18 May 2008

Boycott Starbucks? Well, Now I Don't Want To.

Starbucks Logo Under Fire

According to the post, "A Christian group based in San Diego called The Resistance says the logo looks like a naked woman with her legs spread like a prostitute."

Well...thanks. Now it does.

How hypocritical funny is it that a group with higher moral standards than "the rest of us," is even capable of seeing something so profane in a harmless image? It speaks worlds to me about the inner workings of their minds. In response to the lewd picture on Starbucks' temporary new label, they are calling for a national boycott of all Starbucks.

Now, I do think that there are loads of other, more important reasons to boycott Starbucks, but I'm feeling oddly torn. While I do buy the occasional latte or coffee from Starbucks, I prefer to support local coffeehouses - and while it has more to do with personal preference than making a stand, I certainly feel a slight tingle of ethical superiority whenever I walk out of 1369. Sure, sometimes I walk out of Starbucks thinking about how reprehensible it is to support a "big corporation" instead of my little local house, but mostly I think about how much the caffeine is going to help me get through the rest of my miserable day (I usually only purchase on particularly bad days at work).

So if you'll excuse me, now, I'm going to go out and buy a venti caramel mochaccino, to show my support for real-sized whorish mermaids with half-exposed breasts.

3 comments:

Sara said...

I didn't know if you had seen this

It gives a pretty lovely evolution of the Starbucks logo.

Hope all is well.

dearsweetbriar said...

I have not seen that, and it clears some things up. Still, boycotting is a bit far, and it's even funnier to me now that we've been through this before. I honestly didn't see anything vulgar or suggestive about it - even if it is, at least, suggestive.

The article directed readers here, and I particularly liked this line: "Sheila-na-gig [the siren on the Starbucks logo is a cross between a mermaid and a sheila-na-gig] is a general reference to female figures that prominently display their genitalia to signify the power of female sexuality and fertility. These images are also quite prominent in the decoration of sacred sites in general and are thought to be a legacy of the older Goddess religions whose holy sites were usually taken over by later religions. The shape of the genitalia in these squatting figures is also symbolic of the vesica piscis, the "vessel of the fish," which is also associated with Christ. The well-known Christian "fish" symbol (seen prominently on the backs of many cars these days) is the ICHTHYS, referring to the Greek acronym for 'Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.'"

The symbol of the fish --> female genitalia. In my mind, the coupling of these thoughts makes their argument even more hilarious. To me, anyway. Then again, I'm not typically offended by such things, although I wish we, as a society, would do more to get rid of nearly-anorexic women suggestively selling things with sex in a submissive and non-feminist way.

Sara said...

I agree, boycotting Starbucks because of the logo is asinine.

Of course, I'm never going to be able to look at a Jesus fish without thinking of female genitalia. Lovely.