To: All
You guys don’t think a barebreasted woman holding her legs apart on millions of cups a day isn’t a furter degradation of our culture.
To: prolifefirst
No more than, for example, Albrecht Durer's Adam and Eve was a degradation of German culture or Salomon deBray's Young Woman Combing Her Hair was a degradation of Dutch culture. I find chronic obsession over finding something to be offended by far more of something to be worried about.
17 posted on
05/21/2008 11:00:42 AM PDT by
mnehring
To: prolifefirst
Remember when Little Mermaid statue in Denmark was vandalized by Muslims because it portrayed a woman’s bear breasts?
18 posted on
05/21/2008 11:03:45 AM PDT by
mnehring
To: prolifefirst
If that logo is the outrage that’s grabbing your attention, our culture has a lot further degredation to go.
19 posted on
05/21/2008 11:05:23 AM PDT by
ctdonath2
(The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
To: prolifefirst
I'm prolife. I love Jesus.
I'm not real worried about it. But then it never occurred to me that anyone would want to *blank* a fish.
Actually until all this came up I was just used to the newer logos. I thought all the wavy lines were water she came up out of.
I think $2 is for a cup of coffee is an obscenity worth prosecuting though.
And the name has always given me the creeps. I don't know why. It kind of reeks of neopaganism.
But the logo (even with nipples and all showing) just strikes me as old world maritime nostalgia. Which as it turns out is exactly what the owners were trying to do.
(Too bad their coffee sucks.)
21 posted on
05/21/2008 11:09:54 AM PDT by
GulfBreeze
(McCain is our nominee. No one else.)
To: prolifefirst
You guys dont think a barebreasted woman holding her legs apart
lol...
It's a mermaid, dude...she ain't got no legs and bare breasted mermaids have been riding the bows of American sailing vessels for over two hundred years.
.
24 posted on
05/21/2008 11:20:43 AM PDT by
radioman
To: prolifefirst
It’s not a woman, they aren’t legs, and the artistic root dates back to the 15th century so “further degradation” is a bit of a stretch too.
To: prolifefirst
Then this must REALLY piss you off:
![](http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/uag/Art-Anytime-Page/Lochoff-pages/images/15-Boticelli-Venus.jpg)
28 posted on
05/21/2008 11:32:38 AM PDT by
arderkrag
(Libertarian Nutcase (Political Compass Coordinates: 9.00, -2.62 - www.politicalcompass.org))
To: prolifefirst
The original logo from the 1970s was a better rendering of a mermaid, but nobody got excited about then, why now?? Mermaids have always been depicted bare, it was the prudes at Disney or somewhere that decided to give them seashell bras. Nowhere else in the world are they so covered; where they are shown in children's books or toys, they're shown in accordance with the Myth.
To: prolifefirst
If they actually did put a bare breasted woman holding her legs apart on a cup of coffee they would probably sell billions of cups a day instead of millions.
But this is just a cheesy graphic of a mermaid copied from ancient mariner's art.
49 posted on
05/21/2008 2:48:02 PM PDT by
TigersEye
(Berlin 1936. Olympics for murdering regimes. Beijing 2008.)
To: prolifefirst
1. She's not a woman, she's a siren.
2. Those aren't legs, that's her double tail.
3. It isn't 'further' or even new. Sirens and mermaids have been shown barebreasted since the legends started.
The name is from Melville's novel and that's probably why the mermaid is involved. Lots of ladies with mirrors and combs on the sailing ships.
51 posted on
05/21/2008 3:38:55 PM PDT by
AnAmericanMother
(Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson