Playboy's Newest Cover Girl

Dear Playboy editors,

I’m confused.

I just don’t understand your rationale for choosing Marge Simpson as this month’s cover girl. I know sales have been low and I know that Hugh is no longer the suave young stud he once was, but Marge? Really?

First of all, you’re providing ammunition to two groups who tend not to like your magazine very much already; feminists and Christian family groups.

Marge is traditionally viewed as a pro-feminist cartoon character. The Guardian’s Sarah Churchwell reminds us that when Bart took pictures of Homer dancing with a stripper, Marge forced the father to take his son to meet the nude dancer, so as to teach his son a lesson about not treating women like sex objects. The bottom line is that if Marge actually existed, she probably wouldn’t be posing on your cover, as hardcore fans will no doubt tell you.

In addition, a prominent American Christian family group has publicly stated, “Using an animated character on the cover of a pornographic magazine is deceptive and harmful because it will attract the attention of children. It’s inexcusable… to use a cartoon character to hawk pornography.” Have fun adequately responding to that one.

Yes, I’ve heard the phrase ‘any publicity is good publicity’ but in this case I don’t think Marge is going to help your sales numbers, for the simple reason that she isn’t real! I know your editorial director said, “This cover and pictorial is just another example of how we're evolving our editorial content to continue to reach men in their 20s” but I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that most 20-something men who are considering purchasing a Playboy would rather buy a Jessica Alba cover than a Marge Simpson one.

But, good luck to you and your sales. After all, I know this whole editorial decision was pretty tongue-in-cheek. I’m sure the many men with blue hair fetishes will be lining up in droves to buy their copies.