In the latest issue of Playboy magazine, the place of the girls “rabbits” took the rapper Bad Bunny, and the publication of GQ turned into a defender of social justice. Is it true that in the conditions of a new climate of political correctness, traditional men's entertainment ceases to be something acceptable?

For the first time, the star of the Playboy cover was a man (not counting the creator of Hugh Hefner magazine). This honor was given to the rapper with the very appropriate pseudonym Bad Bunny ("Bad Rabbit").

Bad Bunny is a Puerto Rican musician who is called "a distinctive vibrant style Latin American ally of the queer community." He looks confident and, I think, many are incredibly interesting: after all, together with Cardi B, he recorded the song I Like It, which became one of the hits of 2018.

View this Instagram post

@badbunnypr for PLAYBOY 🐇 “He has powers because he thinks differently and has a vision of the future beyond what others see.” Introducing our first digital cover. Visit the link in bio for the full story by @er_pulgar ✨ Photography by @stillz

Publication by Playboy (@playboy) Jul 7, 2020 at 7:59 PDT

However, I'm not sure that the average Playboy reader is so eager to see a guy flaunting with false nails and a frank black and gold toga. I will say more: he therefore “reads” Playboy because he is looking for content of a completely different kind.

Obviously, Playboy, like many prominent publications around the world, is under pressure. Since March of this year, he has been released only in electronic format and is looking for new ways to keep his audience and attract new readers.

Previously, the magazine relied on an old proven method: you just have to wait until young men begin to show interest in attractive women. I would venture to suggest that in this regard the situation has largely remained the same.

However, Playboy decided that the best way to expand the audience is to become a champion of social justice. As if now in the world there is not enough political correctness.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that putting a guy on the Playboy cover (whether it's a Latin American who supports the queer community, or any other) is tantamount to as if “Lamborghini” appeared on the cover of “Hearth”.

So Playboy is simply shamelessly betraying its main readers.

There are hundreds of magazines and websites that cater to the needs of social justice advocates, and Playboy needs the Vox magazine’s audience just as Autocar’s readers need Homeland.

Playboy is not the only men's magazine to fall victim to such unsolicited progressivism. Even the average GQ reader will notice an aggressive progressive agenda that has flooded the pages of the magazine in recent years. If you look through the British GQ website, you will find that lists of outrageously expensive watches and recommendations on what mustache is acceptable to wear in 2020 are now generously flavored with articles like “If your understanding of equality does not include black transgender people, then this is not equality” and that in the dating app for gays, Grindr just “flourishes” racism. It even has an article shamelessly entitled "Whites, here's what you need to do."

All this, of course, is just fine, but it’s a little strange to see something like this in a publication whose main task is to talk about fashion trends in the fall / winter of 2020.

To gallery page

And even in the sections devoted to clothes, in the ratings of “the most fashionable men of the week” men more often appear ... in dresses. Of course, you have the right to wear absolutely everything that you want, but after the tenth photo of a guy in an evening dress, it is difficult to get rid of the feeling that they are trying to impose some kind of agenda on you.

These magazines, and especially Playboy, are for men. They should entertain, not lecture, on the toxic masculinity or privilege of whites. There are many other publications for this. In the past, even the most gullible mothers of troubled teens never really believed that their sons bought Playboy “for the sake of the articles.” And although the availability of more, let's say, “stimulating” content on the network may mean that Playboy is no longer used for such leisure, is it really necessary to remove beautiful women from the cover?

Even if the magazine decided to make pushing the progressive agenda its main editorial task, it would be wise to keep the traditional “rabbits” on the cover so that men would at least go to the site.

Given the weird form that the progressive media agenda has taken, it’s very ironic that publishing a traditional Playboy cover, like with Kate Moss in 2014, would likely be the biggest sin Playboy could commit.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.