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.
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.
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..
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.)
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.
Philosophically, doesn't that require society to give up clothing?
It seems the more enlightened we become, the more repressed we are.
If you still categorize someone that enjoys the female form as "dirty" then maybe we haven't made much progress at all.
> 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".
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.
You can respect women and realize the porn industry is lousy with abuse at the same time.
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.
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.
Honestly I just don't want my name attached to a frank description of what sorts of things happened.
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.
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.