Women’s comments on the death of Hugh Hefner(75 Posts)
I know it’s been 5 days since Hugh Hefner passed away, but I’ve been mulling this over (and have a new baby) so haven’t had time to sit and type it out.
I am just interested in your opinions. I saw so many posts about his death and lauding him for being a “revolutionary”, a “leader of cultural and social movements of our time” and that he “advocated free speech, civil rights and sexual freedom”.
I was surprised so see so many women making comments saying “what an amazing man!”
“He was a legend! He lived the best life”
“RIP, he changed the world, it’s now a better place”
Personally, I think he opened the floodgates to porn as we know it. I believe he played a huge part in the sexualisation of women, encouraging men to view women as “play things” and pretty much telling the world we are to be valued on our looks and attitudes to sexual acts alone.
I know many women are fine with porn, and he definitely was a revolutionary in changing the social culture especially, but is what he did and the empire he created a good thing?
I was just surprised to see so many women acting as though he was a demi-god. I, personally think what he created was vile and mysoginistoc.
He published articles that many were afraid to, especially early into the magazine's life.
Do you have anything to back up your ideas of 'floodgates of porn as we know it' or 'the sexualisation of women'?
You understand that sex, sexuality, sexualisation and porn existed way before Playboy, right?
Rather than just thinking, spend some time reading or learning.
I'm with you op. There was a great little thread on this the other day. Here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3045637-To-not-understand-the-sanctification-of-Hugh-Hefner
He had dozens of women kept as prostitutes, some of whom were troubled teenagers of barely legal age, whom he insisted upon insinuating lesbian sex whilst other women had sex with him. He tried to make women mate with dogs for his own sexual gratification. I was going to write more but basically these two points alone, for me, point to how blatantly obvious it is that he did nothing for the liberation of women and absolutely did contribute to the sexualisation of us.
It's not by chance that he never dressed up with rabbit ears and a tail at his parties. Misogynistic creep. 100% agree OP.
Totally with you, OP (although I'd put it in terms of objectification and commercialisation of women's sexuality). There may be a few admirable things he did but you have to wade through a lot of exploitation, cruelty and entitlement to find them.
This sums it up well www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/opinion/hugh-hefner.html?_r=1
I disagree. I think he did an amazing amount for the black/white divide and by publishing articles and giving black Americans a voice when no other editor would.
I also think he made talking about sex and sexuality a lot more open and less taboo.
The women he lived with weren't held there against their will. They were free to leave if they chose to.
He is getting buried above Marlyn Munro facing her coffin. I have no problem with porn but that's disgusting 🤢
I don't think the porn industry is about any sort of healthy sexuality though. It's more an anti-sexuality and it's starting to cause huge problems with people brought up on it, in terms of how young men relate to young women.
That is hardly something to be celebrated.
"The women he lived with weren't held there against their will. They were free to leave if they chose to."
Traffickers say the same, so do men who use Prostitutes.
If he could have, he would have had a business in nude child pictures as well, it's just the public's reaction that put a stop to that.
People who knew him, said he changed from what he started out from, which isn't surprising.
I think he was a disgusting sleazy piece of shit, and I said so on the other thread.
Donkeypunch he made talking about sex and sexuality a lot more open and less taboo.
You mean he made talking about male sexuality a lot less taboo. Can't see anything he did for women's sexuality. Unless you think having to shag an old man for an allowance, be called pigs or dogs, fake lesbianism, or be fucked until you can't walk for mens entertainment is a good thing.
And yes I know he backed Roe vs Wade, and supported the availability of birth control. That's because it's really inconvenient when one's sexual playthings become pregnant and produce live children.
He is buried beside Marilyn Monroe not above. Some other sick bastard is buried above her (coffin facing down).
He really did not 'like' women at all.
Well basically he was a dirty old man wasn't he.
Disgusting old monster. Bllurgh - everything noeffingidea said.
I was a bit taken aback after his death to find out about the special edition with children, and the rape and child sexual abuse jokes in cartoons in the magazine.
As an english woman I never saw it.
The main people who will have seen it were american men over the decades, I don't remember them saying look this is awful. Which is a bit depressing.
No of course he did fuck all for women and I am confused by some of the adulation as well.
Didn't a 15 year old get raped at his mansion as well? I seem to remember something like that.
I think he despised and exploited women and encouraged other men to do the same. He really disgusted me.
The Marilyn Monroe thing is particularly disturbing, she despised him for what he did to her (google it if you weren't aware)
I'm amazed that any woman would think he was great, actually scrap that any person. My dh regarded him in exactly the same way as me, as a disgusting, sexually abusive, repugnant individual.
I read something that laid out how his publications deliberately blurred the lines between women, teens, children. Posing adult women with dolls, knee high socks, publishing pictures of sexualised 11 year olds, positioning pictures of the models when they were children / babies next to them naked.
The cartoon around child sexual abuse was just what the fuck.
The person who wrote the thing I read believed that he set out to blur these lines, to present younger girls as "fair game", to imply they had developed sexualities, to dress older women up like children and children up like older women and say to men, here, all of this is sexy, it's all here for you. I don't know whether he wanted to encourage hebephilia in the masses, to legitimise sexual abuse of children, or whether he just published what he and his friends were interested in. Either way it's fucking appalling.
I do wonder whether having young girls presented as sexually available / older women dressed as young girls / young looking, has any effect on men when they are presented with it over and over and over in their wanking material. Or were they just giving the public what they wanted. Neither option is good really is it.
I think his set up was disgusting but he didn't exist in a vacuum.
I think he helped nudge the porn industry along, but it's not all his fault. It existed before he did. Regardless he was a horrible man (based only on what I've read of course) with complete disregard to women. What he did to Marilyn Monroe is enough for me to think he was vile tbh.
He was a disgusting man who exploited women and girls reduced them to playthings for men he did publish articles in his magazine for men to read not women he probably didn't think women would appreciate or understand and that is before we get to the sex parties at the mansion,as I said disgusting man
Gloria Steinam went undercover at a Playboy club to expose how the women who worked there were treated.
How did the Marilyn grave situation come about? Is it that they're the "crypt in a wall" style resting places? (No idea of the technical term, sorry.) The kind where you essentially buy a pigeon hole?
As for women lauding sleaze. It happens. All the time.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.