There’s some controversy over PokerOrg’s tweet featuring a sexy-time pic of Olga Iermolcheva.

The pushback against this content appears to have two prongs:

  1. Pics of half-naked women devalue women’s contribution to society so why is PokerOrg sharing it?
  2. Why is PokerOrg sharing any cover from Rounder magazine on the basis that they evidentially act as a Postle Propaganda machine?

First up, let’s approach the obvious questions around the journalistic integrity of a publication that has a spade in the “R” and a proud history of semi-nakey ladies on the cover. I appreciate all wank mags have some interesting articles, but if you’re looking to brain-nut, the optimal reading matter probably won’t have a naked person on the cover.

Let’s not too sternly call out a gentle jizz-rag for not being the NYT; everything in its place with its audience, right?

Also, if we’re going to imply PokerOrg are shitheads for merely sharing the cover of yellow-press fap-pap, then let’s call out all the contributors to all the magazines in that genre as well. All writers, photographers, digital publishers, coders, web designers, models etc etc

Boring, and pointless, as long the market exists. Not all publications can be intellectual, or a bastion of veracity, because neither can all consumers. If you are looking for a publication like Rounder to teach you the nuances of the Universe, your problems start way before the content, or cover, of those pages.

I’ve made money from writing for distributors at and below the level of Rounder, if you’ve worked in “creative industries” and not had to fill some content gaps in pap like that then congratulations on your parents being rich.

PokerOrg are doing their job here, proven by lots of people talking about their post. If you do have a problem with the level of media distributed by titles like Rounder, then fight that battle; don’t just be triggered because you wanted to like PokerOrg which means they are not allowed to do one thing you find distasteful or you start to doubt your entire sense of self.

If I owned a magazine its contents would defend me and my friends as well, even if we were being obvious cunts, so I can’t argue with Rounder on that point. Outlets can’t be forced to publish want you want any more than they can force you to read what they want to publish. There’s a queue of Postle simps, as there is with any cheat; eyes on those guys consuming the content rather than a poker industry twitter acc sharing spicy pics of a poker player.

I’m actually grateful to PokerOrg for sharing that picture of Olga so I could see it without me having to click on anything to do with that shitwipe Rounder publication.

I found it slightly amusing that people thought the PokerOrg post was by a male because it had a girl in panties as imagery. I thought the PokerOrg post read with clicking, drag-queen fingers of appreciation. It stank of a girl sharing her best Judy’s work, doing what women are relentlessly told we are supposed to do and “help each other thrive”.

I have some mild confusion as to why PokerOrg is getting shit for sharing Rounder content, and Olga is getting some stick for choosing to pose in underwear, but nobody seems to be questioning Olga’s business choices. The woman is highly intelligent, exceptionally strategic and obviously strictly in control of her income streams. I may always think of Postle when I see her face now; why is she supporting that publication and risking overlap with her personal brand?

Only she can answer this, but if I had to guess it’s because Olga is smart enough to work out where her most profitable market lies off the tables.

There is a fundamental difference between a person who is asked to pose semi-naked because they are famous for not being naked, versus someone who is professionally naked.

Olga  was a candidate to be cover because she is good at poker and made an impression on a TV show about poker because she’s smart and ruthless. Of course the magazine issue gets more attention if it has a female in underwear, and their history shows Rounder will take that route more often than not, so why should Olga get bumped from her cover when she can also do the underwear bit?

Not really Olga’s fault if men who win at poker cannot also pop on a nice bra and sell extra magazines to other men in poker.
Not really any woman’s fault; take it up with Todd Witless’s audience.

Olga should…what? Let her cover spot be taken by a 22yo working model when she’s clearly worked very hard on her own body and modelling ability?
I don’t know what Raminder Singh looks like, but I’d instantly recognise Olga.

This pic is not just an attractive woman in front of a lens. She has a deliberate curve to her back that catches light, her core is engaged so she looks taut, but not strained, her smize is deadly. She has perfected a beauty-model face, her upper face muscles are lifting up her brow and upper jaw, but her lower face muscles are pushing that relaxed, open mouth.

From the way she’s looking at me out of that cover, I believe she wants to fuck me; that’s her job in that moment, it’s what drives revenue from a masculine leisure audience and DAYM she does it well.

These things are skills, learned and worked on. To call this a “pic in her underwear” is genuinely to diminish the work of the model and photographer here.

Yes, the pic has been enhanced/filtered/touched-up, it’s a magazine cover, grow up.

Finally, I am always slightly triggered by the argument that one woman’s actions or choice of presentation devalues the overall activity of women in general. I have no link to any other female in poker, nor anywhere else unless they are my actual friend.

If another female wants to make a poker-themed adult movie called “five in the hole” I neither judge, nor feel devalued by, her actions. No female represents me on the pure basis she has a vagina; there are 33million vaginas in my country of birth alone, it’s too spurious a connection.

As long as a woman is making her own choices, is in control of her income, and is not desperate nor co-erced (which it would be reasonable to say Olga has not been here), then let the market (within laws) decide and the contributors set the red lines.

If it’s not for you, it’s not for you; not everything’s for you.

It’s absolutely fine to decline a potential revenue stream from a market you do not wish to be part of, and selling to low IQ pervy men is definitely not for everybody.
Of course, if you are a profitable poker player you are already working in the broad market category of taking money from low(er) IQ men.

If the picture of Olga angers you, self-reflect and confirm whether or not your real problem is that these low IQ men are happy to give you money at the table but don’t want to see your penis tucked into a lacy thong, meaning you, or men like you, are denied that revenue stream/exposure, even if you are young and attractive and in every other way “eligible”.

Overall, I would suggest that poker can become a stand-out industry here by encouraging every successful/famous person who warrants a poker cover to do it in full femme-boudoir costume, with wigs, lashes and heels. I don’t care if you’re male, 6’1” and hairy like an ape, we can rub glitter in it; yoik up that cheese-slicer and put your wife’s fanciest bra on.

If we put a male in the same picture and it looks ridiculous to us, then whatever our sex or gender, we should all be careful that the pervasive madonna/whore dichotomy that has been forced upon us all by The Patriarchy is carefully considered as a colouring lens when we are looking at what females do and are judging them as to why.