That's one guy who died without regrets. We should all be so lucky.

I also read the magazine in it's earlier days. Used to take my older brother's copies when I was around 11 years old. Hefner was a pioneer in pushing the idea that women were equal both in and out of the bedroom and deserved to be treated as such. As a young teen his magazine gave me the self confidence to not be ashamed of my sexuality and the changes I was going through during puberty. It was also my first exposure to free speech issues, even before Berkeley etc. He was an advocate of free speech and civil rights. I remember following the Lenny Bruce story via Playboy. It made quite an impression on me and why I hold pretty much libertarian viewpoints today.

I know he was an icon and everything but honestly, he always gave me the creeps.

Good riddance to a disgusting pervert.

What makes him a pervert? I have never heard of him involved in anything that wasn't consentual relationships among adults.

For me, he was an important trailblazer who broke down barriers of hypocrisy and double standards in American attitudes about sexuality. But his relevance and true progress seemed to end in the mid-60s and he struggled (and failed) to accomplish anything real to remain in the public eye thereafter. I don't think there was anything wrong with what he did, other than to flaunt how his money and lapsed fame allowed him to move from bimbo to bimbo through his life. Plenty do the same thing but in less public ways, that's perhaps more classy.

I have no clue as to what he did in his private life or if he was a pervert but IMO, all his magazine did was prove that he knew how to exploit women and profit off of them. Trailblazer? LOL

"lukkiirish

I have no clue as to what he did in his private life or if he was a pervert but IMO, all his magazine did was prove that he knew how to exploit women and profit off of them."

What would you have preferred he did with his time and money?

Treat women as equals, rather than pretty well playthings ...

... to be discarded when the novelty had worn off.

o j

"joyfulguy

Treat women as equals, rather than pretty well playthings ...

... to be discarded when the novelty had worn off.

o j"

Spicifically, what would you have preferred that he would have done with his time and money?

"Spicifically, what would you prefer e did with his time and money?"

Isn't that question rather irrelevant as he wouldn't have had the money without the pornography?

He also launched the careers of Marilyn Monroe and Pamela Anderson, among other actresses.

He was somebody's father, grandfather but when I heard the news I just shrugged and asked DH what we should do for b/fast. HST, I'd be dishonest if I wouldn't admit to wondering whether he really had all that sex, especially in his late 70s, 80s. I want to know! Ha

"he wouldn't have had the money without the pornography?"

What pornography? What is pornography? There's a lot of classic art that involves the human form. Are those works pornographic?

I hope that over the decades, anyone who found Playboy magazine inappropriate exercised their free choice to not buy it. I also hope those same people understood there was a line they shouldn't cross, if they thought they had any right to prevent its availability to those who wanted to buy it. Because they didn't.

Funny, some of those same people are active today still trying to impose their own extreme views on others. It's no better or different than what advocates of Sharia law try to do in predominantly Muslim countries and often similarly originates from a strained form of religious fundamentalism.

Here's an interesting piece on Hefner that tries to summarize his impact on American society. It's written by a woman. Some of you with monochomatic ideas about him and what he did might learn something by reading it. It's short.

How Hefner invented the modern man

He never got dressed.

Haha, Alisande!

I think he was a smart guy who dared to pander in public. It made him rich.

Men enjoy being sexually stimulated by seeing naked women. Men fantasize. No news there. Putting it into the mainstream WAS new. I'm not sure how 'mainstream' it was, since most men still hid their Playboy mags. The West is still trying to swing back to a norm after being led all the way 'out' from its fake ignorance of sexuality.

I don't see how objectifying them as sexual objects did anything to liberate women. Didn't they already know they had that particular value...er, 'use'?

"Men enjoy being sexually stimulated by seeing naked women. Men fantasize. "

I think many women do exactly the same with images (or public encounters) of men, both naked and not naked. The magazine was huge and mainstream, at its peak Playboy's circulation was in the multi-millions of copies each month.

Hefner changed American mores by demonstrably saying "Hey, how come we do or don't do this and such? That isn't what people want". And so he did things differently to lead the way and people said "Yes, this is better, what we want". Not Western mores, more just American ones, because people in Europe discarded "puritanical" and prudish traditions much earlier. With all the changes over the decades, many Americans are still uncomfortable with human issues and practices that are common for some but not always widely acknowledged and accepted here.

Take a look at the linked article, chisue, or others you'll find in the mainstream press. His work was socially progressive in many ways, mindful of the rainbow of people and issues in our country and very nuanced.

I read, he bought the land the Hollywood sign is on, to keep it out of developers hands...

So his magazine had articles that espoused equal rights for gays, blacks and women; built entirely on a platform that promoted the objectification of women.

How exactly is that a good thing? Why couldn't he NOT make his fortune off the backs and bodies of these women that he valued solely for their "bunny" abilities?

Elmer- didn't you recently comment in a thread about the use of "bunnies" and how their appearance completely hijacks the encounter?

Perhaps the reason you don't have a problem with the objectification of women is because of your later statement that you don't care, you love seeing women in revealing clothing, the more the better?

I do not think as many women as men are thrilled to see the opposite gender naked. If they were, there would be a bigger market in porn for women. (Oh, what do I know? Maybe there is!) Women do fantasize about 'romance' -- witness the popularity of generally non-explicit 'bodice ripper' novels. (Even the terminology is quaint!)

You're right about the difference between America and the rest of 'The West'.

I agree about his support for all non-traditional 'matches' and people of color.

I am not sure why anyone would consider the naked human form - male or female - as pornographic. That seems to me to be a very puritanical viewpoint and just mirrors Elmer's comments about a generalized American attitude of prudity. I find it very interesting that mainstream UK and European TV shows often show male and female nudity (if delicately skirting around full frontal nudity). And I would also be careful to characterize "women" in general as being attracted to romantic notions necessarily........bodice-ripper novels hold absolutely no interest for me. Pretty much a waste of paper, in my estimation.

I just have to smile, when it sinks in, after I tell that I go to Saunas in Germany. :) Somehow, I wasn't raised to worry, or be ashamed of a naked body.

Moni

TG, my comment in the other thread had to do with people who dressed situationally inappropriately. My belief said there, whether expressed eloquently or not, is that a woman who dresses provocatively when in a professional or business situation will create her own distraction and diminish her own impact. I added some exaggeration for embellishment.

Cocktail/night club/stage attire, revealing clothing, etc, doesn't belong on the job, unless the job is in a bar or night club or on a stage.

Enjoying nude images isn't odd, isn't objectifying anything, isn't obscene, and (chisue) isn't unusual among people of my age (boomers) and younger .

To say "objectifying" is to add your own values to suggest there's something wrong with it. Use that label if it fits for your own perspective (if you have to) but don't assume anything for others.

To Moni - exactly!!!

gardengal, full frontal nudity is present on TV in Europe.

I am not American (I was born in Canada, but am no more Canadian than I would be Chinese were I born in Beijing.) Under no circumstances do I associate a European person's ability to be casually naked with the images - many of them distorted- in magazines like Playboy. One version is natural and has absolutely nothing to do with the other, which at best could be considered commercial. This comment has nothing to do with sex scenes on European tv. This is strictly about a lack of inhibition around nudity that has no counterpart in American popular culture.

"gardengal, full frontal nudity is present on TV in Europe."

I can recall seeing females in FFN but not males :-) But then, I don't see all that much European TV (dislike subtitles) - mostly from the UK. Bare male derrières are pretty common.

gardengal, maybe it's just me, but I don't think of the UK as being fully a part of "Europe". I'm not sure they there do either. I was referring to Continental Europe.

When I was living and working in Western Europe a few decades ago, I remember distinctly a bus shelter on the sidewalk near my office. It had changing ads on the exterior. Not long after arriving and starting work, I noticed an ad (couldn't possibly have missed it) that was a photo of a stark naked woman holding a serving tray on which were a bottle of beer and a glass of same. The caption was something like "Have more fun in life, drink XXXXX". I also remember regular news magazines (their equivalents of pubs like Life magazine, mainstream ones) in which most issues had nudity in print ads and sometimes in articles. I don't believe from what's visible and from what practices are common there (nude and topless beaches and other public places) that nude images are evidence of an oppressive or otherwise undesirable attitude toward women. But you're entitled to your view.

I just don't see it as exploiting or objectifying women. The women are adults, they understand what posing means. They aren't forced or coerced into it. No one is forced to buy their magazines or look at the images. Many models have launched careers from this exposure. I would venture most people who buy the magazine realize it's a fantasy and not a representation of the average woman.

I think chisue was right on in that men are far more visual than women, and women prefer more of an romantic/emotional connection. How else can you explain the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon and how absurdly popular it was with women. Women realize they probably aren't going to meet a gorgeous, 20-something billionaire who falls madly in love with them, but they are subscribing to the fantasy in the same way that some people look at these images.

I think it's well documented that men are more visual, sexually speaking, than women, at least in general. Women need something more for true attraction to develop. This explains why Playgirl magazine never got the female readership the publishers hoped for. The magazine did, however, appeal to a lot of gay men.

Even in other species, the males often appear to be ready to mate with whatever female they see, but they might get turned down. The female is more selective.

We're all different, of course, but a character in a book (not a bodice-ripper) has a chance of making me wish he weren't fictional, whereas a nude photo can stay on the page for all I care.

What I was suggesting had more to do with DIS-traction and not much to do with A-ttraction.

The articles really were great. I have a lot of respect for Hef, simply based on the types of articles he published. To sum it up, he was "fightin' the fight". The article about why the Cincinnati riots started (Timothy Thomas)16 years ago, is extremely relevant to what is going on today...

47 years ago, fightin the fight. Back before it became the new normal.

https://www.leafly.com/news/pop-culture/hugh-hefner-supports-marijuana-legalization

Meanwhile, the crackdown continues...

R.I.P.

" I don't believe from what's visible and from what practices are common there (nude and topless beaches and other public places) that nude images are evidence of an oppressive or otherwise undesirable attitude toward women. But you're entitled to your view."

Nowhere did I indicate that was my viewpoint or my feelings!! Rather, my opinion is that this is a much more unrepressed view than what is common here in the US, which IMO tends to be quite puritanical about both nudity and human sexuality. I have no issues with either and believe that to be a much healthier position. But obviously not one that is necessarily shared by many if previous comments to this thread are any indication.

Sorry, gg, second paragraph was a response to what Rita had said.

Big difference between 'nude' and 'provocatively nude'.

A cadaver is nude. Sexual interest in one is, thankfully, rare. What ad agency could sell Elmer's memorable beer ad if the gal behind the beer was ugly (decaying)?

Yes, Puritans equated 'nude' and 'lewd'. Many other religions take the same view -- take it even further. These attitudes also objectify women -- and don't have very good things to say about men, either.

He could have had a magazine equally as intellectual and progressive as many of the articles he published without nude pictures of women. It isn't just the nudity, tho', it's the portrayal of women in bunny costumes (what's THAT message?), the airbrushing of perceived "flaws" in women's bodies, and more. He may have been instrumental in Marilyn Monroe and Pamela Anderson's career launches. It didn't turn out so well for MM, did it? I don't know about Pamela Anderson's life, but don't think she was any kind of great actress. Both were objectified because of their bodies and at least one of them famous for her ridiculous implants.

Did they or others, most especially older celebrities looking to revive careers in decline, appear at times or in ways they didn't agree to or were unpaid for? If you disapproved of who and what you saw, which is fine, who should you be unhappy with?

Also, for those with other than prurient interest, please see: Associated Press News - AP Top News

Ahem....airbrushing started in the 19th century so kinda doubt Hef s/go to Hell on that count. And besides, everybody is game for this, not just babes.

I mean, I don't think anyone is surprised Pamela Anderson isn't an Oscar-caliber actress but I'm sure she can console herself with the millions of dollars she's made thanks to Playboy.

"who should you be unhappy with?"

A culture that objectifies women and their bodies. And before you say it couldn't happen without the cooperation of women, the issues are so much greater than just "cooperation". That is what oppression of any group is about, the group doesn't hold the power in the culture to have free, untainted will about what they must do to survive and thrive.

And money doesn't buy happiness...from what I see of Pamela Anderson, it may not be much consolation. It didn't help Marilyn.

I hope you have a more balanced view of this question that this comment would suggest.

I Read 'Playboy' for the Comix - "...current gender and identity politics may make it hard to remember that Hefner was a force for good—consistently defending progressive causes, a champion of the First Amendment, secular values, gay rights, and women’s freedom of choice, for example, while publishing in-depth interviews with Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and James Baldwin as well as conversations with and fiction by Vladimir Nabokov and Norman Mailer (pax, Paris Review). He was a bit thrown by feminism, but his magazine was in many ways a precondition of the counterculture. Yes, he had golden plumbing fixtures a generation before our president, but he had better words and he was a hell of a lot smarter."