
Speaking Ill of Hugh Hefner - Firebrand
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/opinion/hugh-hefner.html
======
wallace_f
>But in every way that mattered he made those changes worse, our culture
coarser and crueler and more sterile

I know that this is a political and personal, but hope this article and topic
does not get shunned as yet another politically incorrect crime of thought.

There is something about culture that is at least approaching a resemblance to
science: it is inescapable that cultures evolved alongside people over
thousands of years as not just individuals, but groups competed for resources
to survive. Therefore, our cultures--including ethics and morals--are not just
incidental to random variables, but the product of the competition and very
bluntly the deaths of untold numbers of people.

Since The Enlightenment and subsequent developments in Western ideology such
as The Age of Reason, major aspects of status quo Western culture such as god-
fearing Christianity have been tossed out as unreasonable. But there is maybe
something to be careful about here. We are not as rational as we believe. Even
scientists, even the greatest scientist ever, Newton, was a devoted Christian
who spent countless hours studying and publishing secret messages in the
Bible.

I'm not saying we should be Christians, but perhaps there were certain aspects
of organized religion that were productive and the baby is now being thrown
out with the bath water. If we are not rational, perhaps there is value in,
for the time being, balancing logical reasoning with traditional culture.
Right now it feels liberalism has us rethinking and reshaping everything.

For me personally, I am not afraid to say porn was an unredeemable and
destructive vice in my life. It cultivated low self confidence in myself, and
objectified and over-sexuaized women in my mind. I am glad to be away from
that now.

I don't think it is government's role to restrict personal liberties either:
if it works for you and everyone else involved, that's none of my business.
But culture could help guide us with this kind of thing.

After seeing some recent Bill Nye and Adam Savage productions, this growing
theme of sexualizing children's minds in particular is why I want to start a
conversation. See NSFW:
[https://m.imgur.com/26YWvus](https://m.imgur.com/26YWvus)

~~~
ralfn
Two thoughts immediately cross my mind. 1. You are not European, but more
likely American. And 2. You didn't get the raw uncensored version of history.

Show me a temple, a Playboy mansion or a church. And I'll show you a place
whose sole purpose is sexual abuse.

In Europe we've had to deconstruct organised religion not because it was so
different from the Playboy Mansion, but because it was the same. A scam of
power to enable sexual abuse.

When Bill Clinton had sex with a young intern the question some people had was
'why would he jepordize his career for sex with a young girl?'. Whereas the
honest question would be the reverse: 'why would he have ambition to become
president if he couldn't?'

The understanding of just how we are repressed by our own evolution is not
making things worse -- just less hidden.

We no longer sell a 12 year to an adult for ownership/sexual-abuse/marriage in
a legal contract overseen by the Church.

The world is actually a better place now. Not because everything is okidoki
right now, but because the power structures of the past were not as glamorous
or sinfree as you may seem to think. At the height of Christianity in the
Roman empire having a little boy to abuse was the default.

Seriously, Hugh Heffner, although not very interesting isn't anywhere near the
perversion of organized religion.

~~~
aswanson
Im an athestic/agnostic American. I think you are missing the gist of what the
GP is saying. Abuses aside (which will happen in any institution with humans
and power assymmetry), the aspirations of these beliefs were motivational,
socially constructive foundations for mass culture. To immediately dismiss all
of why they were so powerful and prevalent in the first place could have
unpredicted negative consequence.

~~~
moomin
I think there's something to both sides here. I often think this is the
fundamental issue that America faces: does it want to be the country it was
for the last 400 years, or the country it told itself it was?

AFAICT most of American politics is explainable through that prism.

~~~
aaron-lebo
I feel like part of the issue is there's not an either/or or a before/after.
There's not the past and then progress, it's a long continual climb. There's
also not the country the US told itself it was and then the country it was;
the US for the entirety of its history was both a progressive, positive force
for good in the world and ahead of other countries in some aspects, while
being backwards and evil in others.

For example, in 1945 while the US was helping Europe to liberate itself from
the Nazis, segregation and Jim Crow laws were still in effect back home. So we
have a very difficult task of trying to sort through the past and figure out
what "American" qualities are good and worth keeping, and which are negative
and worth throwing away.

Progress isn't inherently good, we've got this dichotomy in the US where some
people are like fuck it let's just throw everything at the wall and we'll
assume that's for the better vs things are pretty good so we shouldn't do
anything at all. Both are tribal and not really realistic.

------
k__
Women I talked to said that he indeed normalise stuff that was considered
immoral or perverse.

But on the cost of objectification of women.

Most of the people who profited were men.

The objectification is so ingrained that even people who do pornography on
their own do mostly the "sexy women with some guy" stuff. Even stuff with
domina's is mostly focused on the women being sexy and some dude.

Sexy dudes are mostly a thing in gay porn, that's why women often watch it.

Also, pornographic literature isn't valued the same as pornography. People are
saying that every one watches porn and it's okay, but it's considered strange
vor funny when people, especially women, read this stuff.

------
pmarreck
You know, right after I heard he died I googled "Hugh Hefner" (literally, just
that) and saw dozens of nice things being said about him from people in
articles and tweets- he launched my career, he was always super nice, etc.
Here he's calling for aid/donations:
[https://twitter.com/hughhefner/status/910213546977439746?ref...](https://twitter.com/hughhefner/status/910213546977439746?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)

And then you juxtapose it with pieces like this, and you have to wonder: Is it
possible to speak this well, or this ill, of almost _anyone_?

They say Hugh Hefner had no love for women... perhaps he just loved them too
much.

EDIT: Downvoting merely for disagreement? Not classy.

~~~
exelius
I would just say that like any celebrity, there is Hugh Hefner the celebrity
pimp and Hugh Hefner the man. In public, he literally _was_ the Playboy brand.
He had to be seen living this “man of leisure” lifestyle that looks so tacky
today, but he provided an alternate version of healthy sexuality at a time
when American couples often slept in separate beds.

He had to be that character in public; he was sellin a lifestyle and this
article roasts his public persona. Rightfully so; he was 92 years old and when
the revolution he started in his 30s became part of the patriarchy, and so did
he. For his time, he was pretty progressive — but his time is long over.

From all accounts the private Hugh Hefner was a generous man who didn’t really
live up to the stories of how wild he was (not that he was going to correct
anyone!) He maintained good relationships with most of his many exes after
they broke up, and was a real father figure to a lot of these girls long after
they stopped working for him (despite how creepy that is with the sexual
aspect). He was an early public supporter of gay rights; long before it was
popular.

But he’s one of those guys whose time is over. I’m glad for his contributions
to society, they were a link in the chain of progressivism that brought us to
we’re we are. But I’m also glad his time is over, because we as a society have
moved on.

~~~
pmarreck
This seems like a lot more balanced assessment of the guy than the original
article, which seems almost entirely fueled by toxic vitriol

~~~
exelius
The world is never black-and-white. It’s unfair to judge a man on how we
interpret him at the end of his life. He came from a time when “consent”
wasn’t really a concept a lot of men understood. He more than anyone helped to
normalize human sexuality as a natural part of life in the US.

------
Jun8
I felt compelled to make two points faced with a piece like this:

1\. You may agree or disagree with Douthat's premise but the general tone of
the article is almost hysterical and has the quality of a freshmen Op Ed piece
in a college daily. You may care less about Hefner but personally I see this
as part of a pattern of extremism in expression that has taken hold of the NYT
recently, I cancelled my longstanding membership a couple of months ago.

2\. If you want to form a balanced opinion about Playboy's role (and Hefner's,
by proxy since he was so influential) for good or ill in affecting women's
liberation movement and general culture, in addition to reading opiniated
OpEds like ([https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/sunday/hugh-
hefne...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/sunday/hugh-
hefner.html?_r=0)) also consult the other side, one book I would recommend
*The Century of Sex" by James Petersen ([https://www.amazon.com/Century-Sex-
Playboys-Revolution-1900-...](https://www.amazon.com/Century-Sex-Playboys-
Revolution-1900-1999/dp/B000OV16OE)). For example, the storefront that Susan
Brownmiller opened in Times Square in 1979 to educate women about pornography.
The radical stance of one wing of the feminism movement against pornography is
well-known (e.g. see [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/10/the-space-
in-b...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/10/the-space-in-between)).

------
dreta
Articles by fedora-tipping allies gracing us with their superior moral values
while providing biting commentary on current pop-culture events is exactly why
i visit Hacker News.

------
RickJWag
Lotta truth in that article.

The author smeared Hef with the same brush used to dabble a little on Cosby,
Trump and Clinton. You've got to admire that-- fair and balanced.

------
totalZero
I suppose respect for the deceased has gone out of style.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
If one wants to be respected after death, lead such a life. Otherwise, one
should expect this stuff to be written after one's death. I don't see any
reason to gloss over things just because someone has died. I wouldn't bring
this sort of thing up at his funeral, however, but that isn't out of respect
for the deceased - since they aren't alive to take offense or anything. It is
more being kind to the friends and family that is there. I'm gonna guess a few
were glad he was dead, just wouldn't admit it.

I only agree with a few points in the article myself, but I understand how
such a viewpoint can be written. Folks said such things before he died as
well. Only seems natural to have this now.

~~~
totalZero
The way I see it, one's comments about another immediately after his passing
are as much a reflection of one's own character as they are an opinion about
the deceased.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Sure. I have no respect for someone just because they happen to have died, and
am honest about it. Dead folks can't take offense, and I think the family
members and friends should have the frame of mind to be honest about he
deceased life. That's it.

It isn't like the respect is universal. A mass murder dies? It's quite alright
to bring up his/her crimes. Serial rapist? Sure, it'll be brought up. Open
racism? Yup, it'll probably be reported. Few complain. (I do not believe Hugh
was on the level of these folks. Man wasn't perfect, though).

------
moomin
100\. It would be a very bad idea to call for a Speaker for the Dead for
Hefner.

