To not understand the sanctification of Hugh Hefner?

[Yamayo]

So dirty old man dies.
This morning I woke up to dozens of tributes. Why??

He wasn't a visionary or a feminist. He played a huge part in creating the whole culture of casual sexism and misogyny of the world we live in.
And when you read accounts of life in his manor as described by his 'bunnies' it is quite frankly sickening.

Why his death treated with such respect?

I don't see them as tributes as much as obits on a historical figure.

He apparently started his Playboy magazine empire from his kitchen table, in the 50’s. I bet he did. One can only imagine the carrying on and exploitation of those startup years.

Good riddance. Grubby old bloke.

"The authors Hefner published in the 50s-70s reads like a whos who of the most important American writers of the period. Ray Bradbury published Fahrenheit 451 in Playboy before it went anywhere else. Some of the most important interviews with the like of Malcolm X and Dr Martin Luther King Jr. were in Playboy. No-one else had the courage to publish them."

And by publishing them a page-turn away from this month's bunny centerfold T&A shot, he also made damn sure that no woman read any of these important interviews and contributions to modern literature.

Oh, and for anyone who's interested, here's an excerpt from the Malcolm X Playboy interview (May 1963):

"PLAYBOY: What motives do you impute to PLAYBOY for providing you with this opportunity for the free discussion of your views?

MALCOLM X: I think you want to sell magazines. I've never seen a sincere white man, not when it comes to helping black people. Usually things like this are done by white people to benefit themselves. The white man's primary interest is not to elevate the thinking of black people, or to waken black people, or white people either. The white man is interested in the black man only to the extent that the black man is of use to him. The white man's interest is to make money, to exploit."

I don't think we should just see the one dimension of the dirty old man

Do you say the same about Jimmy Saville, Mummyoflittledragon?

Nobody is one-dimansional. Most people, even monsters, have done good things in their lifetime. But when they have also contributed materially to the normalisation of harm against half the planet, I don't expect those good things to lead the obits.

Publishing serious articles written by men whilst literally reducing women to pets isn't acceptable IMO

Hang on. These women had a choice and were well paid. Like respectable lap dancing bars today, you may not like them, but where a woman has a proactive choice then that’s her right, even if you dislike her choice. Many ex bunnies are very proud of what they did and their time as a bunny.

Do not denigrate them by making out they were idiotic victims with no voice or choice. They were not.

Anna
Unless I'm missing something, HH didn't molest little girls, did he?

I don't think bunnies were "idiotic victims". I think they were living in a world in which women usually have fewer, and worse, choices than men, and they chose a path that they thought might, eventually get them into a better position, however unpleasant the journey was.

Doesn't make a jot of difference in how I feel about Hefner actively exploiting that, and making it worse, though.

Mummyoflittledragon not that I know of (although usually just above). However, he was Bill Cosby's bestie, and made no bones about using the same rape-drug as Cosby allegedly did.

See, for example: www.thesuperficial.com/hugh-hefner-quaaludes-bill-cosby-rape-holly-madison-book-06-2015

I agree with the people are multi-dimensional aspect.

Playboy also printed lots of brilliant short stories, by now famous writers. I think there is a book called The Playboy Book of Short Stories if anyone into literature.

Debbie Harry was a Playboy bunny in the 70s I believe and around that time I think bunnies were fun, it was all a bit innocent to be honest.

I think this is very different from the porn today, much of it vile. Playboy did go down that route to some extent later, unfortunately, but even then it was never as unpleasant and vile and alot of porn around today.

I think he did become a ridciulous figure in his old age, I am sure the Mansion was an increasingly strange and unpleasant place as people have commented. He was part of the culture that over-emphasised sexuality and this is the down-side of his legacy. But the bunny girls themselves were sweet enough in my view, at least at the beginning.

On hearing"the news" my first thought was " small loss"!
He was a sex pest and, yes a letch, so of no benefit to mankind whatsoever.But he was able to become a multimillionaire on the proceeds of vice, funny old world this!

I think they were living in a world in which women usually have fewer, and worse, choices than men, and they chose a path that they thought might, eventually get them into a better position, however unpleasant the journey was

But that’s the thing, you think it was unpleasant. Most of the ones who did it didn’t think that. As such it’s their account that matters, not yours. We are all different and as women we should respect each other’s choices, not insult these women and liken them to pets or tell them their lives were unpleasant, when they feel otherwise. You do them a disservice.

There's a difference between a human trafficker and Playboy. As a PP said, there were / are queues of women who willingly want to wear a bunny tail and ears. Exploitation means taking advantage of someone, not "things you personally find distasteful".

by publishing them a page-turn away from this month's bunny centerfold T&A shot, he also made damn sure that no woman read any of these important interviews and contributions to modern literature.

Why? Women are not allergic to nude pictures of other women.

But that’s the thing, you think it was unpleasant. Most of the ones who did it didn’t think that. As such it’s their account that matters, not yours. We are all different and as women we should respect each other’s choices, not insult these women and liken them to pets or tell them their lives were unpleasant, when they feel otherwise. You do them a disservice.

This.

Whilst I agree he did support anti-racist movements in the USA - one of my students did an EPQ on him some years ago. Really interesting

Agreed ^^. A lot of women were able to afford going to college (uni), buy houses, cars and support themselves off the back of it. I certainly don't begrudge them that in the slightest.

So great, Onion, that his bunnies - most of whom were not lesbians or even bi - were instructed to fake "lesbian sex" in pairs as a backdrop to whenever he fucked one of their number.

Nobody is perfect.

I also suspect the porn he got commercially involved in in later years was a lot more suspect.

Bluntness, Distance, do you really think they were having a good time, and didn't think it at all unpleasant? Maybe you should read what some of his "girlfriends" have written.

Eg this links (and quotes) some: jezebel.com/5719019/but-hef-what-about-holly-madison

Well my news feed had one mention the creep died where he was called slobbery.

He was an interesting guy who has played a large role in (attempting) to eradicate hate and judgement.
As for his 'pets'...they made a choice. Are we implying their were too stupid to know what they were doing? Dumb blondes? No, of course they weren't. Don't be so judgemental!
You can't possibly compare him to Saville.

I am confused.

Why does criticism of dirty old men who exploit women always get interpreted as criticism of the women and their "choices"?

"...not insult these women and liken them to pets"
I haven't seen anyone on this thread describe those women as pets. I did see a pp suggest the HH treated women as pets. Which is not the same.

When we are unable to criticise a rich, influential person for the way they portray and treat women for the sake of "respecting those women's choices" then I think we will be doing all women a disservice.

Holly Madison turned yes, but she was not just a bunny was she, and she took what she could from that, financially.and wrote what would sell. The discussion was about the wider bunny girl phenonemen. And yes, overall that feedback has been positive.

"Why? Women are not allergic to nude pictures of other women."

Right, so in 1963 the average American woman would just stroll into a newsagents and pick up a copy of Playboy for the Bradbury installment. That sounds eminently plausible. Women are not "allergic to nude pictures of other women", but they can generally tell the difference between "nude pictures" and wankfodder. Publishing sexualised pictures of women does not turn a magazine into anti-woman kryptonite, but it does send women a very clear message: None of this is for you.

do you really think they were having a good time, and didn't think it at all unpleasant?

I don't know. Do you think factory workers, or people who unclog toilets and septic tanks for a living find it pleasant?

It was their free choice. That's the point.