For its December issue, Playboy: Mexico decided to honor the season by featuring a nude photo shoot of a model as the Virgin Mary (portrayed by Maria Florencia Onori). Which, not surprisingly, made a lot of devout Catholic Mexican citizens really pissed off, forcing a retraction of the issue and an apology from Playboy (reuters.com). They’re backing away weakly:
In a statement, Chicago-based Playboy Enterprises Inc said the Mexican edition of the magazine is published by a licensee, and the company did not approve or endorse the cover.
“While Playboy Mexico never meant for the cover or images to offend anyone, we recognize that it has created offense, and we as well as Playboy Mexico offer our sincerest apologies,” the statement said. (reuters.com)
Only 100,000 copies of the issue were printed, it’s known that 80,000 were sold — and they’re going to be pricey collector’s items, for sure. It’s a pretty sexy shoot. But you know someone’s *totally* been fired at Playboy.
{ 9 comments }
Bad idea? It’s a totally GREAT idea!! Men need to get over the Madonna Whore Complex.
I’m a sex consultant, and time and again I get male clients who married a virgin and are trapped in an unfulfilling vanilla marriage. I smack them upside the head and say, “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING??”, which they usually like.
Also, love the stained glass.
“That said, the Virgin is a revered national icon for Mexican Catholics”
How about “That said, the Virgin is a revered icon for Catholics,” as that would be just as accurate. I’ll bet if Bill Donohue had heard about this (which is possible that he might have) he’d be all over it like a rabid dog on a box of kittens.
Anyway, if that had been the kind of imagery offered in church, I might’ve stayed in a bit longer.
Well, as soon as I saw the way the robe was draped over her head, I thought of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Now, please understand that I’m not saying that some people aren’t overreacting cause it sounds like they are. That said, the Virgin is a revered national icon for Mexican Catholics. Doing a photo spread like this in a Mexican mag is like poking a bear in the eye with a short stick. A bad idea.
She does look hot, though. :)
Stained glass and nude photos usually mean something else.
umm….
http://thescandelles.com/home.htm
Guess we won’t be bringing this show to Mexico.
This reminds me of the scene in People vs. Larry Flynt which touches on Flynt’s brief experience with Christianity and the way that he brought it to Hustler magazine!
Why would anyone be fired over this? It’s a brilliant idea. Someone creating porn is using actually using their head.
Catholics looking at a Playboy qualifying as sinners? Hmmm… could be. The edgy religious are a funny bunch, I must tell you.
I had a pseudo-religious swinger chick rake me over the coals and outright ask require an apology one night for my drunkenly-blurted, “Jesus Fucking Christ”. I was watching her gyrate her quite nice married ass on the taut groin of another woman’s husband.
Not that I had a problem with the activity, mind you- her response to me seemed a little inconsistent with her behavior which was going to land her ass square in the infinite flames of god’s judgment- well, according to the name I stupidly blurted.
Yeah, the edgy religious are a odd and confused sort.
Shouldn’t the devout Catholics not be looking at Playboy anyway? Doesn’t that qualify as a sin?
Honestly, had it not been pointed out that she’s supposed to be Mary, I would not have guessed that that’s what they were going for. She looks like a typical Playboy model at a photoshoot, one with stained glass windows, an ugly crown, and various sheets of cloth.
The obvious joke here would be something along the lines of “Conception with her would definitely qualify as immaculate.”
Honestly though, the photos would be a lot hotter if she had a halo, some reverent-looking barnyard animals, and maybe a trio of wise men bearing ‘gifts’.
Comments on this entry are closed.