Starbucks reverts to original, vulgar logo

More news supporting a general avoidance of anything Starbucks:

[quote=Star Tribune]Seems that one person’s smut is another person’s morning latte.

A Christian group out of San Diego has 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.”

All hyperbole aside, the ‘new’ graphic (original - Warning: Not Safe for Work - dating to a 15th century nautical woodcut with seemingly explicit sexual overtones) is a topless woman smiling, while holding both her “tails” open, in a sexually provocative way. Seemingly aware of the connotations of sex and seduction, company founder Howard Schultz explained the logo choice, saying “That early siren, bare-breasted and Rubenesque, was supposed to be as seductive as coffee itself.” :frowning:

this is only a temporary logo for the promotion of their Pike’s peak coffee from the 70’s they’ll be changing it back soon. I’ve already called them on this

maybe their coffee isn’t selling all that much…so they are slumping to this? they used to be such a class act…why are they slumping to using these measures?:confused:

I always wondered about the strange arms on the current logo. Turns out they were the tails all along.

not really sexual or vulgar in my book


Don’t see it…:shrug:

The siren itself is mythologically seductive, and little is sanitized in making the legs look like fish tails. The basic posture of legs open spread is the same - certainly that, combined with the topless smile, is something people understand as obscene. Even the founder of the company intended it to be sexual. :confused:

Ditto. Perhaps my mind just does not go there. It looks like an ugly mermaid with bare breasts. Who would be squinting at a cup for the emotion in the smile? I think that someone had a slow news day and went reaching for a new scandal to sell papers.

I’m more offended that the barristas had to sue to get the tips that the supervisors took from them for years.

I never gave any thought to the strange arms. To me she was just holding some type of plants.

When they retro logo came out I mentioned to my 12 yr old daughter how much I disliked it, she pointed out that it was the same image just the whole body. Leave it to a young person to make the connection. I would have never made it.

Personally, even if the retro image was not vulgar, I think the current image is much more appealing and recognizable from a distance.

Next time I go to Starbucks, I think I will ask the employs how much longer children will be exposed to the vulgar image. Maybe if stores start reporting that they are getting complaints the corporate offices will drop it sooner. The stores are where the profit is and people are tightening up on their spending, so keeping customers happy is even more important.

I saw the sexual connotation the very first time I saw it.

I loathe, hate and despise Starbucks. I had to sue them once to get them to reimburse me for medical bills, for injuries sustained on their premises due to their negligence.

Well, it is, but it’s so old-fashioned that it hardly registers these days. I have a CD of Oscar Brand’s, Bawdy Sea Chanties and a lot of them are like that. My fav is A Clean Song which is either clean or totally obscene, depending:

There was a young sailor who looked through the glass,
And spied a fair mermaid with scales on her island
Where seagulls fly over their nests
She combed the long hair
That over over her shoulders
And caused her to tickle and itch.
The sailor cried out, "There’s a beautiful mermaid,"
A-sitting out there on the rocks,
The crew came around a-grabbing their glasses
And crowded four deep to the rail,
All eager to share in this fine piece of news
Which the captain soon heard from the watch.
He tied down the wheel and he reached for his crackers
And cheese which he kept near the door.
In case he might someday encounter a mermaid
He knew he must use all his wits
Crying, “Throw out a line, we’ll lasso her flippers
And then we will certainly find
If mermaids are better before or be brave
My good fellows.” the captain then said.
"With fortune we’ll break through her mermaiden"
Heading to starboard they tacked with dispatch.
And caught that fair mermaid just under her elbows
And hustled her down below decks,
Each took a turn at her feminine setting
Her free at the end of the farce,
She splashed in the waves landing flat on her…
After a while one man noticed some scabs,
Soon they broke out with the pox and the scratching
With fury, cursing with spleen,
This song may be dull but it’s certainly clean!

Starbucks is all part of the Illuminati anyway.

Problems with this theory:

Two snakes merging together - as seen from the full body image the Starbuck’s trademark is derived from, the “snakes” are the mermaids flippers.

The Illuminati movement was founded on May 1, 1776. The full body image the Starbuck’s trademark is derived from dates from the 15th century, 3 centuries before the Illuminati movement was founded.

That is a misuse of the word “theory” … I most certainly do not subscribe to the ideas of Alex Jones. I was joking.

Oh. I have no idea who Alex Jones is so I had no way of knowing that you were joking. Maybe I should have said “this nut is only seeing what he wants to see” :wink:

“When correctly viewed, EVERYTHING is lewd…” from a Tom Lehrer song

**Smut **


I do have a cause, though, it is obscenity. I’m for it! (laughter) Thank you. Unfortunately, the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it, owing to the nature of the laws, as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on. But we know what’s really involved: dirty books are fun! That’s all there is to it. But you can’t get up in a court and say that, I suppose. It’s simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution, unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days, I have here a march for mine. It’s called:
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can’t shut
If it’s uncut
and unsubt-le.

I’ve never quibbled
If it was ribald.
I would devour
Where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
“To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance.”

Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they’re hard core.

Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties, samplers, stained
glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I’m still not satisfied!

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers
Lurid, licentious and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
Let’s face it I love slime!

Old books can be indecent books,
Though recent books are bolder.
For filth, I’m glad to say,
Is in the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz - there’s a dirty old man!

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will
If it is swill
And really fil-thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I’ve got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they’re trying to take it all away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words: Smut! I love it.
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I’m a market they can’t glut.
I don’t know what
Compares with smut.
Hip, hip, hooray!
Let’s hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don’t let them take it away!

I agree. I think that the logo is very, very ugly but until I read this thread, I didn’t see it as sexual.:eek: I thought that she was holding her hair. I guess that I am blind.

Besides, I get my coffee from local coffee shops or Books a Million. I am not protesting Starbucks, I just like to frequent local businesses and I happen to like Books a Million.:slight_smile:

Okay, that made me laugh.:smiley: Poor mermaid. It served those sailors right!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit