Hugh Hefner has died | Hacker News Reader

Hugh Hefner has died

mobile.nytimes.com

237 pointsaaronbrethorst139 comments

IQ 152 !

"Hefner went to Sayre Elementary School and then to Steinmetz High School, where, reportedly, his IQ was 152 though his academic performance was generally modest." https://www.biography.com/people/hugh-hefner-9333521

This was at #1 and dropped completely off the page. How is that possible?

I think that's a shame, it's the end of an era. Hef was an original disruptor.

Morality police strikes again! (edit: what I mean hopefully doesn't offend the mods, what I mean is the general 'hive mind' behaviour that occurred, judging from some of the comments posted & the heavy downvoting that followed)

Maybe because the thread descended into flamewars and people don't come here to read that.

> This was at #1 and dropped completely off the page. How is that possible?

Possible explanations : users flagged it, points to comments ratio is too high.

In case someone is wondering : the mods or yc have nothing to do with it.

Can you imagine the courage of a young Hugh Hefner? What if there was a new kind of gentleman's lifestyle magazine? With best in class reporting, editorials, interviews, fashion and accessory coverage. And two to three pictorials of totally nude babes. But even those would be of the highest quality, with concern to the art, and the presentation. It wasn't ever smut, it was always ever art, with the level of care and attention to detail at every level of the magazine.

Even today, it's outrageous to suggest I'm going to start a new venture featuring nude pictorials, because you're immediately thrown in to the Internet porn category. Your pictorials can't be shared on Facebook. You're immediately banned from entire countries for syndication because of nipples.

But Hugh had a vision, and he stuck to his guns with his idea. Playboy and the Bunny logo are inseparable parts of popular culture and American history, now. Hopefully, forever.

God bless you, Hugh Hefner, for what you did for art, expression, and freedom of speech. May you rest in peace.

Why does art need to be so obsessed with boobs? I can see them being present, but why focus on them so much if it's about art, fashion, and other non-boob things?

Umm, maybe because people love them?

Because the human form is the most beautiful thing you're ever going to see.

Meditate on the sun.

You're genetically predisposed to like it.

Not everyone, about half of human population would prefer male chest to female chest.

Preference seems unrelated to respect. As a ~straight male I prefer female breasts but I can still respect a chiseled male chest.

No, generally speaking everyone is, else you starve as an infant.

Maybe this is late night and I need to get some sleep, but you seemed to solve a big mystery for me. Almost all of my girlfriends either freely admire another woman's breast/body or showed a great deal of jealousy. I felt they were a bit bisexual but this makes a lot more sense.

Sure, but I'm talking about an obsession with boobs, not just with liking them.

I love this age of neo-puritianism. We've gone from "if if feels good, do it" to "everything is sexist and you should feel bad because even if you don't consciously doing it, you're still a subconscious sinner. Now pay your penance, heathen."

And then people wonder why millennials are waiting longer to date, lose their virginity, and get married.

> And then people wonder why millennials are waiting longer to date, lose their virginity, and get married.

it's the housing market

Where did you get the idea that GP thinks the depiction of breasts in art is sexist?

Please don't downvote this comment simply because you disagree. It's on topic, not a troll, and is asking a legitimate question.

Figure artist here. After many years of pursuing traditional representational study, I've more or less concluded that it's fertility worship.

From the woman of Willendorf to Courbet's Origin to Heff's magazine, there's a running theme here; one more fundamental than sex-for-pleasure.

Because boobs literally help create human life, and are a direct sign of health and fertility? There's plenty of other important stuff in life too (vaginas anyone? Penises too!... and coding and design and other hobbies of course) but you have to admit, creatinng human life kindna tops the cake here.

Nothing to be ashamed of, the naked human body. And just because someone specifically admires that 1 aspect of a person, does not mean they magically don't realize a whole human person is more than a set of boobs... it so insulting how people assume 'objectification' so quickly, as if just because someone admires nude women, suddenly their ability to realize people are more than just that goes out the window like it never existed.

Well guess what buddy? You think that girl over there is smart, very intelligent, and you admire that? You deplorable objectifier!!! What is she, just some kind of Computational Machine to you? Disgusting... Objectifying her intelligence.

Or is that somehow supposed to be different from sex/nudity?

Sorry for the rant :P More boobs plz!

I know the long-running joke of reading Playboy for the articles is based in truth: it really did have some great journalism. Is there a good history on how this editorial decision came about? And whether it had a noticeable impact on subscriber demographics/data, compared to Playboy's less-literary competitors?

And the great science fiction... Playboy had some great science fiction over the years.

You young people may not realize this, but there was a time when we had to work for our porn. Porn wasn't always available. Hardcore porn was as rare as hen's teeth. Hell, in some places, it was illegal!

Yeah, you'd have to travel to the big city of you wanted hard core porn. Want to see an erect penis or a shaved vagina? You needed to go to a physical store, bring ID, and wade through a bunch of rubber prosthetics, whips, masks, blow-up dolls, and then you'd get to the magazine shelf.

Eventually, there were videos. They were in the back and actually showed intercourse, in all the blown-up hairy details. Even stranger, they had plots! Not good plots, and they never did eat the pizza or fix the cable.

It took years of fast forwarding before they just started skipping those parts.

You can thank Playboy and Hustler for this. Hustler pushed the limit even more than Playboy. They even dared to show an interracial couple. That got Larry shot and paralyzed, by the way.

Yeah, we had to work for our porn. It was like the forbidden fruit, too. If you had a Playboy, you had companions. Those got passed around more than a football, and probably had more germs per square inch.

If there is one cultural difference I can cite between the generations, it's immediacy of access to pornographic material. For us, it was a quest. It was a coming of age. It was a subject we'd discuss for hours. I'm pretty sure it was not mentally healthy to have such an idolization about it, but it's a little late for that now.

Never ever thought of reading about Larry Flynt, but just did, interesting person. He did get shot and was paralyzed, never charged the shooter, and even spoke against his death penalty. A big supporter of the first amendment, claims the media coverage in Hustler is more accurate then modern media, and this awesome quote of him:

> Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Not the kind of wikipedia entry I was expecting at all.

Just to help others reading this comment, here's a link to the widipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt

The shooter didn't need to be charged. He went on a killing spree, usually targeting interracial people and/or just black people. He was a serial killer and was caught, convicted, and jailed. (I forget if he got the death penalty.)

The killer did kill the guy that was with Larry at the time. My memory is fuzzy and Google is so very far away, but I think it was his lawyer and that it happened outside of a courthouse. I seem to recall that he was going to court on a free speech matter and that the killer hadn't specifically started off with the intent of killing Larry, he just happened to be there around the right time so added Larry to his list of folks he felt needed killing for promoting interracial relationships.

Obviously the shooter was both insane and a racist. I seem to recall Larry making statements about leniency towards the shooter. There's a movie about it and several documentaries. The movie features much nudity, but the documentaries are much more tame.

There is a movie called "The People vs. Larry Flynt". It stars Woody Harrelson and Courtney Love.

It's an excellent film, and it's the story of how he got started and ends with his case in front of the Supreme Court.

I saw Larry Flynt in 2003 at a local bookstore when he was doing a book tour. I remember his talk being almost primarily about his various First Amendment stands. He also spoke a lot about an investigation he underwrote regarding a rumor that George W. Bush paid for an abortion. I got a copy of that month's Hustler autographed by him but eventually tossed it away, as its cover was NSFD (not safe for dorms).

This is great

Yes, but, you took it a bit too far.

This is a bit overkill. If you look with rose colored glasses at what it did in the 50's, spot on. As time went on and the revolution it helped push along progressed, Playboy stayed where it was and became progressively ... grubby. In relation to society and culture around it. Plenty the brand had to offer was quite far from high art and you only have to look at Hefner's relations with women himself to realize there is something quite wrong with the whole thing.

A dirty old man is dead. A long time ago he helped make some progress away from destructive societal and legal ideas, but he wasn't a saint and the things he created are now nothing to bring pride to anyone.

There are plenty of publications today (not to mention advertising in public) which don't bat an eye at publishing nudity. Much more across the Atlantic. Things might even progress one day to publishing nudity with disinterest as though nothing hidden was being revealed.

> Things might even progress one day to publishing nudity with disinterest as though nothing hidden was being revealed.

Philosophically, doesn't that require society to give up clothing?

No, there's plenty of utility to clothing besides making being naked special.

Don't see why you were downvoted. It's 56F outside.

Sure.. I wonder if one is a consequence of the other however.

Sure - it's hard to make nudity special if there's no alternative state. But I doubt it was the only factor.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans as a culture had no nudity taboos.

It seems the more enlightened we become, the more repressed we are.

I'm not sure if I would describe our current state as enlightened when compared to tose two societies.

> A dirty old man is dead. A long time ago he helped make some progress away from destructive societal and legal ideas

If you still categorize someone that enjoys the female form as "dirty" then maybe we haven't made much progress at all.

I encourage you to go out and find information about what it was like to be one of HH's "girlfriends". There is a wide gap between appreciating beauty and using women as pleasure objects.

So he appreciated them physically, you still have to be pretty puritan to consider that "dirty".

Report back when you've actually researched what it was like.

Honestly I just don't want my name attached to a frank description of what sorts of things happened.

> Report back when you've actually researched what it was like.

I had a look I can't find anything that would surprise me, it seems quite tame actually. If you don't want to provide some sort of citation or claim about what you're talking about then I can only conclude that you think sex is somehow dirty.

> There is a wide gap between appreciating beauty and using women as pleasure objects.

Wasn't the women's rights movement about recognizing their agency? And if they wanted to be treated in such a manner, they could be if they wanted to? Consenting adults...consented to their situation in this case. What is wrong with that?

Before you reply that I should read "what is was like", I have. Having worked for a brief period in the adult film industry performing technical work in my early 20s, I have a passing interest in the adult entertainment subculture.

EDIT @ colechristensen

I'm not blind or unconcerned with the inequitable power balance in the entertainment (traditional and adult) industries leading to abuse and exploitation, I'm simply unsure what you're expecting from adults with free will. There are no good or bad people, just people who do good or bad things.

> You can respect women and realize the porn industry is lousy with abuse at the same time.

I agree.

There are certainly consenting adults, some of whom want to do things and have things done to the median person might find horrifying. There's nothing at all wrong with that. The existence of consenting adults doesn't erase the prevalence of powerful people preying on vulnerable people. The "adult entertainment subculture" is full of this and if you don't know it you're blind. It's not all that way and banning it tends to make it worse.

You can respect women and realize the porn industry is lousy with abuse at the same time.

The Wikipedia article about him has nothing to say on the topic. The only references I see are on tabloid sites and appear to come from a tell-all book and a single interview with another ex-playmate.

I didn't dig very deep and their lack of mention on Wikipedia makes me immediately doubt their credibility, until there is further verification and a presentation of credible evidence.

Yes, I hold the same burdens of proof for everyone and always assume innocence until reasonable evidence suggests guilt. I figure some folks might question that, so I'll just put it out there now.

From some of the attitudes expressed in this thread, I'm thinking some people don't appreciate the magazine or what it did. It promoted safe and healthy sex and gave many women agency and the ability to be confident and have some self-respect.

Somewhere along the lines, it has again become taboo for a woman to want to take her clothing off, look appealing, and enjoy herself. I dunno? As a guy, I kind of like taking my clothing off, looking appealing, and enjoying myself.

One example: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kateaurthur/holly-madison-burns-it-...

Can you highlight the parts you'd consider dirty? All I see is sex and drugs, I'm much more concerned about the questionable labour practices.

So I'm not necessarily taking sides, as this is mostly a one-sided piece, but just answering your question of what people might find dirty about this account: the allegedly transactional nature of being a Flayboy Bunny, including the pressure to be part of Hefner's group sex:

> Which is where she first encountered the seven-at-a-time harem that Hefner, who was then 74, maintained. After a year of being a regular at the mansion, and with both of her roommates moving out, Madison was desperate to stay in Los Angeles, and decided she'd try to be one of the girlfriends. (A spot had opened up.) After all, she had been assured that none of them actually had sex with Hefner, and it seemed like a nice — and free — place to live.

> The decision immediately cut her off from friends outside the mansion. Madison said they would say, "'Ew, gross, you hooked up with an old dude?' I thought I was an adult and thought I was making my free choice. And I was. But I wasn't sophisticated or really prepared. And kind of got in over my head. ... I could understand how people thought it was strange. But I guess I wasn't comfortable enough to explain why I thought it would be fun or why I thought it would be a good idea."

> ...As Madison learned her first night out with Hefner and the girlfriends, sex was a requirement of living there. Wednesdays and Fridays were "Club Nights," and Hefner and his ladies would go out in Hollywood, getting VIP treatment at various clubs. (Hefner's fame as a septuagenarian sexpot novelty was then at its peak.) Hefner offered Madison a Quaalude, telling her, she writes in Down the Rabbit Hole, that "in the '70s they used to call these pills 'thigh openers.'" She turned him down, but did get drunk, and by the time they all went back to the mansion, she was told that it was time to go to Hefner's bedroom.

It's worth pointing out that these excerpts alone (which come from a book, which I haven't read in its entirety) don't necessarily allege illegal behavior -- the sex was consensual, as was the taking of the quaaludes. But even for people who enjoy pornography and sexual liberation, the implication that sex was coerced as a matter of employment might feel "dirty".

In other words, it was like a job, quite a few women (over 18) decided that it was worth it. I doubt they were attracted to his abs.

Some used that "job" as a spring board and it worked out well. Anyway, they lived for free and got some other free stuff. Who am I to decide what was best for those women? I think women should be liberated, free to chart their own path.

> There are plenty of publications today (not to mention advertising in public) which don't bat an eye at publishing nudity.

That is _directly_ due to Hefner's influence on the topic. If it were not for his challenging social vices, it is widely considered that we would be in the same position today.

>>A dirty old man is dead

What percentage of men would do the same if they were in his shoes? Plenty of willing women (maybe also enticed by benefits) and no taboo. I'd bet that maybe 80% of them, at least. Whether they admit it or not, that's a different story. Straight men are supposed to like women, and "be" around them.

80% of them would admit it, 19% of them are liars/trolls, 1% have some kind of legitimate chemical or physical abnormality precluding them from any kind of sex life what so ever. "Dirty old man" this, "Shameless objectify smut" that, really? Playboy?

Is there any way to present the female naked body that would meet these people's standards, or can we all just be honest here that these Hefner/Playboy bashers would say the same thing about even the most non-objectifying image of the naked female body? These people are either consciously or (more likely) subconsciously jealous, envious, insecure, jilted, or 2pc4me trying to impress and/or appease a woman in their life.

The simple objective fact of the matter (aka human F'ing nature) is that any straight cis male would live like Hefner if they could. Period. We wouldn't have survived or evolved to where we are today if this wasn't just the simple hardwiring of our instinct to survive and diversify.

Is it no wonder why so many rich people and celebrities have multiple husbands/wives, and tons of cheating scandals? Does this not help you realize this is the default way of life and anyone not participating is fighting it?

Go ahead and make up all the excuses you want as to how "you're better than a damn ape having dirty promiscuous animalistic unrestrained sex whenever and with whomever you'd like" and realize its not even a choice.... of course you wouldn't WANT to be like this, society shames it for someone like you or me... thats not the point. You would do it if you could get away with it and be in the right line of work/status where you could. That was Hef..

> any straight cis male would live like Hefner if they could.

Not even vaguely accurate. I can think of a handful of people even in just my small circle of acquaintances that wouldn't (including me.)

It is not surprising that women have trouble in Silicon Valley given your, sadly I think not too uncommon attitude towards sex.

Most people don't think the ultimate human existence is being the leader of a sex cult. The same sort of culturally taught moral signaling that makes professing sex immoral so popular (even though it really isn't all that popular these days) exists in the opposite moral signaling you're exercising. Boasting about how all men are constant sexual fiends is a good way to let everyone around you know what a "real man" you are, but almost everyone grows out of that 15-year-olds in a locker room cliché, and contrary to what you might think, not just because of societal shame.

Saying every man who chooses to start a family instead of pursuing casual sex all his life is actually just putting on an act would offend a lot of people who made that choice.

There is a spectrum, of course and nonmonogamy and promiscuity are part of the human experience, but that they exist doesn't prove that this is all anybody wants. Some people are alcoholics, it does not follow that so is everyone who wants a drink.

> And two to three pictorials of totally nude babes.

Actually, the first few issues only contained photo-shoots of topless women - full frontal nudity came later.

(I have the 'Playboy 40 Years' book[1], which charts the evolution of the magazine. I got it the for articles [cough])

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Book-Forty-Years/dp/188164903...

This was so cringy to read.

Playboy is a lad mag for men who enjoy the delusion that their taste in porn is edgier and more sophisticated than the average blue collar masturbator.

It's the $20 dollar burger joint for people who think they're better than McDonalds.

Hefner gentrified porn, and cashed in in the process.

But there are millions of gross and horny old men out there with too much money. Hugh Hefner was just another one, remarkable only for how tacky and vulgar his aesthetic was.

Why was this killed?

192 points in 2 hours and it's on the 3rd page

Page position is decided by some combination of points and flags. So it seems more people wanted it off the front page than on the front page.

If I where to take a guess at why I'd say it's probably because the comments quickly derailed into a discussion of morality and Mr. Hefner's moral character rather than anything related to his entrepreneurial ability.

Thanks for the reply dagw

I remember as a kid reading an expose on Pine Gap (ECHELON listening post in Australia) in an old Playboy. I think it was from the late 70's?

So I can say for certain, from a fairly young age, that I read it for the articles.

“Life is too short to be living somebody else’s dream." - HUGH M. HEFNER

He was an icon for a long time. His daughter, Christie Hefner, is 64, and retired from running Playboy Enterprises.

No Hugh Hefner, no Shel Silverstein. The dude probably propped up a lot of people's careers.

Interesting factoid, but after checking Silverstein's wikipedia page it's evident that he was well published before working for Playboy.

People over look his (and his companies) contribution to photography. even an indirect impact was felt in the world of image processing with the Lenna image, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna . Playboy pushed how people were photographed to new levels.

He was willing to publish what others were not; see The Crooked Man; hired some of the best writers in the industry, and went on to start careers of writers. His pushing the boundaries of free speech are very important to where we are today. his support of women's and gay rights are often overlooked as well.

he shaped society back in a day before internet and to an extent that may be greater than some internet and tech giants of today

Damn, I forgot that the Lena image came from Playboy!

Thanks to Hef, we have HEIF!

I'm here all week.

Few admit it, but this guy's taste in women has had a profound impact on the entire entertainment industry. LA as a city of busty blondes ... that's all down to hef. Compare his girls to the rail-thin girls in the fashion houses of NY or europe.

And before we scream about his clubs and the mag degrading women, look up the interviews with girls who worked in such places before playboy. Hef cleaned up an industry that badly needed cleaning. Imho the porn industry today is in need of a new hef, one to clean up the websites that are treating girls like cattle, paying them nothing over dramaticly shorter careers. Sadly he stepped asside and never really participated in the internet scene.

Hugh Hefner didn't invent the look of women movie stars of the 40s and 50s, pin-up girls of the era, etc. And you can google your way to Steinem's A Bunny's Tale (written 50 odd years ago) about the good times to be had working in a Playboy club.

Just saw this Feb 2017 op-ed tweeted by the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/opinion/how-playboy-expla...

> Though following in their legacy, the Playmate models differed from the pinups of World War II. Hefner wanted images of real women their readers might see in their everyday life — a classmate, secretary or neighbor — instead of the highly stylized and often famous women of an older generation. The sexualized, yet familiar, “girl next door” was the perfect accompaniment for soldiers stationed in Vietnam. This conception of wholesome, all-American beauty and sexuality acted out by largely unknown models reminded young soldiers of the women they left behind, and for whom they were fighting — and could, if they survived, imagine returning to.

The tribute at playboy.com (SWF as of now) just needs a bit of vaporwave.

Rip HH

There are blurred nude women in the background, but it's more or less SFW.

I suspect the URL will make some proxies squirm tho

There was no flash on the page when I loaded it.

At one point, they announced, shocking everyone who heard, that they'd no longer be posting nude women on their website. They even made their magazine nude-free. I think they reverted their magazine.

Here is a citation:

http://ijr.com/2015/11/468636-playboy-ceo-explains-their-rea...

I am consistently unable to guess which obituaries will show up on HN.

We used to have a poll in a forum once a year where we "bet" on which celebrities were going to die that year.

To be honest I was pretty bad at it because I can't even remember which ones are alive.

I think OP was criticizing whose death deserves being noticed VS your bet about who may die.

Hugh Hefner embodied the startup spirit that HN loves. He was bold and innovative.

He was also very socially progressive and a voice for civil rights during a time when segregation was still a thing and the US was extremely conservative.

Huge free speech advocate too, something I greatly respect him for.

You're right. Where is the black ribbon on the site? Or is that for computer scientists only? And if so, Hawking, Bezos and Musk will never get one either?

Edit: Seriously, downvoters, anyone care to answer instead?

I'm not sure there's an explicit policy; I think the moderators make the decision case by case, depending on the influence the person had on the overall computing and startup industries (not just computer scientists - e.g. Steve Jobs).

Users can suggest its use by emailing them (meta threads are discouraged).

This one relates to both hustling and horniness, so a pretty safe bet.

He was a hero in many ways. His personality made the world a brighter place.

RIP sweet prince.

I am remember watching the documentary about him 6 months ago. It was an Amazon original show. I was really impressed. RIP

I recommend you to watch it if you got prime.

I was interested, so I searched and found "American Playboy". Is this correct?

Yes. That's the one I think.

Thanks for the mammaries. Seriously though, how did a man with that lifestyle live to 91? Impressive

I theorise that the viagra must have acted as some sort of preservative. Downside is now his coffin is going to have to be a funny shape.

> how did a man with that lifestyle live to 91?

Plenty to live for? Regular vigorous exercise? A healthy lifestyle surrounded by people actively trying to stay fit?

My understanding is that he didn't do a lot of drugs and seldom drank to excess. I also am going to guess he got a lot of exercise.

He was known for smoking a pipe. And that many sex partners has to be dangerous

Dangerous enough to live to 91.

I can't speak to the less scary STDs, but the risk of female to male transmission of HIV without protection is actually very low (0.04% chance per act in high income countries) [1].

On a long enough timeline, everyone dies. Live accordingly.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19179227

Smoking a pipe isn't healthy but a few daily puffs aren't going to shorten your life all that much. Pipes go out, get relit, and generally aren't dragged on like a cigarette. Many people don't even inhale the smoke.

As for the sex? Given his frequent recommendations about practicing safe sex, I suspect it involved protection and, possibly, testing.

Hugh the public figure wasn't quite the same as Hugh the individual. There are some good documentaries about him and his life.

This isn't directed at you, really. Though it may be? You used the number of sex partners almost as a pejorative? At least that is how I read it.

I noticed quite a few people opining that his sex life was wrong and that his magazine was sleazy, or somehow bad. A magazine that empowered women, a magazine that offered choice, a magazine that promoted healthy sexual relationships is being considered bad.

I haven't seen this much angst over Playboy since the mid-60s. It's like they forgot we had a sexual revolution, and we won. That sexual revolution helped lead to greater equality, understanding, and happier people. It helped the gay people come out of the closet. It helped transfolk become even more accepted. It liberated women from sexual repression where they were no longer expected to be barefoot and pregnant.

Seriously, it's like some of these posters are in a mid-60s Southern Baptist Church.

I'm not judging his # of partners, but am suggesting it is a little dangerous. HPV for example, isn't stopped by condoms, and can cause cancer.

Ah, alright. It read, to me, as if you were using it as a pejorative. Reading other comments may have biased me, sorry if I read more into it than you wrote.

It can cause cancer, though I believe the odds are low for males. He also may not have contracted it. After a time, especially after the AIDS epidemic, I suspect there was a lot of testing and scrutiny.

Obviously, I'd not suggest his lifestyle was all that healthy, but I don't think it is a miracle that he survived to live as long as he did. He also, surely, had great medical care and was able to afford a less stressful life.

Statistics are like that. You can do all sorts of silly crap and live to be a great grandfather. You can do all the right things and die of cancer before you hit puberty. I had a grandmother who surpassed 100 and she drank whiskey and smoked rough cut tobacco from a corncob pipe.

I'd not suggest you try that, if longevity is your goal. On the other hand, if longevity is not your goal than smoking, drinking, and having lots of sex seems like a pretty good idea. Bonus points if you beat the odds and live long enough to bury your detractors.

> On the other hand, if longevity is not your goal than smoking, drinking, and having lots of sex seems like a pretty good idea. Bonus points if you beat the odds and live long enough to bury your detractors.

Solid life advice. Welcome to HN, I'm a fan already.

Thanks, I've been here for a while but didn't start commenting until fairly recently. I like to lurk before posting. It helps me to better understand the rules, especially the unwritten ones, before posting.

I'm the same KGIII from Slashdot, etc... Yeah, that guy.

But, I don't want to meander too far off topic. I will say that I come here for the comments, I read quite a few articles, but I prefer the comments. Some of you are really intelligent. I don't always agree with some posts, and some common themes, but I can respect a well presented and logically consistent argument.

I do sometimes see the most innocuous comments getting negative moderation. That sometimes confuses me, but I've seen it on other sites so it's not unique to HN.

Besides? What good is karma if you can't spend it?

If there was one guy that lived life to it's fullest. This was the guy.

Idk why this guy is somewhat admired in the US. He seems like the epitome of sleaziness and bad taste.

He championed civil and gay rights.

I guess nice of him to meet the lowest bar.

It wasn't the lowest bar in the 50s and 60s.

I'm sure if you were alive in the 1700s you'd be championing anti slavery, women's right to vote, etc right?

Depends where I would have been born. In which countries in 1700s did anyone have right to vote.

Republics included: France, Dutch, Northern Italy, Venice, Genoa, Poland, and of course the USA. England had its mix of monarchy and democracy.

The only thing that could be construed as sleazy are that the women were naked and he didn't settle down with one woman. He conducted business with respect and used his eventual notoriety for the greater good. If perhaps you don't want to be as hedonistic as he was, that's okay, but so far as I can tell he was not exploitive, manipulative or untruthful, which is what I would consider sleazy behavior.

If Arianna Huffington had nude chippendales style pictures separating the Huffington Post's stories or an entourage like this one every time she was photographed: http://www.gettyimages.com/event/vegas-magazine-launch-party... (obviously that's not Huffington, I'm using that as an example) - would you think any less of her as a writer and editor?

Would you think it's "sleazy"?

I don't know the history of it well, but the idea that it's hard to see what's "sleazy" about a magazine like Playboy is hard to buy.

Well said.

We clearly have different views on what sleaze is. Sleaze has nothing to do with sex or nudity in my mind.

I could concede it could be tacky or distasteful, but even that is subjective.

If Huffington had claimed to be the elegant and foremost professional news source and subsequently used nudity to sell papers then that would be sleazy. If they sold out their position of high viewership to sell advertising for cheap psuedolegal pharmaceuticals or fad diets and spin sites that would be far more sleazy. Huh. They do that.

In fact when I tried to confirm the crappy advertising practices of the Huff, it popped a new tab and an alert box as I tried to leave with another advert. I know that's normally the ad providers problem but how pertinent the timing.

Before it's said, yes I do realise most other news sites use similar advertising and I yet I still find the practice far more detestable than a magazine open about its love for nudity.

Nobody was ever under the illusion that Playboy was anything other than what it was.

I think that some people in the recent years only sees him as a some porno-king, while, as Larry Flint, he was a leader on a lot of conflictual subjects. Some of the interviews in Playboy are also legendary (I am thinking about the one with Larry Page & Sergey Brin, and the one with Steve Jobs).

That's looking at his life through a current day PC culture lens... he was the epitome of class and cool in his day, and definitely did his share of fighting for civil rights. He probably could have aged out more gracefully, but he was a product of his times and rich... meh. Even in his older age, he lived perhaps a bit sleazy, but in a "like you wouldn't do the same thing with that kind of money and status" sort of way, if we're all being entirely honest with ourselves.

I'm far from pc culture.

> like you wouldn't do the same thing with that kind of money and status" sort of way, if we're all being entirely honest with ourselves

I would not no, BTW.

I'm far from understanding exactly what you find so sleazy about him then?

I feel like if I have to explain this, you prolly won't get it.

Well, probably for the better. Doesn't seem exactly on topic for HN anyways. I'll just make my cheeky assumptions. Pun intended ;p

That he was an older guy surrounded by a harem of younger “girlfriends”? Or that he had a sex grotto in his mansion?

“Hugh Hefner” the personality may have been perceived as sleazy, but I’m sorry I never had a chance to speak with Hugh Hefner the entrepreneur and media magnate. I’m sure the public/private differences would have been glaring.

More that he was promoting a what I would call a neo aristocratic lifestyle and that this sort of lifestyle was something to aspire towards. I don't care about what he did in his life, but I do care about him promoting it.

I can honestly say I would not. Sex is great, for sure, but it’s far from what I want the apex of my life to be.

I don't think it's fair to say that just because he took advantage of that aspect of his celebrity that he had no other life/talents/hobies outside of it. Its just the part we always hear about the most for obvious reasons. It'll take quite a bit to convince me most any human wouldn't gladly have their dream sex life, as well as all the time and money to pursue whatever else as well. It's not like it took up all his time or was challenging to atain what he did sexually, being who he was. I'm sure he fulfilled himself however else he pleased to the fullest extent as well. For me or your average Joe to live like that? Yea it would take all your time money and energy for sure lol

I was responding to the part of “we would all live that way if we had his wealth and status”

Some people are not as horny as others, nothing to be ashamed of.

Did you intend that offense?

A statement of fact that different people have different needs, take it as you will.

"PC culture lens"? I wouldn't write off so blithely the clear chauvinism of Playboy. While I'm sure its models exercise more agency than a typical hardcore porn performer, I think it's still fair to say that its whole presentation values women primarily as sexual commodities.

I know it's cliche but they really did have decent articles, and model profiles, I agree that they certainly went beyond simply presenting women for womens sake compared to most. I wonder, what would a magazine look like that still celebrated the naked female physical form but would pass this "wholesome" standard many seem to judge the Playboy magazine of failing to meet. Are naked bodies inherently 'wrong' to be admired? Looking at older issues from the heyday, and they are pretty damn classy. Sometimes I dont think mainstream Western culture will ever escape it's puritanical sex negative roots. Jealousy, envy, lust and insecurities seem so mixed up in the presentation of naked bodies, many will consciously or subconsciously find it inherently distasteful for as far as I can see. I personally think it's unfortunate that all of this baggage has to be so uniformly applied creating an impossible standard. Some times naked beautiful woman are just naked and beautiful, and there isn't anything objectifying to admire this particular trait than there is admiring intelligence. If I exclusively admire a woman's intelligence, am I objectifying her as a computational machine in lue of a sex machine or something? Idk

It would probably look more like ESPN The Body. Or Annie Leibovitz's photos. There's a lot of nude art that's not exploitative in the same way. I'm not a prude, I'm just saying let's not airbrush what Playboy is.

the WSJ obit could give some guidance to that.

> Mr. Hefner also paid top dollar for top-rate works of fiction and journalism, attracting iconic writers such as John Updike, Margaret Atwood, Kurt Vonnegut and Ian Fleming, among many others. Beginning in 1962, Playboy began featuring monthly interviews with leading cultural and historic figures, including Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and Jimmy Carter. The quality of the work led readers to often quip, sometimes jokingly and sometimes not, that they bought the magazine for the articles—not, it was implied, for the photos.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hugh-hefner-founder-of-playboy-...

the US has a reputation of being puritanical but the truth is we have a high variance of behavior and standards.

and in many cases i would think the source of admiration would be obvious. many men would like to live a life of constant sexual variety

A man who made an empire out of institutionalizing the objectification of women is being glorified with a veneer of civil rights activism. Since when did marketing nudity become a praiseworthy thing? Or asking that is too politically incorrect these days?

I grew up on Playboy. While I enjoyed the pictorials, I also read it. Frank Herbert, Asimov, Stephen King.

And then there was the Playboy Advisor. People wrote in with questions about sex, sexuality, and relationships. To my young mind, this was both fascinating and impactful.

What I took away from it was that women should be respected, treated as our equals.

You can enjoy the sensuality of a beautiful woman and still be a feminist.

Probably 1960 or so. Never moved on, but certainly was a force for change back in his heyday.

>Since when did marketing nudity become a praiseworthy thing? Or asking that is too politically incorrect these days?

Since forever.

The nude form is probably the most depicted thing in the history of human art, and artists have been paid to depict it since time immemorial.

Our museums, art galleries, and cinemas are filled to the brim with depicted nudes -- of every shape and size -- celebrating the human achievement of the creation of such art.

Think whatever of Hefner, but please understand that so-called 'marketing of nudity' and 'objectification of women' are entirely different concepts, and there are plenty of examples throughout human history of one without the other.

>Since when did marketing nudity become a praiseworthy thing?

That's the beauty of nudity (and of art). You don't have to like it. No one is forcing you.

What you choose to praise regarding nudity and/or art is up to you. Clearly this commenter does not view HH's work and life at all as praiseworthy. That's perfectly fine to think if you want.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com