Playboy is so totally gay

Playboy is so totally gay

Left is slightly masculinised, right is feminised
Left is slightly masculinised, right is feminised
Sex is on my mind again. With the recent story of a Swedish couple who intend to keep their child's gender a total secret, perhaps even from itself, I got to wondering which of our characteristics are provided by nature (genes), and which by nurture (environment).

The toilet-seat dilemma immediately comes to mind: a decades old raging rift between man and 'not-man' regarding the elevation of that oval buttock freezer above the porcelain throne. Up or down?()

But that's not today's topic. (There is enough discussion on this site for me to avoid rehashing it.)

A more intriguing issue, and far less popular as conversation in the pub, centres on the theory that men are suffering feminisation at the hands of the fashion and glamour industry. We've all heard of the New Man who takes scented baths while listening to Enya in order to sublimate any of those remaining caveman-like tendencies which stand in the way of his reaching complete wussiness.

But what is the mechanism by which this agenda, the unmanning of man, is advanced? One very comprehensive theory raises the following salient points about Playboy magazine.

  • Hugh Hefner has long admitted bi-sexual tendencies, including a gay porn habit. Nothing wrong with being bi-curious or even gay of course, but do we really want him dictating, through his publishing empire, who popular culture will deem 'attractive' for the average male?
  • Quick example: Playmate of the Month Christina Leardini, here heavily photoshopped yet still quite 'manly'
    For example, Christina Leardini, heavily photoshopped, still quite 'manly'
  • Playboy overwhelmingly features 'masculinised' women as centrefolds.  While 'for every old stocking,' as my grandmother used to say, 'there's an old shoe that will fit it,' (by which I mean, some men are attracted to masculinised women, just as some women are attracted to feminised men) there still remains a well-documented standard preference displayed by the average person for opposite gender facial characteristics.
    Playboy's preferences seem wildly skewed. 'Well, don't buy the magazine then,' you say? Unfortunately, Hefner's dominant market position allows him to instantly elevate within the media one facial type over the other.
  • The Playboy conglomerate has had a woman (Hefner's daughter Christie) as its CEO since 1988. By all means a brilliant lady, but again studies have shown that women are certainly not the best (or most impartial!) judges of what makes another woman attractive to the average man.
  • Hefner's last marriage was in 1989 to Kimberley Conrad (link to Playboy profile), far from the most feminine of ladies, shows again his preference for the 'male look' (again that is not any kind of slur against Ms Conrad; she managed to wed one of the richest and most powerful men in the world, didn't she?).

I am not suggesting that I must receive instructions from Playboy before I find someone attractive, quite the opposite. When stumbling across the magazine years ago at some friend's house (of course), I found the typical centrefolds remarkably unattractive, and consequently used to wonder if something was wrong with me. Now I'm just puzzled by their inclusion.

The obvious excess of airbrushing and make-up used to feminise these wholly unsuitable models also takes its toll on the overall attractiveness of the product. It's almost as if they don't want to make money. Yet, taken in conjunction with the fashion industry, which is run entirely by homosexual men (that's beyond dispute) and seeks to promote females who have more in common with teenage boys than our real girlfriends, Playboy now appears as part of a determined effort to reassign our gender preferences.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy by any stretch, just an understandable and inevitable consequence of the existing power structure within the glamour media–i.e. gay people setting the straight agenda. By and large, the alpha-male has probably needed a bit of feminising since the 1950's, but what now? Is it discriminatory to suggest that yes, gay people are actually much better at designing our clothes than heterosexuals? And to state the obvious, they prefer the male form. Quite the conundrum.

For more on all this, visit the Feminine Beauty website where they invite you to contrast photographs (some not suitable for work) of top fashion/beauty models, with women who have been deemed genuinely attractive by their male readers. This will come as a relief to those of you who have felt inadequate because of your revulsion by Pamela Anderson and her ilk.

If you are unfamiliar with the reality of the Playboy publication itself, I must point out that its prudish poses, soft-focus close-ups, artificial models, and sickly sweet art direction make it barely categorisable as pornography at all. In today's world of internet shock-sites, it seems more like Victorian-era titillation; a quaint little burlesque that has had its day.

For another day's gripe, I can't even begin to fathom why, here in the enlightened 21st century, we still put up with that bizarre tradition, the Page Three girl. Check list: morning coffee, headlines, racing results, quick pair of tits, cartoon page, crossword…


  1. An online colleague called 'neuromonkey' suggested saying this: "What are you, a child? Learn how to operate your own lavatory equipment. You don't need a man to do it for you." [back ↩]