As NewsBuster Dan Gainor has noted, Playboy Mexico thought it could make some pesos by peddling an issue with a scantily-clad Virgin Mary on the cover—just in time for Christmas. Today's Los Angeles Times contains an editorial denouncing the tasteless stunt. All well and good. But it set me to wondering. Did the LAT protest similar outrages against religous symbols when they appeared in the US?
The infamous "Piss Christ" comes to mind. Even more on point is the portrait of the Virgin Mary, surrounded by lacquered elephant dung and cutouts from pornographic magazines, that the Brooklyn Museum found worthy of display.
I'm going to guess that the LAT never editorialized against either of these. As NewsBuster and Times Watcher Clay Waters pointed out, the LAT's East Coast counterpart, the NY Times, editorialized in defense of both works of "art," while condemning the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad
I have a sneaky suspicion that something similar has occured here. The LAT goes to bat for the religious feelings of those from a different country or culture, but wouldn't defend the similar sensibilities of those in its own country. If someone can point me to LAT editorials denouncing either of the offensive items that appeared in the USA, I'll be glad to admit my mistake.
Note: the LAT ends its editorial in writing:
Because Playboy clearly has poor judgment in these matters, let us offer a bit of unsolicited advice: If there is an upcoming issue featuring a scantily clad Fatima, trust us, it's a bad idea.
Fatima was a daughter of the prophet Muhammad. Does anyone imagine that in a million years Playboy would dare do such a thing?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Give them a pass
December 21, 2008 - 17:48 ET by BW222I am so happy (and surprised) that the LA Times defended something honorable that I will (temporarly) give them a pass for past transgressions.
BW222
I'm a bit too cynical. I
December 21, 2008 - 18:28 ET by rbosqueI'm a bit too cynical. I think they're just pandering to the overwhelming Mexican Catholics that are here in L.A.
Those fools at the LAT chomp at the bit to slam the Church, why would they suddenly change their tune?
I think you're onto
December 21, 2008 - 18:35 ET by Mark FinkelsteinI think you're onto something.
I agree. I was
December 21, 2008 - 19:34 ET by motherbeltI agree.
I was thinking that the real question is why they care now after all this time?
I think rbosque may have hit on it.
I also concur. Purely a
December 21, 2008 - 19:39 ET by MidAmericaI also concur. Purely a business decision.
Excellent point. And the
December 21, 2008 - 20:01 ET by Ken ShepherdExcellent point. And the American controversies were all wrought in part on the taxpayer dime. They were funded by endowments from the taxpayer financed National Endowment for the Arts. At least you can say Playboy Mexico is a private enterprise that has to deal with the finicky nature of the marketplace. It isn't sponsored, so far as I know, by American or Mexican taxpayers.
Not This Idiocy Again...
December 22, 2008 - 23:31 ET by The7SticksAs I have said before, I think there is a distinct difference between a Mapplethorpe installation clearly intended to shock the people, like the quote "Piss Christ" exhibit, and this alleged Virgin Mary posing on the cover of Mexican Playboy. I'm still going to take the editor's word that it clearly wasn't meant to be the Virgin Mary, as I took the trouble to look at the pictorial associated with this cover. If the Virgin Mary was ever depicted wearing a Renaissance-style crown before this pictorial came out, then I guess I am wrong. But if that isn't the case, this pictorial will pretty much disappoint you because doesn't clearly depict the Virgin Mary, or Virgin Guadalupe for that matter since this is the Mexican publication of Playboy.
I believe this is simply an excuse to say that there is a so-called war on Christmas, which I have discovered to be a false movement. I am a proud "War-on-Christmas" denier and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.
It's the LA Times 7
December 22, 2008 - 23:43 ET by RESTLESS 1You do realize that it is YOUR side bitching in this editorial??
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
About that crown...
December 23, 2008 - 20:13 ET by digdog1Roman Catholic icons of Mary are often depicted wearing "Renaissaince-style crowns," some of them almost comically out-of-scale with the rest of the figure. A quick Flickr search for "mary crown" turns up several excellent examples in just the first couple of result pages. Try it.
Mexican Playboy's denials that they were invoking "that" Mary are thinner than the sheet the model is draped with. Their presentation (at least in the cover shot) may not rise to a level of Maplethorpian outrageousness, but with the "Mary We Adore You" cover slug, it's pretty obvious to any IQ above room temperature what the mag was going for.
Feliz Navidad.