Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Hugh Hefner, Founder of Playboy, Dead at 91


Dan T.

Recommended Posts

Just now, Elessar78 said:

Wilt Chamberlain, Hugh Hefner, and Nature Boy, Ric Flair. (Two claimed they slept with over 10,000 women. The other didn't have to).

 

LOL.


I would have gone with:  Wilt Chamberlain, Hugh Hefner, and Nature Boy, Ric Flair. (Two claimed they slept with over 10,000 women. The other one did).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

Wilt Chamberlain, Hugh Hefner, and Nature Boy, Ric Flair. (Two claimed they slept with over 10,000 women. The other didn't have to).

 

Ah, gotcha.  So the overlap in that Venn diagram is women who have slept with all three?  I wouldn't call them "rarified women." More like "whore."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People remember the centerfolds, but forget that Playboy was the best and most culturally significant magazine in the world for many years.    The articles and interviews were top tier. 

 

Yes, the naked Marilyn Monroe didn't hurt either

 

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

Ah, gotcha.  So the overlap in that Venn diagram is women who have slept with all three?  I wouldn't call them "rarified women." More like "whore."

 

Whore?   ffs  

 

Few things are as annoying as slut shaming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually felt bad for him for the last two decades or so. I got the impression that he was playing the role of the horny old man to keep his failing brand alive. And because he did the old man dates three 20 year old thing so long, that's his legacy.

 

He should be remembered for everything he did in the 50s and 60s and 70s on all fronts from literature to music to comedy (there is no 70s comedy boom without the Playboy Clubs in the 60s and 70s).

 

Playboy was always ahead of the game on Civil Rights as well, but I don't feel comfortable giving him to much credit on the social justice front when the magazine did create and impossible version of femininity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In January 1952, Hefner left his job as a copywriter for Esquireafter he was denied a $5 raise. In 1953, he took out a mortgage, generating a bank loan of $600, and raised $8,000 from 45 investors, including $1,000 from his mother ("Not because she believed in the venture," he told E! in 2006, "but because she believed in her son."), to launch Playboy, which was initially going to be called Stag Party. The first issue, published in December 1953, featured Marilyn Monroe from her 1949 nude calendar shoot and sold over 50,000 copies.[15] 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Isn't labeling it "slut shaming"...y'know, still shaming?

 

Well, you have a point there... wait, actually no you don't.  

 

2 hours ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I actually felt bad for him for the last two decades or so. I got the impression that he was playing the role of the horny old man to keep his failing brand alive. And because he did the old man dates three 20 year old thing so long, that's his legacy.

 

He should be remembered for everything he did in the 50s and 60s and 70s on all fronts from literature to music to comedy (there is no 70s comedy boom without the Playboy Clubs in the 60s and 70s).

 

Playboy was always ahead of the game on Civil Rights as well, but I don't feel comfortable giving him to much credit on the social justice front when the magazine did create and impossible version of femininity.

 

2 hours ago, zoony said:

I always found the dude creepy, sexist, and in very poor taste.

 

He seems to be Jesus now.  Civil rights and arts advocate, lmao.  Dude was a high end pimp who fancied himself some sort of philosopher.

 

 

Fact is, the dude was progressive (and significant) by the standards of the 50s and 60s where he began, but he pretty much stayed the same while the world changed around him.   He didn't age like wine, he aged like milk.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Predicto said:

 

Well, you have a point there... wait, actually no you don't.  

 

 

 

 

Fact is, the dude was progressive (and significant) by the standards of the 50s and 60s where he began, but he pretty much stayed the same while the world changed around him.   He didn't age like wine, he aged like milk.  

 

I dont know man, not sure how you are reconciling his objectification of women.  If he didnt publish pictures of them he would be a simple street pimp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For people decrying porn and its "objectification of women"...

 

Why is it in countries like Germany and the rest of Europe, where nobody cares about sexuality and smut and prostitution are pretty much out in the open, that women can become their nations' leaders; but...in nations and cultures where porn is strictly banned and often severely punished, women are relegated to second or third class citizens?  Could it be that all that denunciation of objectification is just a bunch of whiney-ass leftwing bullshevik?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My fun fact is this.  I'll often Google new co-workers because I'm always curious if they're pleasant at work but posting racist **** on Facebook or elsewhere; want to know who I'm really working with, etc.  Imagine my surprise when I discovered that one of the other managers, in the next office over, was in the "college girls of playboy" a number of years ago.  I was only able to find a grainy PDF because there aren't many archived versions floating around out there (that are free).  She was in one group shot and only showing sideboob while the other women were full frontal, but I still found it amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, zoony said:

 

I dont know man, not sure how you are reconciling his objectification of women.  If he didnt publish pictures of them he would be a simple street pimp.

 

It's complicated.  In the 1950s and 60s, pushing back against societal restrictions was a different game than it is now.   The sexual revolution was viewed as a part of increasing freedom for women, not objectifying them.  It was giving them power over their bodies and their sexuality.  The whole idea of objectification hadn't even entered the lexicon.  It's a fine line between exploiting naked women and making it illegal for women to show their bodies.  We still don't have everything figured out today - they had it even less figured out back then.  

 

In one way you have a good point.  On the other hand, the Taliban would make the same point, but for different reasons.

 

That's why I say time passed him by.  He started out as a daring pioneer who was pushing for free speech, removal of sexual taboos, civil rights for women and minorities, access to contraception, abortion rights, decriminalization of marijuana, frank discourse about all the important topics of the day like voting rights and ending the Vietnam War.  His magazine published (and seriously discussed) stuff by Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Malcolm X, Kurt Vonnegut, Saul Bellow, William F. Buckley, Bernard Malamud, James Baldwin, Isaac Bashevis Singer, John Updike and Joyce Carol Oates.  He hung around with intellectuals like Norman Mailer and Alex Haley, and he promoted the greats of jazz and comedy in his clubs and on his tv show.  He was doing the James Bond thing back when James Bond was cool.  

 

and yep, he ended up a dirty old man

6 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

For people decrying porn and its "objectification of women"...

 

Why is it in countries like Germany and the rest of Europe, where nobody cares about sexuality and smut and prostitution are pretty much out in the open, that women can become their nations' leaders; but...in nations and cultures where porn is strictly banned and often severely punished, women are relegated to second or third class citizens?  Could it be that all that denunciation of objectification is just a bunch of whiney-ass leftwing bullshevik?

 

 

Honestly, the whole subject is complicated as hell and I don't know if we ever can fully figure it out.  We walk the line between being enlightened, thinking beings and base, rutting animals, and we always will.  Because both things have their purposes.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that everything Hefner was seeking to accomplish politically or socially happened when the birth control pill finally became widely available in the late 60s and early 70s. So, past 1972 or so, he really was mostly a low-end pornographer and pimp to LA celebrities and hangers-on.

 

I would argue that nearly all revolutionary figures are eventually swallowed by the revolutions they create if they are "cursed" to live a long and healthy life.

 

In one of the biographies of Sinatra I read, I learned that he didn't apparently like the scene at the Mansion, because he thought the Bunnies deference to Hugh - who he saw as weak and feminine - was creepy. Of course, he did go there a few times to get laid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...