Hugh Hefner's wasted life

Blame it on the Pepsi-Cola, which apparently was all or most of what he drank. ;-)

Old age is a cruel joke for many people and their children.

But cheer up! According to a National Geographic special on the body and aging, you and I began getting old in or after we left our twenties, so we're already in "old age" - and so-called "old age" is merely the tailspin on a plane that has already lost all its fuel.

A life that single handedly changed the world and caused traditionalists to commit cultural hari kari can be called many things, but wasted is hardly one of them.

Bob and Jaybird, tweedle-dumbass and tweedle-dumberass, Reagan and the old Baptists had Alzheimer's. Hefner's just a dissolute old reprobate. Big difference in any normal person's book.

You reap what you sow. The things of this world don't last forever.

Is Hefner that different from the many--judging by the magazine rack at the local chain bookshop--who aspire to a "resort lifestyle" in their daily lives? The fatuousness of that wish--or Hefner's, which seems related, but more retro-sybaritic--is amazing.

But there are lots of apparently smart people who aspire to what to me seems like a form of living death. People are weird; or maybe they're normal, and I'm weird!

Rob G: You know what Nancy Davis was known for in Hollywood before she married Ronnie, right?

"You know what Nancy Davis was known for in Hollywood before she married Ronnie, right?"

No, and I'm a little afraid to find out. By the way, forgive my testiness, but both my grandmother and my mother died with senile dementia-related issues, and neither death was pretty. Touchy subject, etc.

Old Hef may be a doddering old man, but there's no denying that Playboy magazine, in its glory days in the sixties and early seventies, had an abundance of good literature and interviews. My mother was a university English professor at the time and her department used to subscribe to Playboy along with all the scholarly journals. But the best thing (okay, second best thing) for me about Playboy were the gloriously creepy Gahan Wilson cartoons.

"Old Hef may be a doddering old man, but there's no denying that Playboy magazine, in its glory days in the sixties and early seventies, had an abundance of good literature and interviews. My mother was a university English professor at the time and her department used to subscribe to Playboy along with all the scholarly journals. But the best thing (okay, second best thing) for me about Playboy were the gloriously creepy Gahan Wilson cartoons."

A local studio where my band records keeps a bunch of vintage Playboys from the 60s and early 70s in the magazine rack. They're pretty awesome - even the ads were cool and funny. It must have been a great time to be a young single guy. I was born too late.

1. I think the Playboy empire was built on the exploitation of women, and fosters a way of thinking that is harmful to us. So I'm no fan of Hefner. However, I don't see Playboy and the right wing as opposites. To the extent they differ, they're flip sides of the same coin, different sales territories of the same firm. Both have their ways of possessing and disrespecting women.

2. That said, to mock an old man because he farts is a pretty low level of discourse. My father has farted loudly and without apology his whole life. Maybe it's a German thing. My mother's only response was to mutter "Who let the buffalo out in here?"

3. Rod, you did say you read the article, did you not? Marston Hefner was active in a student Human Rights organization, plans to go to Wesleyan, respects his mother, wants a girlfriend he can talk to and dislikes breast implants. On what grounds do you judge him a "simpleton"? Shall we get GQ to do a photo of you, and then take a vote on your intelligence based on whether some columnist feels that you have "empty eyes"? Come on. That's hardly fair.

Why use the son to attack the father in the first place? Why not go after Hefner's ideas directly if that's what you dislike? Those who brought up Reagan made a good point. Based on his children, would Reagan be judged as a success by conservatives? Of course, if Hefner's son doesn't display wild enthusiasm about his father, that proves Hefner is no good. If Reagan's son doesn't display wild enthusiasm for his father . . . [kaff kaff kaff, kids today er hmmm] . . . I guess that would prove that the son is no good. Could we strive for a little consistency and fairness here?

Sigalins is right on all three points here. I have nought to add.

This thread makes me think of my favorite line from the movie "Cats and Dogs"

The alpha dogs says "Humans are a primitive species who can't even take responsibility for their own farts"

Another dog breaks wind, raises its paw and says "Guilty"

I think the overall point Rod is trying to make is that here's a guy held up by our culture as someone who lived the good life. A lifestyle to which every guy should aspire (at least according to Hef's magazine) and here he is in old age and he doesn't appear to know much about his kids. Yeah, so he created a magazine that was cool and original three decades ago. But what has he done with his wealth and fame? Did he put it to good use beyond living the high life? The measure of one’s life isn’t about the impact one has one society (remembering that “impact” can be either positive or negative), but how one loves and cares for their community. As a Christian, it’s about how you reflect Christ’s love to the people around you.

This story isn’t sad because he’s old or because he farts; it’s sad because here’s an innovative man with vast wealth and fame, who lived a lavish life, and has little to show for it all. He doesn’t seem to know much about his own children. It’s sad.

That being said, this commentary from the Atlantic (Jan/Feb 07) comparing the classic Playboy to what passes for men's magazines today is great. I've read it multiple times and always get a laugh from it. I highly recommend it!
www dot theatlantic dot com/doc/200701/girly-mags

But, yeah... those magazines were pretty awesome, Jaybird. And don't worry about having been "born too late." You are the lucky beneficiary of everything Hef and his kind stood for, and are free to live exactly as you please, with no silly "rules" and no judgment by society. Carpe diem, man.

Well, I was a bitter, sexless Gen-Xer. When I was in my late teens and early 20s, the AIDS panic was in full-bloom, and the whole free-love thing dried up pretty quick. On the other hand, I'm way too old for the Gen-Y affinity for oral sex as a gettin'-to-know-you formality. So I was pretty much born in the worst possible time frame for that sort of thing either way. :(

Well said Bill.

Dated a Playboy bunny for a short while in my youth. Taught me the meaning of "dumb as a box of rocks". In retrospect, one of the best things I ever did since it made me value women with brains who could string complete sentences together.

In retrospect, I think Hef was probably following the culture more than he was leading it. He was really a businessman and not a philosopher or great intellectual. Sex sells in this country. When norms changed in the 60's he merely jumped in and took advantage. He marketed successfully to men and women, maybe more to women in some ways.

Hef is an easy target for right wing writers. But, how many people lived in mansions with multiple beautiful girl friends? Very few. His legacy lies in his marketing, which has been wholely appropriated by nearly all of business. If you want to rail at Hef, then you ought to go rail at those companies using young teens in sexually provocative poses to sell hair products or cheerleaders in skimpy outfits at football games.

Steve

2 Timothy 3:4 says that in the end times men will be "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." The guy who really tapped into that trend was Hugh Hefner. There is no question he was the most influential American philosopher of the twentieth century. You may object to that assertion claiming his so-called philosophy was too simplistic to be placed against real philosophers. But, in terms of people influenced by any opinion, he was the king!

I remember when his Playboy Philosophy was published. It ran but for a short while, but for two to three years afterward there were commentaries and reactions to Hefner's "masterpiece." There were numerous clergymen who chimed in their support of Hefner, always ready to toss Christian values under the bus. We always thought these were the guys who enrolled in seminary only to avoid the Vietnam war draft.

Dated a Playboy bunny for a short while in my youth. Taught me the meaning of "dumb as a box of rocks". In retrospect, one of the best things I ever did since it made me value women with brains who could string complete sentences together.

In retrospect, I think Hef was probably following the culture more than he was leading it. He was really a businessman and not a philosopher or great intellectual. Sex sells in this country. When norms changed in the 60's he merely jumped in and took advantage. He marketed successfully to men and women, maybe more to women in some ways.

Hef is an easy target for right wing writers. But, how many people lived in mansions with multiple beautiful girl friends? Very few. His legacy lies in his marketing, which has been wholely appropriated by nearly all of business. If you want to rail at Hef, then you ought to go rail at those companies using young teens in sexually provocative poses to sell hair products or cheerleaders in skimpy outfits at football games.

Steve

Ah Rod, it's a shame about that guy.

Always afraid the world's going to end, always afraid that his own little set of values and beliefs from the past are going to be eclipsed by the brighter, more powerful ideas of the future.

Watch him run from church to church, each more hide-bound, more patriarchal, more terrified of the world than the next. Imagine his limited sex life, trapped with only one woman and burdened with all sorts of fear and guilt about "appropriate" vs. "inappropriate" sexual behaviors.

See him homeschooling his kids, insuring that his own phobias and weaknesses are carried forward into another generation, creating children that will be even more incapable than he is of coping with a changing world. See him actually DECRY Enlightenment values, which, along with science, have given more to the world than religion ever has.

It's a shame, because he's clearly a bright and creative man, who could have made so much more of himself. What a wasted life.

In point of fact, I don't see Rod's life as wasted anymore than Hef's. Each had differing values, each gained some outcome, each bears some loss. I imagine there are points of Hef's life that he's thrilled with, and others he looks back on with regret. The same will be able to be said of all of us. From reading the article, Hef's kid clearly has some differing viewpoints from dad, which is normal and healthy.

Judging another person's life by your own values is always fraught with peril. Frankly, something like 80% of all human lives sound horrible to me, but the people living them are often quite happy, fulfilled, and find meaning in their existance. I can accept that, even if I find their outcomes lacking by my standards.

As to Rob G., the Right worldwide has done far more to oppress woman than the Left ever has. Right wing organizations that suppress women are simply too numerous to detail: every form of fundamentalism and most every form of nationalism come quickly to mind. Christ himself railed against the patriarchal family structure of his day, with the man's complete ability to dominate or even destroy his wife and children at will. Many of the early Christian women chose a virginal life, and the Christian way, in part BECAUSE it got them out from under the dire hardship of being part of the classical Roman family codes.

Both sides of course have found ways to abuse and exploit women. But the Right has had far more time, and far more practice at perfecting the task.

I'll take Ron Jeremy and Hugh Hefner over Warren Jeffs, the Taliban, the Salem Witch Trials, and the Inquisition any day. At least Ron and Hef gave them some choice.

And how many 82 year old guys want their entire life judged by one episode at this point in their life? And how many 82 year old, pajam-ed guys shuffling to their living room can also be going to their son's high school graduation?

Yes, Hefner did live a life quite in opposition to both the liberal and the conservative perspectives. But then it might be worth examining what his perspective was? Othr thn commercial, where was his philosophical house? Did he live only in the mansions of Bacchus or did he, and his company/corporation, find other places to reside? Fifty plus years of articles (not everyone only looked at the sideways, three panel photos) and editorializing may give a very different view of the man. His legacy was both a reflection of our culture as well as one of a multitude of sculptures of our culture.

When Hefner appeared in an episode of "Shark" he was asked by the title character, "How great is it to be you", Hefner replied, "It doesn't suck!"

The provenience of flatulence is not restricted to the colic eruptions of those in second childhood:

Au clair de la lune,
j'ai pété dans l'eau.
ça faisait des bulles,
c'était rigolo!
Ma grand-mère arrive
avec un grand couteau,
elle me coupe les fesses,
en dix mille morceaux.

Perhaps Hef would have turned out better had his grandmother taken a carving knife to his ass.

As for Hef's thinking he single-handedly (so to speak) brought off the sexual revolution, well, that old French bon mot says it all: il pète plus haut que son cul (he farts higher than his arse.

I meant to say I agree with JPL (not Bob) about prefering Hef to Warren Jeffs, etc.

Poor, poor JPL ... what a wasted life. Despite the promise of that "brighter" future with more "powerful" ideas that's always around the corner to distract us from our actual lives in the here and now, JPL is so fearful that there might in fact be a God and that life might in fact have a meaning other than wacking his actual or figurative weed, that he spends his days hectoring the com-box of a blogger with whom he has no intellectual affinity, all so he can silence that nagging voice at the bottom of his heart that whispers "God is real. God is real. God is real."

Well, I suppose your God would have to talk to people in quiet voices in their "hearts" -- He certainly hasn't seen fit to leave the first shred of evidence of his existence anywhere in the observable world. Funny, that. Tell me, Rudy, what other things do the voices only you can hear tell you?

*I think you need to do some homework as well, since your caricature version of what you claim as "feminism" is unrecognizable to any feminist.*

Sig, I presented no 'version' of feminism at all; I simply said that it bought into the sexual revolution, which it did.

Silly Rudolpho, I'm completely certain that God is real. I just don't think your vision of him is very accurate. Maybe you shouldn't ignore the voice in your own head whispering "Everyone doesn't think like me, everyone doesn't think like me, everyone doesn't think like me." It's created by your own juvenile need to have others approve of your beliefs, so that in herd fashion you can believe you're right through the power of social proof. Read up on it...it turns out there are many ideas of God, and not all agree with your own narrow, little interpretation.

As to hectoring the comboxes, I think the numerous posts in agreement with me above indicate that even here, there are more than a few kindred minds. It seems many conservatives, particularly here, would prefer the echo chamber effect of only speaking to people who agree with them, preaching to the choice. I'm not afraid of discourse with people who think differently. I even gain something from it. The problem, Rudolpho, with believing that you already have the One Word of Truth, and know All the Answers, is that there's nothing left for you to learn. I'm never in that position.

As to Rob's chapter and verse. Well...

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, as well as his own life, he can't be my disciple."

When asked if a man should return to bury his father before becoming a disciplie "But he told him, "Let the dead bury their own dead. But you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

He told Martha to leave Mary be, when she was hectoring Mary to fulfill the expected role of a woman in her culture. His treatment of women was exception, having unmarried women travel with him, in defiance of all social culture. He himself was unmarried, again in defiance of social culture. He spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, an act which shocked even his disciples. He encouraged children to come to him, whereas social custom in his day would have shooed them away. (The modern idea that children were precious wonders was scarce in the ancient world. Children were small, ill-trained mouths to feed, and seen as economic benefits or detriments to a family. They were not well treated, as a whole. Read some contemporary Roman writers and this is easily discernable.) Many of his words to his own mother have a harsh ring to thing. "Woman, what is that to me?" His own father is never mentioned after the nativity and early years stories. When he speaks of a father, it's never of Joseph. There was a strong early female leadership evident in the Church. We see Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister, travelling as missionaries. For the most part, the only independently wealthy women in that day were single women, who inherited from parents or dead husbands, although Prisca was married to a Christian husband, who worked with her.

The Roman familial structure was famous for its patriarchal dominance and cruelty. The paterfamilias had the absolute right to execute children or wive on almost any pretense at all. This structure greatly, greatly limited people's opportunities for spiritual, mental and economic growth. The vast bulk of New Testament scholarship agrees that the early Christians were a countercultural movement, and outspoken against the abuses of the Roman family codes. As time passed, the radical nature of those teaching were too offensive, and they were tamed. Hence, by the time we come to the latter-period of the Pastoral Epistles, pseudo-Paul is now reinforcing the very rules opposed by the early Church. It was all part of Christianity's slow, sad surrender to the forces of empire and culture, as it became the offical faith of the very empire that slaughtered their savior.

All this aside, I restate that I don't really feel anything bad about Rod's lifestyle choices. They're just not for me. I'm glad they make him happy. I feel the same way about Hef. Both have made some decisions that I wouldn't, and that they will doubtless look back on with some regret, but the same can be said of all of us.

Rod, it seems obvious that you are repulsed by him, and his lifestyle. I would probably agree that Hef's lifestyle is somewhat repulsive. But it's possible that his children don't see him as repulsive -- they might even love him, hard as that may be to believe.

We don't know everything about this family, just because much of Hef's life has been lived in public. I would have to say that what I find grotesque about him is his perpetuation of his image as the silk-pajama-wearing, pipe-smoking chick-magnet, well beyond the age when that image has any appeal, and it seems like self-caricature. But, the same could be said for the Rolling Stones.

If my mother, the same age as Hef, can't control a fart and lets'er rip, her grandchildren (and adult children) giggle and aim at barking spiders. And still explain to the littlest ones that no, they have to do their best to control themselves and always say excuse me. We grow up and help an aged parent and see them naked and joke while being gentle and compassionate. It's all love, family love.

But perpetual adolescent Hef, poor destructive Hef, is not at home with his family; he's being interviewed and is regarded and regards himself as a prime social force for stylish sexual freedom. All around him are naked chests in photos and uncontrolled bodily functions. That's not love, that's a faked intimacy that's unconnected to any real life of love. That's why it's so ironic and unsettling.

Alicia and JPL -
Thankfully we don't have to choose between Hef and the Taliban. As you've probably realized, it's not an either/or situation. There's nothing wrong with one commenting that he or she finds another person's lifestyle choices sad. Saying "I prefer him to " doesn't really say very much.

This is how my previous post should have read. The blog didn't like my brackets.

Alicia and JPL -
Thankfully we don't have to choose between Hef and the Taliban. As you've probably realized, it's not an either/or situation. There's nothing wrong with one commenting that he or she finds another person's lifestyle choices sad. Saying "I prefer him to (insert name of really bad person here)" doesn't really say very much.

The Roman familial structure was famous for its patriarchal dominance and cruelty. The paterfamilias had the absolute right to execute children or wive on almost any pretense at all. This structure greatly, greatly limited people's opportunities for spiritual, mental and economic growth. The vast bulk of New Testament scholarship agrees that the early Christians were a countercultural movement, and outspoken against the abuses of the Roman family codes. As time passed, the radical nature of those teaching were too offensive, and they were tamed. Hence, by the time we come to the latter-period of the Pastoral Epistles, pseudo-Paul is now reinforcing the very rules opposed by the early Church. It was all part of Christianity's slow, sad surrender to the forces of empire and culture, as it became the offical faith of the very empire that slaughtered their savior.

Where to begin? There are huge problems with the analysis.

First, it's proof-texting from the scriptures and cherry picking from the history and scholarship.

Starting with the fact that the post-Pauline Christian paterfamilias was never anything like the pagan version. Ever. Which is why, as Rodney Stark pointed out, Roman men who wanted to get married from the mid-third century onward increasingly found themselves having to go with Christian wives. Why? Because Christian fathers wouldn't have dreamed of dumping their infant daughters down the sewer pipe, radically shifting the demographics. Thus, hinting that post-apostolic Christians merely dressed up the old Roman household codes with a cross is offensive. The much despised by moderns passage in Ephesians on husbands and wives is a deliberate counter to the pagan household code, and would have made a pagan convert husband very uncomfortable. As it still should any Christian husband.

Speaking of which, your assessment of Jesus as revolutionary is correct, but not simply on the grounds you cite. There are also his teachings on marriage, reinforced as they were by the undisputed writings of Paul. The Christian family model was (and is again) countercultural. And we can't blame Constantine I for the weakening of that.

Like I said: a wasted life.
Posted by: Rod Dreher | May 29, 2008 1:56 PM

Let's assume that Mr. Hefner disagrees with you. In that case, who is more likely to be correct, Rod looking in from the outside, or Hefner having lived it?

Or is it simply a matter of taste?

Marion, that's terrific! :)

The replacement of N.G. with P. is also the reason so many men have an unrealistic idea of what their wives should look like; N.G. may have shown nekkid women, but a fair number of them were nekkid women approaching 40 who'd been pregnant eight or so times and nursed at least six infants, and had the body fat, stretch marks and--er, sag--to prove it. Unlike the Playboy bimbos, who simply took a Barbie doll to the plastic surgeon's office and said, "This is what I want to look like!"

Good point, Erin. As I myself start looking more and more like a NG centerfold, I can appreciate that. But then I am also nostalgic for the Victorian era in which any woman over 40 could get a reputation as a raving beauty for having a concave waistline, all her own teeth, and no visible marks and scars.

The replacement of N.G. with P. is also the reason so many men have an unrealistic idea of what their wives should look like; N.G. may have shown nekkid women, but a fair number of them were nekkid women approaching 40 who'd been pregnant eight or so times and nursed at least six infants, and had the body fat, stretch marks and--er, sag--to prove it. Unlike the Playboy bimbos, who simply took a Barbie doll to the plastic surgeon's office and said, "This is what I want to look like!"

I *KNEW* that was the problem!!! Doggone it ... I had the wrong porn as a boy ...

Truthfully Dale, I didn't mean to imply that the post-Christian paterfamilias was the same as the early pagan one. I was speaking specifically of the paterfamilias as he existed during Christ's life, and immediately after his death. I don't believe that can be reasonably considered "post-Christian", since obviously Christianity took time to affect the culture around it. Of course, the post-Christian paterfamilias was somewhat better. But by no means completely so. Christianity bent towards society..society bent back. The distinctions between Paul's earlier writings, where a very large element of equality for women was indicated, to the latter writings of "I don't permit a woman to speak in church", there clearly was an evolution away from the earlier, more egalitarian position.

I would also agree that Jesus' teachings on marriage were revolutionary, and countercultural. But they were softened almost immediately after he was gone. Hence the variation in the gospel texts where in one text, he simply forbids divorce entirely, and in the other, he forbids it save in the case of adultery. Many scholars see that as a later softening of the "Q" materials unequivocable denial of divorce. But, in either case, it clearly was revolutionary compared to the existent Jewish model at the time, which allowed easy divorce with all power in the male hands.

Frankly, I don't see that much difference in our positions. My comment was in response to a request to offer some spiritual proof that Christ railed against the existing paterfamilias system of his day. Unless I'm misreading you, you are in substantial agreement with that analysis. We seem to have some disagreement on how strongly that model influenced later Christian culture, which although a worthy topic, is a different one.

Plus if his ending up doddering and odd like everyone else serves as an example to men everywhere warning them to stop acting like a teenager pretty soon after you're no longer a teenager (I'd say 22 at the max) lest you look like a joke, then perhaps his life served a purpose no?

For example, I'm young and I've watched "Girls Next Door" and after an episode found myself saying "no thanks." Perhaps his son has had the same reaction.

"Sig, I presented no 'version' of feminism at all; I simply said that it bought into the sexual revolution, which it did."

Rob G.

You obviously missed the episode of the talk show where I believe it was Susan Brownmiller practically kicked Hefner's ass and said that he ought to try putting on a bunny tail see how he liked it.

You really don't know what you're talking about. It was the feminist movement that created the movement against rape and sexual violence in this country. How is that "buying into the sexual revolution?"

John, rape and violence towards women is as common as a computer. The new feminist movement today is making billions on the rape and degradation of women. Thanks exclusively to Hefner and his legion of porn followers. Hefner's legacy will be the insult on women that took his lead and followed his example into promiscuity and degradation. Now, being a porn star is a cool thing for girls to be, T-Shirts and all. What a victory for men everywhere. Feminism is the best thing to happen to men since the first prostitute figured out that men want cheap and worthless sex. More men have gotten layed because of feminst women acting morally like men then in all of male-dominated societies in history combined. (What Viking would want his daughter to act like a Viking?) Feminism just goes to show you that women are not as smart as they think they are. They got duped and the phrase "baby momma" proves it. Who's benefitting from abortions and unwed motherhood? It's not women. Hefner proves that all that had to be done was to give women some cash and the same moral compass as a sailor on shore leave. The only man that looks like a great man towards women these days is Dan Quayle. He tried, but Hef and a few compliments and beers won the day. Hefner wouldn't exist without feminists. All of his bunnies think they are independent, free thinking women.

Dated a Playboy bunny for a short while in my youth. Taught me the meaning of "dumb as a box of rocks". In retrospect, one of the best things I ever did since it made me value women with brains who could string complete sentences together.
Posted by: Steve | May 29, 2008 12:02 PM

If you dated only one bunny how can you make conclusion about all of them? I don't think that woman deserves to be valued for high intellect more than for big tits, both parameters are advantages for a happy family life (but no of them is a guarantee for it, of course). Every age has it's best things. I imagine every man would dream to have a wife looking like a bunny from playboy when he is young and then educate her into a coherent interlocutor to discuss politics and philosophy in bed when time of coldness comes.

One can say he now seems like a foolish old man and something of a grotesque. But, I can't imagine Jesus looking down on him for that, can you?
Posted by: Alicia | May 29, 2008 11:57 AM

I agree.

Recently read an article of priest Vladislav Sveshnikov, he said about sorts of condemnation. When we condemn a person wishing to make him(her) better it's half the trouble, although to condemn without making harm to the soul of a condemned one can do only saints. The worst sort of condemnation is when we show contempt and don't believe that every person contains a spark of saint spirit, even if s(he) doesn't know it.
From experience, whenever i condemned others it never changed anyone for the better, only made worse both the condemned and the prosecutor.
But i can't not do it, unfortunately, by the way generally i like self-restraint of the author of this blog. Sometimes it seems the highest pilotage to me:)

"My comment was in response to a request to offer some spiritual proof that Christ railed against the existing paterfamilias system of his day."

JPL, I reject your somewhat tendentious reading of the Mary and Martha story, as well as the assumption of supposed differences in the earlier vs. the later Pauline writings, as well as the redaction of the Gospels. Be that as it may, while Jesus obviously was critical of the way that patriarchy was manifested in his day re: divorce rules and such, it is a very long stretch to turn that into a rejection of the patriarchal family structure per se, which seems to be what you were implying.

Maria: If you dated only one bunny how can you make conclusion about all of them? I don't think that woman deserves to be valued for high intellect more than for big tits, both parameters are advantages for a happy family life (but no of them is a guarantee for it, of course). Every age has it's best things. I imagine every man would dream to have a wife looking like a bunny from playboy when he is young and then educate her into a coherent interlocutor to discuss politics and philosophy in bed when time of coldness comes.

I am ambivalent about some of this. I reject the juvenile Playboy paradigm of femininity, which exalts les grands roberts and la chatte bien épilée. The French ideal is breasts shaped like a coupe à champagne and la chatte veloutée.

I agree to a point about the philosophy of the bedroom, although we may not all ascend to the existential empyrean of Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. This presumes a man finds a mistress already well educated (and well groomed) with whom to share intimacies both corporeal and intellectual.

Then again, there can be a macabre aspect to La Philosophie dans le boudoir, as our Marquis de Sade discovered to his ruin.

"traditionally it was a woman's job to assist in the civilizing of men, as without feminine influence (and yes, I mean in marriage) men tend to remain perpetual adolescents."

Or as a recently widowed ex-cop friend of mine put it, "bears with furniture." The question is, now that a woman can support herself without having to rely on the said teenage ursine, why should she have to bother adopting and domesticating one? If this is a task necessary to the continuance of Western Civilization As We Know It, WCAWKI is going to have to find some way to reward those who accept the job. Right now, we get no pay and no respect for it, just a lot of bad-mouthing from people who call us b***-busters and schoolmarms.

That's a reasonable listing of the manifestations, Rob, but it doesn't address the root cause: a cultural shift away from the notion that women must be subservient to men.

With that, I also have a semantic quibble: all of those manifestations existed before the "sexual revolution". What changed was their increasingly high profile in the public awareness of them.

"Women's liberation" is a problematic label, Rob. My mother, born in 1924, raised in Croatia in what was culturally Austria-Hungary, was a liberated woman. If she saw something she felt was important to pursue, she pursued it. She did not require her husband's approval or permission... but then, she was also a moral person, and would not have pursued something that would have damaged her marriage, her children or her standing in the community.

She, and my older sisters, were fully engaged in the cultural shift that carries that problematic label. I honestly don't know how else to label it, so with those caveats I will agree that I meant what you thought I meant... but not exactly. ;-)

As a starting point for "root cause", I'll cite the social turmoil in the aftermath of WWII, where all the Rosies (the Riveter) were expected to re-don their aprons and happily return to their kitchens. Some of them did. Some of them were unable to get the "happily" part. Some refused.

Hefner Farts and the code of silence lives on at the Mansion. How come no one present said I am sorry or even made a joke of it but what's worse is his own blood creamed Playboy Magazine.

"As for feminists "swallowing his line" - serious disconnect here. Feminists are against everything Hefner stood for - meaningless sex and the exploitation of women. Porn."

Riiiiiiiight.

Considering the amount of money the Playboy Foundation has dumped into sterilizing sex and making pregnancy "go away" - two tenants of feminism that are of paramount importance... well I would say that they were all that opposed to each other.

"Hef is here to talk about Marston, his third child. (He has two kids from a previous marriage—“The first two children just sort of happened,” he says—and another son, 16-year-old Cooper, with Kimberley Conrad.) Hef picks up a sheet of paper that’s been placed in front of him on the coffee table. Talking points from his publicist. About Marston. For our interview. "

This almost says it all. The first two kids were like a litter from an unspayed dog - just sort of happens sometimes!

After that, what good father doesn't need some typed up notes from a publicist to talk about his son?

Now you're talkin', Rob, as I think you've opened up some interesting areas for possibly fruitful discussion in your last post. Alas, this topic has pretty much fallen off the radar, but I'm replying just to let you know I appreciate your effort, in case you're still reading.

Your point is well taken so where does this leave the Playboy Shareholders if the first two children, Christie Hefner included are mistakes.
Playboy Enterprises is run by a mistake. The whole Empire is in shambles and this old man flaunts it in everyones face as if he is entitled.

Oh, wow! A bunch of OLD FARTS gleefully ganging up on another OLD FART.

Where's your faith now? Maybe God is walking with Marston right now and has his arms around the boy's shoulders.

Some of you "saints" sure are a nasty and vindictive bunch.

LOL

Anyone of you guys would love to be in Hugh's shoes years ago. Don't be hypocrites.

Leave the poor man alone...what will YOU be like when you are in your 80's??

Does Hef REALLY believe he is a lady-killer?! Would he have had women falling all over him if he had been a regular Joe? No - he isn't even attractive. Does he pay his three "girlfriends" or do they just get room and board and travel perks?

Hef was a regular guy. And he got plenty of girls. You guys act like Hef has done nothing with his life. he created, edits, and run one of the most widely distributed magazines. He built an empire, what have you done? I've seen Hef's television show and he seems to enjoy life. You really think that is a wasted life, one that is enjoyed?

you all seem a bit jealous....

is the article really true though?, did that interview really take place?

thanks for info

OH GOD-----writing about his farting cannot even come close to being more repulsive than his dancing-----hugh hefner's twirling about and moving about is a total and embarrassing (completely out of touch) action he does and has not a clue he's not feeling a thing, NOTHING no beat, no internal anything, except thinking it's the thing to do!!!`OH LORD and when he does that little twirl on one foot and claps his hands!!!! it's so hysterical particularly because he thinks he's being so cool--so hip--so today. BUT: so white--so dopey--so silly---so not "getting what it's all about'--so complete lack of rhythm---so laughable, without intent to be funny' oh--he's all serious--he really believes he's with it. AND THAT FOLKS IS WHAT HUGH HEFNER IS THRU AND THRU--------his dancing sums all of him up----same as his taste in women- not a one NOT A ONE has any culture at all NONE HH wouldn't know what to do w/ a woman of culture or class. CLASSY ONES YES. he call's them ladies--they are so far from ladies