm
Although the image is that of a split-tailed sea creature or mermaid, it is still a siren. More specifically, it is a double-tailed siren, a baubo siren, which The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects points out, is "a cross between a mermaid and a sheila-na-gig." The suggestive pose refers to female sexual mysteries and the lure of temptation for any simple-minded fellow. The sheila-na-gig is rooted in paganism and the worship of evil spirits, yet ironically, it is found on many European churches and cathedrals as a decorative motif.
The book referenced is: http://www.amazon.com/Womans-Dictionary-Symbols-Sacred-Objects/dp/0062509233
Posted by: Fabio | May 12, 2008 at 04:22 PM
man oh man. that's hiLARious. slutbucks? i'm all about working at the slutbucks.
Posted by: maggiemunkee | May 12, 2008 at 04:33 PM
Sweet. Let's all show everybody how religious tolerance really works by not bashing Christians here. Oh wait. . .so-called religious tolerance only extends to anybody BUT Christians. Cool. Nothing hypocritical there!
Posted by: Bob | May 12, 2008 at 05:14 PM
From the article:
Just last summer, a group of Christian ladies boycotted Frappuccinos because there was a homosexual-agenda-pushing Armistead Maupin quote on some of the cups. Others have boycotted the company because of anti-God quotes.
Why Frappuccinos? Those cups don't have the quotes on them. Boycott a hot drink ( for God's sake! :D ) so you can at least have a consistent message.
Gotta love this group.
Posted by: a non | May 12, 2008 at 05:18 PM
"As Think Progress explains, the logo was part of a campaign by the company to introduce a new roast that could compete with less expensive varieties of coffee."
Who exactly is "Think Progress" and are they directly quoting from someone at sbux? If so, doesn't that really mean that PPR was created to compete with Dunkin Donuts and McDonalds coffee? It's fine to serve PPR if that's really what some people want, but it's not okay to sideline the bold customers. Geez, how dumb is that. And they also did it while claiming that PPR is about getting back to the core. Lies! Sbux's core is not about competing with less expensive varieties of coffee by making its own flagship coffee more bland. Howard should just tell the truth, and stop the lies. And I know my few coins won't make a difference, but that's exactly why I'm boycotting.
As to the siren, with the split tails... well, I'm not a Christian, but she's definitely "out there" so I do get their point too. (btw, I also agree to not bashing the Christians.) According to the various legends, the siren is a seductress, and her tails were split, and she's holding them apart, (and singing her song), exactly for the purpose of luring mariners to the promise of sex, and to their destruction...
http://www.deadprogrammer.com/starbucks-logo-mermaid
So yeah, I can't blame the Christians for responding the way they did. And even if her "legs" are really "tails" that doesn't make the siren innocent and chaste. She's obviously an "adults only" logo, and understandably that means she's a bit over-the-top for some people.
But I think the comment about free publicity is interesting too. Sbux has been through this bad-siren-logo stuff before, so they fully knew that reverting back to the previously controversial logo was going to once again evoke this type of response. And when people make a big fuss sbux gets free publicity. And then they cooperatively return back to the more tame logo again. Makes sense.
Posted by: StLouieDrip | May 12, 2008 at 05:43 PM
What's the ratio of Slutbucks to Schrute Bucks?
The same as the ratio of unicorns to leprechauns.
Posted by: Christin | May 12, 2008 at 06:16 PM
People this extreme make me laugh and I within 10 minutes I can usually make them question everything they've ever believed in because they don't even comprehend what they were force-fed all their lives.
But they are a little late anyway. As of tomorrow, new promo!
Posted by: Stacy | May 12, 2008 at 06:19 PM
Not too long before Slutbucks offers full body lattes.
Posted by: Dan | May 12, 2008 at 06:43 PM
comical... have people learned NOTHING from history that efforts to control other people's values results in the opposite desired effect...
Face it... no religion accepts anyone else's values but their own... even Atheism... I'm going to create my own religion called "Selfishism"... where the practioners can worry only about themselves. Howard and Jimbo are a "Selfishists" and look what it got them... millions of dollars and several websites that talk about them and the things that they do...
Posted by: Pat Nerr | May 12, 2008 at 07:06 PM
Sorry Pat...think that "Selfishism" has already been created. Just look at our western culture and many of the customers that Starbucks serves.
Posted by: J | May 12, 2008 at 07:20 PM
the comments on this post have been especially amusing
Posted by: voyeur | May 12, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Boy, if a fifteenth century woodcut gets these idiots (not bashing anyone, just stating fact)all hot and bothered and upo-in-arms, then what's next- banning the Coppertone ads? How about forcing nursing mothers off of planes? Covering naked statues at the Justice department?
Oh, wait; all of that has happened, within the past couple of years.
Damn! And just when I was sure that we as a society had finally stated acting a little more mature...
Posted by: sbuxnewbie | May 12, 2008 at 08:50 PM
I think the current starbucks siren...logo...looks alot like bruce vilanch with t*ts. I see nothing wrong with it. And the spread legs...looks like bruce vilanch too. Maybe the christian group(s) have issues with bruce vilanch. I definitely dont! I am a gay man for god sakes. Oh did i just use the words gay and god in the same sentence? Anyhow, people need to stop using religion as a means to find fault in something. Thank God that I am not a religious person. Instead, I am a spiritual person. My God is a female by the way...her name is Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie. Erotic---a. :-)
Posted by: MyGod! | May 12, 2008 at 08:52 PM
The action did help rustle up those bloggers and commenters with anti-Christian bias.
Posted by: Jay Ehret | May 12, 2008 at 10:07 PM
I think that the new cups are ugly. I miss the green and sharper logo. Does anyone know if this is a permanent change?
Posted by: S | May 12, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Stacy, have you ever considered you are the one who has been force-fed all your life?
Posted by: Espresso | May 13, 2008 at 08:11 AM
I don't consider myself anti-christian, but I don't appreciate ANY group trying to dictate to me what I may or may not see, read, listen to, or do. Yet every time a group..often religious..starts to make a noise about something and I dare to speak out, suddenly I'm the villain and intolerant. So I suppose I'm supposed to just sit back and let them have their way? Or am I allowed to say otherwise? And with all the *real* problems in the world for people to be concerned about, a innocent little logo of some mermaid should be the least of their worries.
Posted by: Kat | May 13, 2008 at 09:35 AM
Okay, so let's stop lumping all Christians into the "they" category (like we all think alike). Every person that acknowleges Christ as their Savior receives the Holy Spirit to be their helper. Each Christian is accountable to the Lord for their own convictions. One Christian may not be convicted in the same way as another. This is okay. These convictions are personal. As a Christian, my responsibility is to be sure I am following God's leading in my own lives. Paul talks about this in detail in Romans 14. When God requires certain things of some, it's easy for us to assume He must be requiring it from everyone else as well. We must be sure not to become Legalistic or Judgmental in our thinking.
Posted by: Chris | May 13, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Chris, I agree with your first sentence. (I'm not gonna comment on the rest, since it's not exactly SBUX-related.) I don't think we should say, "All Christians are suppressed pervs who want to control women and minorities!!*fist shake*".
However, I do find this particular extreme group somewhat amusing...
Posted by: MusicGal | May 13, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Guess what, the mermaid comes from a polygamist family & they'll be opening a SBUX in Eldorado, TX, since Mr. Jeffs is and avid SBUX fan. Maybe they'll hireall those kids from the YFZ ranch as baristas!
Posted by: Part Nerr | May 13, 2008 at 03:01 PM
Espresso,
Fail. I was raised Episcopalian (basically Catholic), however I have taken the time to read up on and try to understand other religions. My friends and I enjoy religious debates because most of us are all of different backgrounds. My personal belief system pulls a little from everywhere.
So please tell me what you think I was force-fed by myself. Open-mindedness? One would think that is a quality worth having.
Posted by: Stacy | May 13, 2008 at 07:50 PM
You force-fed yourself your own arrogance and intolerance. Just because you think the people who believe the siren is offensive are in the extreme doesn’t mean they didn’t come to their conclusions by their own thoughts, experiences, and conversations with their friends. You are only open-minded in your own mind.
Posted by: Espresso | May 14, 2008 at 08:56 AM
Great example of the guiding principles folks. Embrace diversity - religion (Christians) not really welcome at the table.
The press release of one remote fringe group did more to expose bigotry inside Starbucks than anything else.
Posted by: Field Partner | May 14, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Espresso,
Sounds like you're upset because I hit a nerve in you. Do you believe the siren is offensive? If so, why? If not, why are you defending such a Puritanical way of thinking?
There is NOTHING wrong with being a Christian or being religious. However, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with being part of a witch-hunt where everyone who isn't as gung-ho about God is automatically leading a life that only Satan would approve.
Posted by: Stacy | May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Not to be pedantic and off-topic, but to the person who jokingly said they were going to create "Selfishism"...done and done, my friend.
Ayn Rand. "Objectivism". Read up...it's fascinating and infuriating all at once. :-)
Posted by: The Fountainhead's Quad Latte | May 14, 2008 at 01:21 PM
Alert:
I just came out of the original Starbucks store (#301) and there in front of the store was a Fox News camera person and reporter. (?). They said they were doing a newspiece about a group boycotting the logo.
I was asked a few questions and it is *possible* I might have made it on to the newspiece. ???
If you can watch Fox news tonight, keep an eye out for this!
Btw, I'm in a purple sweater over a button down white with black patterned shirt.
Posted by: Melody | May 14, 2008 at 09:09 PM
Go figure that it was Fox News...
Posted by: Stacy | May 14, 2008 at 11:47 PM
If you look at the site of the man who is quoted from "The Resistance", Mark Dice, you can see he is a psycho. He is basically a radical Christian/conspiracy theorist. Frankly I think he brought up this Starbucks thing to bring people to his site, since he is selling a book. And based on the fact his donation window is showing a total donation of $7, he certainly needs it.
Posted by: Lauren | May 15, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Oh, and his myspace page has a Youtube video of women in bikinis saying 9/11 is a conspiracy. So I guess when barely dressed women are saying the things you want them to, it's okay.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=162091952
Posted by: Lauren | May 15, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Stacy, my opinion on the old/new siren is that it is creepy. I can see why some people (not just this particular group) are offended by how it is presented on the cup and by what it traditionally represents. If anybody finds it so offensive that they stop buying Starbucks, that is their choice. What is so offensive about your post is that you think you have the ability to throw a few questions at people who believe as ‘The Resistance’ does and that is all it will take to make them doubt themselves. They are an organized group with national recognition. If you are really that skilled in changing mindsets, by all means go and talk to this group and do us all a favor. However, by your reaction: “there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with being part of a witch-hunt where everyone who isn't as gung-ho about God is automatically leading a life that only Satan would approve.” It sounds like they got to you in far less than 10 minutes. In this case, all they want to do is encourage people to ban Starbucks. I would be very surprised if it had any measurable impact on Starbucks at all.
Posted by: Espresso | May 15, 2008 at 08:13 AM
Finally. It's about time the anti-sex commandos took the bait.
Now, can we get them some national TV coverage so the publicity campaign can really work?
BTW: It's not that they're allegedly Christian (they aren't by any reasonable reading of Christian doctrine), it's that they're evangelistic about enforcing their own neuroses on all of society. There are enough fanatic anti-sex types in the secular and the religious world and in both the left, the right and the center, to go around.
Posted by: Mike in Seattle | May 15, 2008 at 09:27 AM
Actually no one got to me, especially considering I didn't read past the blurb posted here. Normally I read entire article before stating an opinion, but these groups tend to all be the same. Now if there is something in the article I missed that shows they are not like the 5461698 other extremists out there, then I will retract my statement. But as of now, from I know about this group, my opinion is rather accurate.
Posted by: Stacy | May 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM
You are 'rather' just like the people who's mind's you think you can change.
Posted by: espresso | May 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM
**This is a copy of a post I made on another site.**
I find the entire topic amusing. Do people really need to get so worked up about a logo? I'm sorry but, there really are much bigger issues to worry about. I don't hear the fundamentalists getting outraged over the tens of thousands of people dead in China or Darfur or Mynamar. What about the billions in profit announced by Exxon-Mobile while many Americans can barely afford to put gas in their cars to get to and from work every day? The Siren logo has no impact on real lives or real people. It's just a logo, folks. Get over it.
Posted by: Coffee Mistress | May 15, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Slutbucks? Hurry up and get finished with that term and please don't copyright it, I want to use it when I open my own coffee shop. The attractive female baristas will wear high heels, fishnet stockings, and short, tight skirts. Let's see how they like the logo that I now have in mind...
Posted by: Morgan | May 15, 2008 at 05:11 PM
It's a logo....get over it. lo-go: a name, symbol, or trademark designed for easy recognition, esp. one borne on a single printing plate or piece of type.
btw. coffee mistress, I did see your post but if a large number of people can spout nonsense, I was hoping to add to those who actually have perspective.
Posted by: Bonnie | May 15, 2008 at 10:23 PM
I'm so sick of this phone "back to origins" campaign, the force feeding of Pike's Place, and the steady stream of premature apologies from the barista's regarding the quality of the drink, offering to remake it e v e r y time you order. If Howard would just focus on getting the younger "partners" to stop chit-chatting about their private lives and flirting with one another while there is a line of 20 glaring unserved customers right in front of them, that would be a HUGE improvement. In fact, I think instead of "proactive apologies" for their drink making, they should all be forced to apologize proactively for being inattentive to customers, closing with ". . . and if you'd like me to shut up and just make your drink from now on, I'd be happy to do so!"
Posted by: Anna | May 16, 2008 at 01:40 PM
ANNA-
I am tired as hell of hearing people bitch about how all younger partners are "chit-chatting" worthless brats.
I'm usually pretty chill and mature about these things. But theres really only one thing I can say about this, in a very "internetz" way.
STFU.
Yah, ok thanks. The only partner we've ever had trouble with "chit-chatting" at work is 38. I've been to a lot of stores in a lot of different places and never had this problem.
I am in the age range you guys slam almost religiously, I am 19. And I am the youngest of the partners at my store by atleast 3 years.
I'm not perfect, but I'm pretty damn good and I love customers. So can we please stop stereotyping my age range and blaming all talking and delays on them. Because from what I've seen, we're always or usually the problem.
Posted by: One Too Many | May 16, 2008 at 02:08 PM