Ammo For Sale

« « I guess I was wrong | Home | Bump in the night » »

Life in the future

So, Playboy has their first transgendered playmate. Who exactly are they trying to appease? I mean I clicked on through to some of the photos*. And I don’t find this person attractive. And I imagine other straight males feel the same. So, why would Playboy, who markets to straight men, do that? Virtue signaling.

I don’t care if someone is transgendered. It affects me in no way whatsoever. This just seems counter-intuitive to me considering their market.

* Note also the photos shown are oddly posed, I guess to hide the junk. Hands are usually hidden and when shown look like man hands. And that’s definitely a man butt.

10 Responses to “Life in the future”

  1. Fred Says:

    The sodomite of the month? Pass.

  2. Jailer Says:

    Ole Hugh must be rolling in his grave. Is Cooper trying to kill Playboy?

  3. Lyle Says:

    I believe they had a tranny featured back in the 1990s. I remember it clearly, no question, so my only doubt is whether it was actually Playboy, or maybe Penthouse.

    In any case, they’re definitely not the first, and not by a long shot. That was 20 years ago or more, and we call that a “generation ago”. So in a way it’s fake news, as usual.

    “This just seems counter-intuitive to me considering their market.”

    Yeah, like football players taking a knee during the anthem, protesting they know not what, pissing off their customers on purpose and then denying that they’re doing it? You mean like “news” organizations such as the NYT, et al, pumping out a steady drum-beat of Soviet-style AgitProp instead of news, while their readerships and revenues drop like a rock? Yup, just like that. They don’t care. The “struggle” (virtue-signaling to their chosen alliance, if you like) is more important to them than the company’s continued success.

  4. Tim Says:

    “Who exactly are they trying to appease?”

    Really? When is the last time you honestly looked at Playboy for the babes? For me it was about 1992. Since then, it’s been nothing bu social justice warrioring.

  5. Crawler Says:

    It appears, to me, that the Hefner-less Playboy and the Rozelle-less NFL have chosen the the same catastrophic path of lost revenue.

    It’s also apparent, to me, that neither losing entity could run a house of ill-repute that sells whiskey in Nevada and turn a profit.

  6. Thirdpower Says:

    At this point, I think it has less to do w/ virtue signalling or sjw’ing than resorting to ‘shock value’ gimmicks to try and boost sales/revenue.

  7. mikee Says:

    The comedian Tim Allen had a bit where he tells about visiting a friend’s house, opening a closet door, and coming face-to-everything with a centerfold from an ancient Playboy. His response is a sentimental “Well, hello there,” to an old and intimate acquaintance.

    I will keep that attitude about Playboy, and forego the current manifestation, so to speak.

  8. nk Says:

    The last time I looked through a Playboy was in 1980, when I stopped selling them, and Hustler had already made it practically respectable by contrast.

  9. rickn8or Says:

    I quit them whenever it was that the back cover was a Cease Fire ad.

    I figured if Mr. Hefner was taking their money, he didn’t need mine.

  10. Deaf Smith Says:

    Playboy? Ewwww. No thanks. There is so much free nudity on the internet why bother, especially with transvestites.