In the Modern Media Age, scandal is as good as positivity, the media manipulators are more then happy to tread on anyone, or anything just to receive an iota of coverage. In some ways, outrage only plays into the paradigm, if it upsets people, as long as there is Buzz, Digg, or Twitter created, that is all that counts. "We" may be better served by a shrug of indifference and pity for those who stoop to such levels./
this plus the war on christmas, ill not be shocked when christians everywhere are going to take to the streets.
Of course the point is, Christians DON'T "take to the streets". Our call to turn the other cheek and love our enemies compells us to take action which is non violent by nature. Yet my outrage at this idiocy truly churns and how do I boycott a magazine I don't support anyway? Given I am a 56 year old, happily married, Christian man, I doubt many of the products advertised within its covers care if I buy from them or not!
I'm not particularly religious, but I was brought up Catholic and really don't think this was necessary. I'd expect this from more from Larry Flynt than Hugh Hefner.
I can appreciate the power of symbolism - and how a fellow christian can be upset based on the Context of what this magazine is...but its a very artistic and stylistic shot "I think its beautiful"- and to me, hinting of nudity is not nudity (I only see the cover shot - dont know if the insides/centerfold continued the theme and displayed more so to speak):
I would say that this is an opportunity to educate about "who" Mary was and why she is important to Christians. Besides, Hefner's enterprise is beginning to crumble.
I guess it takes all kinds. This doesn't surprise me when I know what the magazine is all about anyway. As a Christian it makes me boil with anger for them to take and mock Mary, the mother of Christ. If they don't believe, fine, but keep it off the covers of rags like Playboy.
Next week Playgirl will release their Middle Eastern Issue with Mohammed on the cover. Thousands will die.
yea, Mexico is very religious from what I have heard. I think that was a huge mistake. As for people who get outraged, I will never understand it. It is probably not something for me to understand.
Are they mocking the virgin mary, or paying homage to her? Based on the picture above, I'd go with the latter.
Ok I have to play devils advocate here... Is it possible that instead of "mocking" the Virgin Mary Playboy's intent was to HONOR the Virgin Mary by showing a beautiful woman dressed in the cloth? Why is it assumed that Playboy wanted to mock Christians? I think often people's (Christians) first assumption is that they are being mocked or discriminated against. Just my two cents.
I don't think so. Case in point, the title of this thread. Had Rev (I realize thats the article title) made the title "Playboy Cover has Woman dressed as Virgin Mary" you may have a point. But alas the title is "Playboy Mocks Virgin Mary" I. Win.
The title of thread comes from the title of the Rueter's article not Rev's personal agenda. While I believe it is the imperative of a Christian to put the most charitable construction on another's action, the pose, the picture, and the cover slogan of the magazine was intended to provoke. The publishers are not so stupid as to think this was positive or even nuetral, this was intentionally provacative! The title "Virgin" Mary being used for a scantily clad woman can hardly be anything else than titilating. Are Christians sensitive to criticism and do we see ridicule too quickly? Perhaps we do. We have been sensitized to it in public media and do have knee jerk reactions. That said, a view of the picture, the cover article, and the timing is too overwhelming a case to be a coincidence or as you suggest "flattery".
Hate to say it, but welcome to my world, Christian brothers and sisters. How do you think I feel every Halloween when I see things like this, many times at Christian households? Funny part is that I'm always told "oh that's just how it is, don't be so sensitive.
Geez, Pagan, we really do need to update and find prettier Witches!!!! LOL (wondering whats underneath the robe would be more entertaining)
I was honestly unaware of Wicca until a few years ago. I knew followers existed in some fashion but that was about it. Since discovering a bit about Wiccans I try to grant them the respect due anyone's faith tradition. I may disagree but disrespect holds my faith in disrepute and I choose not to do that. I am curious Pagan, you are, I understand, the dominant poster of woman's pictures on the ladies lounge forum. How does that fit in with your faith position and tradition? Not a dig at you, for me that would be unacceptable at a number of levels but clearly you are comfortable with such posts. Is there a particular rationale you may share?
My faith isn't as restrictive as yours, Ohio. We don't have - and I'm not being condescending - that overbearing guilt and sexual repression that the Christian faith seems to impose on its followers. I know because I was Christian at one time, and had that all dumped on me. Reason #125 in a long list of why I broke away from the faith. Our basic tenet is to do what you want, as long as you're not hurting anyone including yourself. We're not hung up on coveting...as long as you don't act on it. As for your giving us respect, I wish more were like you. I deal with that disrespect on a frequent basis. And every Halloween I have to go through the same nonsense. It's okay to call a *****y woman a "witch", but imagine if you called a miser a "jew"?
Occam's Razor. Seems pretty clear to me that they made a 'mockery' of the Virgin Mary for the purpose of driving up sales and publicity. I mean, they did this in Mexico. Hooters doesn't hire buxom chicks dressed in skimpy attire to honor women, do they? Exploitation 101
Well, you do know what most guys do with that magazine when they're alone, right? Regardless of my beliefs, I think it's safe to say that they knew what they were doing and knew it would offend certain people. I'm sure they're not very fond of Christians since a lot of their beliefs go against what made Hefner's empire.
I wont argue that it wasn't a clever marketing ploy, (it clearly has us talking about it on a football message board) I would only argue that their intentions beyond that were not of a cruel nature. Had the spread been of a distasteful nature I could get on board with the whole "mocking" thing, but as it stands I dont see what the commotion is all about. And I was jumping on you Rev, you merely took the thread title from the article. I just have a problem with people (like the writer of that article) who rush to get offended by something. The PC watch dogs these days are out of control.
