‘Holly Madison, Hugh Hefner and Bridget Marquardt’ by Luke Ford
It is far too easy to point the finger and blame Hugh Hefner for ‘Playboy’ and the pivotal role he played in the foundation of today’s raunch culture.
For a long time, I just assumed that Hefner was a pervert without dignity or scruples. Although I am still mildly of that opinion, I have concluded that he is simply misunderstood and looking for the same things each of us is looking for – love and acceptance.
In an interview, Hugh Hefner reasoned that he “started ‘Playboy’ as a personal response to the hurt and hypocrisy of our puritan heritage” (quoted in Christopher West’s ‘An Introduction to the Theology of the Body’, 2008:3).
Although I do not agree with his ‘response’, I certainly understand his motives.
Do you think Hugh Hefner is a hero, a pervert, or simply misunderstood?
I think he's just a business man who is living out his own fantasy. He discovered a long time ago that he could make a lot of money out of something a portion of the population are interested in and he's done just that.
Say if you have a daughter, or two or even three.
One went to America...and he really really liked your daughter.
Offered her a lot of things, as he has done over the many 'decades' he's been doing this....she falls for it, because the 'carrot he dangles is a big one'.
(no pun intended)!
How would you feel, finding out this Old Grubby man, who has sooo many women, has now got your daughter.
The words(my daughter would not do that) is a non-plus, because so many good Mothers and Fathers have had it happen to them.Not just American parents too.
He has had in his 86 yrs over 1,000 women.He is a total grub, make no mistake on that.
I don't understand why Heffner's actions are often justified by claiming that he is creating jobs and that he is 'just a business man'. Business men and women are notorious for exploiting people and the natural world in the name of profit, and he does exactly that. Though I concede, he is very clever.
I don't agree with what he is doing to make money, just stating a fact that he is a businessman. If he had discovered a long time ago that men were interested in cars and would pay a lot of money to look at pictures of cars then he would have been in that business instead. He is a grubby grubby man and I would not want my daughter "working" for him or being involved with him. At the same time, he found a market and has exploited it.
Wow, this is a VERY interesting question. I think that both Hefner and his women are getting cheated, as they're both simply using each other at the expense of deeper, time-honoured values such as love, loyalty and respect. Although I wouldn't say Hefner is a pervert (as his women are consenting adults who are financially benefitting from their liason with him), and he's definitely living out the fantasies of many men, I feel very sorry for anyone whose old age is spent trying to live such a shallow superficial life.
While Hefner is only seeing his women as sex objects (I doubt that he'd hook up with a plain girl, even if she had a great personality or was extremely intelligent), the girls definitely wouldn't be shacking up with an old man unless there was a lot of money involved. They're definitely not 'in love' with him, although there is possibly some kind of fondness on each side.
Vee your comments are correct and I support you completely.
We have been corrupted by this perversion. The act of love between a man and a woman was designed by God to create life not damaged souls and profit for perverts..
I believe High Hefner is a very clever man who has also made a lot of money.
I do not think there is anything wrong with him, though I do not agree with many of the things he does.
We are all different, and we really only see a side of him that the Press wants us to see.
I have been to a Playboy Club in the US many years ago and it was fascinating -it was almost like being in an "unreal" place -the women were basically all beautiful however, the people were very friendly, and I do not think there is anything wrong with Hugh Hefner, even though I do not like him being with such young girls.
Have I just contradicted myself?
And I have spelt his name wrong -I put "high" Hefner!
I basically do not object to him though I don't like a few of the things I have read about him! He HAS made a lot of jobs for a lot of people over many years.
If women allow it, then I don't consider it exploiting -they could always say no to whatever he is offering. It is a matter of choice and if they want to do whatever, I feel that is their business and not for me to judge them or him.
True it is their business what they do, but when it is made public to the extent that we are exposed to it through popular culture then it certainly is our business.
As for the 'jobs' he has created, human traffickers create jobs, as do drug dealers and those who concot them. It doesn't make it ok.
In regards to 'choice', I certainly think that it's not as black and white as you suggest. The choices these women make are not made in a vacuum. And simply because they choose to be complicit in their exploitation and, by extension, the exploitation of other women, does not make it ok.
If women weren't doing it for Playboy, they would be doing it for someone else. I think Playboy is actually one of the milder porn industries to be honest. I don't say I agree with it, because I dob't like this kind of thing. A lot of people do though, and Hefner is no more a pervert than the customers who enjoy Playboy. I don't think this sort of thing would really be a problem if the ratio between male/female porn was more equally balanced.
I agree that 'Playboy' is much more mild than other producers of pornography, but Hugh and 'Playboy' played a fundamental role in the establishment of today's porn culture. Regardless of how mild it may be, their reach is worldwide and their brand one of the most recognisable.
I also have to disagree that if 'the ratio between male/female porn was more equally balanced', porn would not be such an issue. There are pornographic genres to cater for men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals and everyone in between, and for those into 'gang bangs', 'multiple penetration', BDSM, pseudo-child pornography and much, much more. So the major issues concerning pornography do not boil down to their being a lack of a specific type of pornographic genre targeted at women.
Pornography has a considerable and potentially devastating impact on our neurochemistry, not to mention the effects it can have on people's social and intimate relationships. I urge you to dome some research. It really is alarming, and the more people realise that pornography is problematic, the better chance we have of helping those whose lives are adversely affected by it.
I do actually hate pornography as much as you do, but I realise that just because it isn't to my taste, doesn't mean it should be banned completely. I do agree that it can be very demeaning and have negative effects when used in the wrong way.
Bryony, please don't take this as a personal attack; this topic sparks something animal-like within me. Humour me if you will: things that are not to my 'taste' but should arguably be banned: bestiality, drugs, gambling, sunbeds, the use of carcinogens in everyday household items, munitions and child pageants, just to name a few.
There is porn out there for women, particularly in Japan, but I have never seen any magazines like that for women. There probably is a market for it, but more niche than it is for men. I suppose if you think about it, it was a man who came up with Playboy because it is something he is interested in. A woman could equally decide to make the equivalent, but do they actually want to?
I agree that he is clever. jonaj, think about it this way: for years, patriarchal values, attitudes and practices have worked to degrade women and keep them from achieving equality alongside men. We then had the women's suffrage, which worked to advance the cause of feminism and helped women challenge the traditional roles to which they were often confined. Hugh, and those in the pornographic industry have convinced women that it is empowering to choose to remain in those roles and readily embrace sexually objectification. They have convinced women that it is empowering to give men exactly what they (are taught to) want.
Ok, he gets points for serialising Fahrenheit 451 (when novels needed to be published that way) and a few other things but the stuff with the chicks now just creeps me out. (Seriously, what are those women thinking???) I don't get it, myself...
I don't think he has ever been charged with rape and in his earlier days, I don't think he was ever charged with carnal knowledge sp, I think it must be the women who are to blamed for any exploitation or whatever. I think it is easy to call him all the names under the sun and I don't like him at all but I don't know that he has actually done anything a whole lot of other blokes have done. Have any of his conquests written anything terrible about his treatment of them or are we assuming that he must be some sort of pervert or procurer or whatever ?
He hasn't done anything 'illegal' or objectionable as such, but his morally bankrupt that's for sure. It's the attitudes and values that he promotes that are objectionable, and I would certainly challenge your assumption that he hasn't done what any other man wouldn't. There are plenty of men who would object to what Hefner has done.
I didn't say he did what every other man would do, iI said that he is only doing what a whole heap of other blokes have. I don't THINK there have any complaints about him by the women surrounding him, working for him, hanging out with him, visiting, him, sleeping with him or whatever they are doing with him. So, at his age he must be paying them to be photographed with him or, more likely, the women are paying him to allow them to be photographed with him. Maybe for publicity. Whatever, the women always seem(or look like) they are very happy to be around the old jerk.