Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Hugh Hefner died. His entire life's work was focused on/devoted to sex. A great contributor to the world or a sex hustler?
His whole life was that of a panderer and a procurer of low-level lust.
That is not SEX. That is a facet of sex that is meant to keep men down and women even lower.
We are not meat. We don't pose for men. We are not to be treated like we are chattel and only measured by how many men will pay for our naked picture.
There was nothing lower than this idea. Making women act like the only way they can get a name if they are not famous was to flash their naked bodies for WHAT?
He was a sick moron. And the people who thought he was a role model don't have anything of worth to model themselves after because they don't know any better.
What happens when these women age?
Does anyone hear from them ever again? A has-been centerfold is nothing to be.
This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at September 29, 2017 3:19 AM MDT
i cannot think of a single thing Hefner contributed to the world that we would not have been better off without. He died at 91. Probably still a degenerate dirty old man. How any woman could let him touch her is beyond me. But there are all kinds of women in the world. Different strokes. Thank you for your reply! :)
There was some worth beyond the smut. His publications did have some in depth articles and interviews with people like Satre and Malcom X at a time when there was heavy bias against them in other media outlets.
I've sat here for about 15 minutes trying to come up with something to say. Hefner was 19 when I was born, so the man must have some how affected my life along the way.
So here goes.
CS Lewis once commented (but not in any way or at any time about Hugh Hefner) that just because there was error in one direction did not mean that there was no error in the other direction.
Sex was always fun, but Hefner seemed to suggest that it was also OK. And quite frankly Playboy did more for both women's breasts and the natural beauty of their bodies than National Geographic ever did.
I am not a sociologist (although Hefner apparently had some formal training in the subject), but there was no comparison between Playboy and the general level of value imputed to women in the standard "porn" books and films on the market at the time.
(Edited only for errors in typing.)
This post was edited by tom jackson at September 29, 2017 2:17 PM MDT
He made the objectification of women a good thing. He celebrated it. He made money off it. He certainly didn't create it but he enhanced the lure of it. As a woman I think his life was not well-lived. He was an indulgent rich man who surrounded himself with beautiful women his entire life. He married some of them. How any woman could stand him I do not know but there are all kinds of women. There are some who rely on their allure to get ahead in the world. I think that's appalling. I like to see beautiful women admired for their accomplishments/talents/contributions to society. The brainy ones who don't rely on their looks for anything. Of course as a woman I would look at it differently than a man. The Playboy bunnies and the Playboy mansion and the Playboy magazine. What lasting substantive worthwhile contribution did any of it really make in the world? SIGH. Thank you for your reply tom and Happy Friday! :)
What did he contribute?---elevating the status of the female human body to an art form and showing that treating women with respect was appropriate.
To wit:
Camille Anna Paglia (born April 2, 1947) is an American academic and social critic.
She is a critic of American feminism and of post-structuralism
In her view, objectification is closely tied to (and may even be identical with) the highest human faculties toward conceptualization and aesthetics.
(Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty.)
I tend to operate personally at the top of Maslow"s hierarchy, so perhaps I also use my highest human faculties in evaluating (informally) Hefner's contributions.
We disagree. I think he objectified women and made salivating over them vis a vis the celebrated centerfold perfectly ok to get off on or whatever guys do when they look at naked women. I'm positive there are women who agree with you. I am not one of them. Thank you for your reply.
WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH 