thepokerbaffer

I woke up this morning to Robbie Strazynski having a sweary rant, which, from what I know of Robbie, is pretty rare. He’s not impressed with this video in which Jungleman’s been involved.
Robbie also called out women in the industry for not commenting on the video (which truthfully I hadn’t seen till I looked for as a response to Robbie’s piece) and given I’m a woman in the industry and usually gobbing off about something, I felt a bit “seen”.

I can’t be flaps-out ranty about sexy-time videos because it would be hypocritical as I watch porn and like looking at naked bodies of both sexes.
However, I do agree with Robbie that elements of the video are misogynistic, and it is overall not a good look for our industry.

First and most importantly, the absolutely crucial question: WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT SNOT-GREEN T-SHIRT ABOUT?
It ruined the whole/what little aesthetic the video had. At least dress the fuck up, lad. Can you not brush your hair?

If the point was that a person can sleep on a park bench and then roll into poker room and become a millionaire, then I think Jungleman missed one important element in that video, and drew attention to the oversight by costume symbolism: He doesn’t have an equal opponent.

This annoys me, because that’s the best bit about poker, that’s the real selling point to the leisure money masses. Not the potential piles of cash and the fanny, but beating that guy opposite me at the table.

Either have another opponent in poker room standard wear (and avoid all accusations of misogyny by making that player female) or dress in slutwear yourself and commit to the fun, camp element of it.

I will honestly say, as someone who loves burlesque, drag, strip shows, dancing, porn, make up and costumes – that snot-green t-shirt, in the context of that video, was more offensive to me than the girl’s spread arsehole by at least 500x.

One obvious problem with the video is that it’s all naked women, like they are props in the world of the lordly man in the snot-green t-shirt.
But, let’s look at the truth, ie they were props, because they were paid to be there. Actors, performers, porn-stars, they are all talking, walking, fucking props on the set; that’s what the gig is.

At least, I hope they were! If those women were not paid, then this is deeply problematic.

I’ll assume they are professional models/glamour performers and they were paid the going rate in their industry. I support a person (of either gender) selling their body, and support regulation of the relevant industries, that we all use to some extent, to ensure fair wages and healthy outcomes.
I do have issue with the fact that the credits at the end of the video do not list any of the female performers’ names.

I see no problem with the roles being created for performers, but the film also clearly runs along with the implication that the female characters were paid for within the context of that narrative.

You can win big at poker and pay for loads of women to bounce on your face, no issue… but you’re not really making any revelations there, Jungleman.
That’s not poker, that’s money, wherever it comes from and whatever your sexual proclivities, if you have the cash you can get your rude-bits smashed- everyone knew that already, right?

If this video had committed to the Kubrick-esque aesthetic, had fewer snot-green t-shirts and had an even balance of males and females then I think I’d have been on board with it, and I’d be having a very hard time calling it misogynistic.

Is paying for sloppy piles of women really what the high-stakes guys are doing with their money?
I guess money makes one loopy,  because all the people I know who have won a realistic sum from poker are more likely to have a home game turn into an orgy than spend that money on buying their sex fantasies; they’ve put deposits down on houses or bought their mum a car.

If I look closely at the video I get the impression Jungleman actually only bones one of the girls, the dealer who arrives with the chips, and then at the end they are all snuggled up.
I may have watched one too many Judd Apatow movies, but if I’ve seen that correctly, then this video could also be hailed as testament to an entirely exclusive and healthy heterosexual relationship, loyal in the gaping arse of temptation.

Anyone else disappointed that one of the weirdest minds in poker isn’t a bit more kink?
Nope? Just me?
Moving swiftly on.

I also see what could be interpreted as misandry in this video.
Why the fuck does a heterosexual male need a writhing mass of strange women to prop him up?
Why not some brothers or male friends? What about a strong, loyal female partner and sisterly companions?
Why create imagery and force ideas on young men that effectively position women as unattainable, desirable commodity? Is this a sound philosophy for young men to base their identities on?

I think my biggest problem with the video is that I don’t get the point.
Jungleman has bothered to go to the trouble of making the video, and his statement is that he likes snot-green t-shirts and accepts women’s panties as currency at a poker table.
Are there more men like this? I fucking hate doing washing, so if any lads like stinking women’s undies enough to bet money at poker for them, I will take that game.
Technically, you get considerable value as my underpants are large.

Is there the narrative that he’s cheated the panty-stakes game with his girlfriend, the one who is the dealer? I really haven’t got a clue; narratively, this video is a mess.
I have no issue with porn videos, I love to see beautiful, naked bodies, but I cannot tolerate a wonky narrative from someone I’m supposed to respect as clever.

If he’s supposed to be making a porn video, it’s not a good one (cos there’s not enough porn, let’s be honest). If he’s supposed to be making a music video, it’s not a good one (cos it’s cannot realistically be widely distributed).

If he’s supposed to be making an advert for poker then it’s a bad one because no-one needs to be reminded that one of the guys at the top has got so much money he can play poker for wiffy panties. That’s our money, lad, filtered up.
No-one objects to you making a fair living, but how many houses do you have to buy for your mum before you have enough spare change to do that?

Or set up a charity, like some poker players have.
Or go and help/investigate politically troubled areas of the world, as some poker players have.
Or just get it quietly, like many poker players do.

Or, if making videos like that is your thing, make your statement clear, it needs to be some sort of art, or voice, or even an industry technical achievement;  otherwise, you’re not ironically ripping into Dan Bilzerian, you are him.

Jungleman is supposed to be one of the big brains, a winner because he beat the game. I genuinely thought his mind was a significant step above mine and that’s why he gets attention in our industry. And now what’s happening here?

It’s not porn, it’s not comedy, it’s not cleverly ironic (if that’s what’s intended at all?), there isn’t a clear story and it manages to be misogynistic and misandrist at the same time.
I can’t say I’m angry about the video, I’m not; I’m just disappointed and confused.

I’m really hoping somebody will read this and be able to explain that I’ve missed something within the video. I am a few years older than Jungleman, maybe there are millennial creativities I’ll never understand.
I’m begging for someone to point these out, because as it stands, yet again, one of my favourite characters in poker has disappointed me, because he made something that was cheesy, not one thing nor another, trying to be consciously risqué for the sake of it without committing to something truly challenging.

Please, someone correct me and tell me that the clever guy I look up to isn’t shallow, creatively unimaginative and too lazy to hire some kind of artistic director or stylist.
What did I miss? Please. I’m sad about this.

There could have been a fun, stylised, proper porn video based around a camp narrative of a mixed group playing sexy underwear poker but unless Jungleman has the required equipment to be paid for porn, gtfo and direct it, invest in it, whatever, love the project from a distance.

If you’re trying to make a dark and disturbing movie, commit to it; Kubrick was a perfectionist, this four minute piece couldn’t even get continuity with the lead wearing his scruffy jacket.

I work in marketing poker to new players, and I’m sure bare tits and soft porn isn’t the best way; not least because the few sites and brands that actually tried selling poker and sex tied closely together bombed pretty quickly.
If Hollywood randomers make videos about poker, we can expect it to be far off the mark. If one of the game’s big names is involved, couldn’t we reasonably expect that it do the industry some sort of credit?

I’m way more annoyed about the overall miss than the misogyny element of this video. If we could just have a week pass by where one of our industry’s big names doesn’t do something that makes my entire body contract with the gripping rictus of a super-mega-cringe, that would be amazing.