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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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-...

He championed civil and gay rights.

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).

I guess nice of him to meet the lowest bar.

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

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.

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.

Well said.

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 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