Home Uncategorised RIP Playboys

RIP Playboys




Playboy’s New Cover Model Is ‘Gender Fluid’ Male Wearing False Nails and a Revealing Toga

Playboy have put a “gender fluid” man wearing make up, false nails and a revealing black and gold toga on their cover.

Besides calling himself ‘Bad Bunny’, there is nothing else about this man that makes you think he should be gracing the cover of Playboy.

‘Bad Bunny’ is a Puerto Rican musician with 27 million Instagram followers who is described as a “Latino queer ally known for his flamboyant style.”

However, I’m not entirely convinced that Playboy readers are excited to see a “gender fluid” man prancing around in false nails and a revealing black and gold toga. Actually, I’d go further than that and say that is absolutely not the type of content they want to find when they ‘read’ Playboy.


RT report: Obviously like many other brands in the world of publishing, Playboy is feeling the pinch. It is entirely released online as of March this year, and so it is looking for ways to keep the audience engaged and attract new readers.


Previously, it managed to do this by relying on the tried and tested model of boys reaching a certain age and discovering they rather liked looking at attractive women. I would hazard a guess that this, broadly, remains the case.

However, Playboy has decided that a better way to get a bigger audience is by going woke, because obviously there isn’t enough political correctness floating around in the world right now.

I can’t help but feel that, as a marketing move, putting a dude on the cover of Playboy (Latino queer ally or otherwise) makes about as much sense as Good Housekeeping putting a Lamborghini on its cover.

This is just a blatant abandonment of its core audience; there are hundreds of magazines and websites that cater for the woke market, so Playboy has no more need to go after Vox’s audience than GH does to chase Autocar’s.

Playboy isn’t the only ‘men’s mag’ to fall victim to this unwelcome progressivism. Even a casual reader of GQ will have noticed the overt wokery that has infected its pages over the past few years.

A cursory flick through GQ UK’s homepage finds that the lists of outrageously expensive watches and advice on which type of moustache it is acceptable to have in 2020 are now liberally interspersed with articles about how “If your idea of equality doesn’t include black trans lives, it isn’t equality,” how gay dating app Grindr is “rife” with racism, and one bluntly titled “White people: this is what you need to do.”

All fine and dandy, of course, but a bit bizarre from a publication whose primary function is to tell me what kind of jacket is ‘in’ for Autumn/Winter 2020.

But then even when we do get into the clothing section, its lists of “best dressed men of the week” increasingly feature, well, men in dresses. Obviously, you’re free to wear whatever the hell you like, but after the tenth picture of a bloke in a ballgown you can’t help but feel there is some sort of agenda being pushed.

These magazines, particularly Playboy, are supposed to be for men. They are for the enjoyment of men, not to lecture them about toxic masculinity or white privilege; there are plenty of publications that do that already. In the past, even the most credulous mothers of horny teenagers never really believed their lads were buying Playboy “for the articles.” While the ready availability of more, shall we say, ‘stimulating’ content online may have meant that Playboy is no longer used for that particular recreational activity, does it really need to take beautiful women off the cover?

Even if has decided its main editorial mission is now to push progressive woke politics, you’d think it would have the sense to keep the traditional Playboy bunnies on the cover to get guys to click through in the first place.

Ironically, given the bizarre direction woke politics has taken in the media landscape, actually publishing a traditional Playboy cover, like they did with Kate Moss in 2014, would probably be the most transgressive thing they could do.

Previous articleRevelations 23
Next articleHave Your Say


  1. I doubt that the move from airheads with impossible plastic tits to fudgepackers with nose rings will shift the earth off its axis. Playboy may have been edgy sixty years ago but it’s been running on empty for a long time.



  2. I have two daughters.
    For those of you with sons, do you think that males in New Zealand are facing a harder battle to start families and raise the next generation of Kiwis than you or your father’s generation?
    How much of this “angst” is due to the deluge of social media information?
    (The situation is certainly dire in Japan and even worse in South Korea.)

    The downside of not having so many children is who will pay the taxes for the retiring oldies? (Is social welfare a Ponzie scheme?)
    Is the influx of immigrants and the changes they bring in the interest of the nation? (Who decides what this interest is?)



    • I do not think the influx of migrants,and the changes they bring, is in the interests of the nation. At one stage we had a number greater than the population of the district I live in coming in annually. We can read to day in Al Jazzera that the worlds population has trebled in the last 70 years. And it is the places where problems are the greatest that are increasing the most; yet we are told we need to mindful of the contribution we make to climate change? We are threatened with the view we need to alter our lifestyle backwards to accommodate a new green, poor and cold future.

      We have people here now not working but who should be and thus contributing to this nations future. We do not need migrants to offset those too tired to work and who are becoming inter generationally accustomed to the welfare teat.

      The current government is not resolving any of these issues but makes the situation worse with each additional handout. The current government parties have no useful plan to resolve any issues while their current track of more control just means more of the same stagnation.



    • I reckon I’ll stick with my theory of female hormones in the water over soy Kea.

      Think of the mighty Waikato. By the time it reaches the taps of Hamilton the water has been cycled through the kidneys of everyone residing between Taupo & Cambridge. Filtering might remove some of the thicker stuff but no amount of chlorine is going to neutralise a molecule of estrogen. And soon it will be Auckland’s turn at the trough.

      Mind you carpetbagger steaks as opposed to soya sausage are recommended if anyone still holds any doubts. 🙂



Recent posts

Don’t Poke The Russian Bear

Russian forces start shelling Kyiv Military correspondent Cossack Colonel Yuri Kominyenko In response to the shelling of civilians in the liberated city of Donetsk, the RF...

When Is It Not A Scam?

This was in my Junk box. I feel blessed to get two in one day. Greetings to you, How are you doing today? However, it...

Yet Another Covid “Conspiracy Theory”

Yet Another Covid “Conspiracy Theory” Confirmed As True Written by JD Rucker This isn’t new information to those who have been paying close attention, but the...

Recent comments

The Ancient Hooligan on Have Your Say
Brigadier General Rissole on Have Your Say
The Ancient Hooligan on Have Your Say
Kea on Have Your Say
Kea on Have Your Say
waikatogirl on Have Your Say
Rachael Membery on Have Your Say
Rachael Membery on Have Your Say

The way we all feel about this useless government

overcast clouds
7.2 ° C
8.3 °
6.8 °
97 %
100 %
8 °
13 °
14 °
14 °
11 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar