Playboy magazine, perhaps feeling a little starved for attention, decided to put a man in lingerie — the Playboy bunny suit — on the cover of its October issue. The man in question is “influencer” and former MTV star Bretman Rock, the first out gay man who’s appeared on a Playboy cover ever, looking a little bit fierce, if we’re still allowed to use that word.
History was made, and the histrionics were soon to follow. Fox News declared the cover to be a symptom of “culture rot” while a post on the Louder With Crowder website worried that the cover pic would confuse the heck out of “teenage boys discovering Playboy for the first time.”
Naturally, the right-wing mob had some thoughts on the matter as well, which they spelled out in Tweets bristling with all their favorite buzzwords.
One commenter professed to have knowledge of every other man’s masturbatory habits.
This “doctor” thinks the Playboy cover is a symptom of the emasculinization of America.
This lady worried about the evil GAY NARRATIVE!!!1!
This fellow was just a little bit sad. And, allegedly, bored.
Meanwhile, this fellow wondered if he has somehow gotten stuck in the Matrix.
Some were a little confused about Mr. Rock’s gender.
One commenter managed to work James Bond into th mix.
But the strangest response I’ve seen so far came from the Gender Critical forum on Reddit-clone Ovarit, where one observer was actually cheering for the cover picture, apparently thinking it would offend “male perverts” and possibly trans people. Or something like that; you figure it out.
![[–] NoOneSpecial 14 points (+15|-1) 5 hours ago Edited 1 hour ago
This is great! All the male perverts still buying Playboy in the year of 2021 (who only know fully well who a woman is when they can objectify and sexually coerce her) are going to be RHEEEEEEEEE-ing all over the interwebs. When they crafted their grand plans of stealing jobs from women, I don’t think these were the types of jobs they planned on giving to men.
Looks like there are a few “kinks” (pun intended ;)) in their MR activism. You get what you fucking deserve.
As they would put it, “THIS IS WHAT THE MENINISTS ASKED FOR!!!!1!!!”](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/bguyiuhojlk.png?resize=580%2C521&ssl=1)
I feel a bit dizzy after reading that. The culture war is weird enough without the TERFs poking their noses in it.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
Some friends linked this to me. Sort of animal related; but thought people might find amusing; or disconcerting. It’s a fine line.
Someone offered $1,000,000 donation to troops if Trump did Veganuary. But according to the new whistleblower book, he wasn’t keen.
Phew, thank goodness he remained a ‘stable genius’, otherwise who knows what might have happened.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-said-going-vegan-messes-with-your-body-chemistry-book-2021-10?r=US&IR=T
Have some sympathy for the poor man! “Give up one brain cell” is a much bigger ask when the one being asked only has one …
Playboy’s “Cocktober” issue is another example of the stereotyping of gay men. A big Fail in my book. I’m a gay man, but this cover is disgusting.
…another thing. I don’t normally speak up for straight guys, but you’re losing your sex freedoms to those who tell you that your bad.
I think they actually tried this sort of thing in the ill-fated Playgirl. As you can guess, it was mostly for straight women, which is probably why it didn’t work out. If only they had considered the possibility of marketing it to gay men…
@ Anonymous
While playgirl is marketed to straight women, they’ve never been the demographic who buys it most. That’s gay men and it’s pretty much an open secret since Playgirl’s inception. Mostly because straight women tend to prefer erotic literature over porn. Partly because of how women process information, a very small part at that. Mostly because it’s more socially acceptable.
I am deeply skeptical of all such gender/sex-essentialist claims. I suspect there’s very little actual difference between the brains of men and women, at least initially, before they are shaped by social experiences and expectations. If humans had any significant degree of brain dimorphism I doubt there’d be trans and nonbinary people. That there are indicates that, brain-wise, “anyone can be anything”, or near-to. Most of gender and sex linked mental traits are likely set during “critical windows” in childhood, analogous to the language-learning window. There may be such windows for every aspect of social cognition, with language and role-performance being just two of those (and roles in most societies being influenced, and sometimes rigidly determined, by gender; it would be interesting to see data from a society like India with a strong caste-determined aspect to accepted roles, or from one that pretty much ignores gender).
@Surplus – Same with the skepticism. It does seem that different hormone distributions might lead to some brain differences (measured through averages of lots of people), but that doesn’t translate to All Men Are Like This and All Women Are Like That. Or that the differences are that huge in the first place.
And of course experience will affect how the brain processes things.
Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, who is a neuroscientist is a great book debunking the myth of the male brain and female brain.