Hacker News Reader

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.

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

> 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.

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

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!