(10-21-2017, 05:55 AM)DragonFury Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 07:17 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: People don't see what they wanna see. They see how someone was created. No amount of surgeries can change that. Someone can say they identify as a cat and have all kinds of surgeries to make themselves look how they feel, but no matter what they do, they'll never be a cat. It's the same idea with this model.

Should we legally call this guy a tiger, because he identifies as one?

I'm saying that maybe you prefer your nudie mags be full of men. Aint nothing wrong with that.

No. Try as you may to bait me, your theory makes no sense. Why would I rail against a dude being in this magazine, if I wanted dudes in the magazine? Maybe you're deflecting your own desires onto me. That seems more logical. Maybe you're just too embarrassed to say you're curious about the photos? That's your deal though. You need to work that out yourself. Playboy was built on the solid foundation of showing naked women. Hefner isn't even cold in the ground and now they put a dude in the pages? This country is going downhill quickly. In an effort to become so p.c. and make sure everyone is included, we are ruining landmark institutions. No heterosexual man is gonna wanna look at a model that was born a man. If he does, he is at the very least, bisexual. Maybe they can start their own publication, but Playboy belonged to the heterosexuals. At least it was. I'll be willing to bet they lose subscriptions over this.

---