RIP Hugh Hefner

Degeneratefk

This guy was a real pioneer. Unfortunately,  most people will just say he was a pioneer for sex. The guy stuck his neck out and took on the bible belt. Which in the 60s, was and incredibly hard thing to do.

RIP.

Wobbie

he was on the little blue pill and they couldn't get the coffin lid down.

amethgr8

He did break down a lot of barriers.  He certainly didn't invent the idea of paying women to take their clothes off.  I suppose if he didn't do it, someone else would have.  He just really used women as the catalyst to get the other things he wanted done, done. I.e make money, stardom, the public to notice this issue in america or that one, etc..  How can someone (male powers that be at the time) argue with a beautiful woman, and oh why not go in the back and "get to know each other".   If he really wanted to do something for women he should have put men in the magazine, spread eagle like they do the women, hard johnson and all, or I don't know, show that it's a two way street and pose naked himself.

hedonist

I don't know - maybe they've done Hustler-like shots but I've never seen anyone venturing into the great wide open in that particular publication.  I guess I don't get the outrage over him, yet putting no onuses on the women themselves - on their choices, their free will.

Strange maybe, but I can't recall much outrage over actresses posing "nude" on the covers of other magazines, or doing sex scenes on film, etc....

amethgr8

I'm not outraged, I just saying there was good and bad.  He wasn't THAT cool.  Women that do that are making their own choice, but back then, women were just happy to be celebrated as people and not maids and housewives. To them it was power, sheep in wolves clothes though and there was a definite sacrifice.   I think that's probably how he sold it, oh beautiful body, I will make you a star, you should show it off and show the world.  Kind of like a backward compliment.

I have been faced with that choice and I chose not to.  It was most certainly the women's free will, but for those that were willing to "fastrack" their career, it was a time in the life of america.  A man could walk into a place of business and be hired without question and if a woman at that time did the same thing, she has to start as a secretary or in the back filing, etc.

He fed off them and the mans need.  If you look at the ratio of naked women magazines vs. naked men magazines there are 10 times as many magazines for men and their fetishes vs. women.  The reason women do it is because there is a market for it.  Who makes the market.

HughFreakingDillon

hedonist said:

I don't know - maybe they've done Hustler-like shots but I've never seen anyone venturing into the great wide open in that particular publication.  I guess I don't get the outrage over him, yet putting no onuses on the women themselves - on their choices, their free will.

Strange maybe, but I can't recall much outrage over actresses posing "nude" on the covers of other magazines, or doing sex scenes on film, etc....

I guess the argument could be made that he encouraged/promoted the idea that "if you pose naked, your career will flourish". which in many cases, was true. 

one thing I always admired about playboy, is that they really did have good articles/interviews. the playboy interview was something of a status symbol, both for the magazine and those being interviewed. 

and I liked that they never ventured into the "close up shot of the inside of a woman's vagina" territory. those magazines were rubbish. the human female body is something to be celebrated. (but he also, possibly unwittingly, opened the door for those publications to take advantage of women). BUT they didn't have to venture into teenage girl territory, with sexualizing the schoolgirl outfit, sleepover parties complete with pillow fights (how many women actually do this? come on. ZERO), etc. 

amethgr8

too bad, I might have read some of those articles had they been in a magazine I would read.

HughFreakingDillon

amethgr8 said:

too bad, I might have read some of those articles had they been in a magazine I would read.

I actually subsribed to it back in the 2000's for one year. I was single, what can I say. But I was actually pleasantly surprised at the quality of the writing. light years better than any of the other "guy" magazines like Details or Maxim. and those magazines were ok because they had a sliver of cloth over the areola. 

amethgr8

well, there was some good.

RogueStoner

brianlux said:

I would have guessed he was a bit older, but 81 ain't doing to badly.  Quite an interesting life the man had. 

R.I.P Hugh Hefner.  

I only read the articles and interviews in his magazine.  
Did I miss anything?

Wait. There were articles in there?

amethgr8

would have been nice for him to show some balls and put his wanker out there center page like he asked so many women to do.

HughFreakingDillon

amethgr8 said:

would have been nice for him to show some balls and put his wanker out there center page like he asked so many women to do.

that wasn't his desired demographic. shrivelled sausage doesn't translate into ad revenue or sales. 

mcgruff10

amethgr8 said:

would have been nice for him to show some balls and put his wanker out there center page like he asked so many women to do.

are you confusing playboy with playgirl?

amethgr8

No, I'm not confusing them.  There is no comparison with regard to the exposure and attention playboyl received vs playgirl. The male posing and nudes are borderline corney compared to playboy.

im saying Hef should have bared it all back in the day when he had it going on and put it in at least one issue, like you know to support what the girls were doing.

mcgruff10

amethgr8 said:

No, I'm not confusing them.  There is no comparison with regard to the exposure and attention playgirl received vs playboy.  The male posing and nudes are borderline corney compared to playgirl.

im saying Hef should have bared it all back in the day when he had it going on and put it in at least one issue, like you know to support what the girls were doing.

Interesting. 

chadwick

for me personally i'd rather not catch a view of hugh spread eagle opening himself for the camera. tho i'd hope he would have a shower, use wet wipes & have toenail fungus removal applied the last few months      

HughFreakingDillon

amethgr8 said:

No, I'm not confusing them.  There is no comparison with regard to the exposure and attention playboyl received vs playgirl. The male posing and nudes are borderline corney compared to playboy.

im saying Hef should have bared it all back in the day when he had it going on and put it in at least one issue, like you know to support what the girls were doing.

Im curious as to why? Should the owner of a strip club get up there and strut his stuff too? What is the point of that? I guess you are going for some  kind of "well if he wont do it, then he shouldn't be asking others to either" angle, but Im not seeing it here. He owned a legit business and paid his models handsomely for it. Many of them did it again after they were famous and didnt need the exposure. I dont see a sexual predator here. 

amethgr8

I think he should have thought that women may have the same desires that men do and invented Playgirl in the same fashion.  Maybe if he would have been running playgirl it would have been just as edgy with regard to article and pushing the journalistic envelope. Even though journalism is really not what playboy is about (opinion).

Yes, I think the owner of a strip club ought to get up there and dance at least once a year, or maybe just do it for his girls so they can have the opportunity to make the owner feel like they feel on the stage.  I was going more for he ought to objectify himself in the same fashion the women do so he can feel what is is like, so he has a full understanding of what they are going through.

I never called Hef a sexual predator.  The women that posed did it for their own reasons.  The first women that posed was making like $12 a week or something back in the early 60's and when she posed for one shot, she was paid $5000. $5000 is kind of a lot of money now, and back then it was probably a ridiculous amount.   He bought and sold parts of women.  Did he have some part in empowering women? probably, at a cost obviously.  Was that cost too much in retrospect?  I don't know.  Would it have been done anyway, probably.

He developed a persona of a modern day, polite master with a harem of women.   It's a nice fantasy maybe, having a harem of men or women at your sexual service, for a minute.  But he actually did it, had a harem of women around him for years, at his service.  Whether the women that were there were bribed, or vulnerable or whatever don't matter, it's what HE wanted, when one quit, he hired another.

Maybe he was an extremely talented journalist, he was a large part womanizer also.  People celebrate him for breaking sexual barriers, but it seems like he kept them up inside his mansion.  

HughFreakingDillon

You didnt call him a sexual predator, no, but an opinion piece I read on cnn did. I think thats a stretch. 

eeriepadave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dgyjlo5AQk

amethgr8

I agree.