Day: December 17, 2013

A close friend pointed out to me that I may have missed a significant part of the story in regards to Playboy Founder Hugh Hefner. I felt challenged to learn more. In fact, Hefner does see himself as a feminist, and notable criticism of his life seems to agree. He seems to think that a lot of people miss the point of the Playboy lifestyle, even going so far as to suggest, “Playboy insisted women had desire, indeed a right to desire, just as society assumed men did.” So what is the truth of the Playboy lifestyle? Somewhere along the way did we fail to realize that Hugh Hefner is a champion of feminine liberation?

I must admit that I agree with some of what the man says. In truth, “The notion that Playboy turns women into sex objects is ridiculous. Women are sex objects. If women weren’t sex objects, there wouldn’t be another generation. It’s the attraction between the sexes that makes the world go ’round. That’s why women wear lipstick and short skirts.” Men are sex objects as well, but in a patriarchal society gender roles allow women to be more readily viewed in that role. Men are therefore viewed less as sex objects than as protectors and providers, which is why the young woman-old man dynamic exists. Older men are traditionally seen as more financially secure and able to provide for women. What is also left unspoken in that dynamic is that the man (a gender that already naturally dies much faster than women) is going to pass on faster than the female, leaving her young, wealthy, and single, and quite possibly with kids. Following this trajectory she is then more likely to become the ‘cougar’ who goes after her physical prize, and thus the vicious cycle begins anew.

Despite the truth of Hefner’s words, I’m forced to question his deeper motives. Hef once said, “Gloria Steinem said that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. And now she’s married to a wealthy guy. So what does that say to you?” There are always moments like this that shine through the subterfuge and point to a deeper enmity from the so-called feminist. On the one hand he created an empire that glorifies women and allows them to feel beautiful. On the other hand, he shapes a very specific image of beauty and through that justifies an entire body transformation/enhancement industry. He makes it so fat women can hardly been seen as beautiful. He allows soft light and touchups to project an unrealistic standard of beauty that every single girl must strive for from the moment their prospective teenage boyfriend swipes a playboy from the corner QuickTrip. Now, is that feminism?

It is female liberation in a limited sense. It is an opportunity for some women to feel like they can show their bodies and not be ashamed of that. Playboy is sexual liberation at its finest, and I must respect him for that. I smiled and said, “That’s what’s up” when he wrote, “Women were the major beneficiary of the sexual revolution. It permitted them to be natural sexual beings, as men are. That’s where feminism should have been all along. Unfortunately, within feminism, there has been a puritan, prohibitionist element that is antisexual.” So, maybe he isn’t what I perceive as a feminist or even all that good for women in general, but I’ll admit that he is the Godfather of sex positivism in the modern age. That’s a pretty wonderful thing to be accountable for in my book.

I am fascinated by Hugh Hefner. The 87 year old magazine entrepreneur is still worth upwards of $43 million dollars from an empire built on showing pictures of naked women. I’m being glib. The Playboy Empire is about status and even moreso about the controlling the concept of what is and, perhaps more importantly, who has access to desirable beauty. I’m of the concept that young, sexy women generally are not attracted to geriatric dudes, but there it is on display, and as a man I’m expected to smile and say, “that’s whats up.” But that’s not whats up. These women who sell themselves into a glorified form of sexual slavery are as much victims as perpetrators of a false perception. Age is glorified in men whereas it is shunned in women. Hef reminds us that with a few bucks we can have a house full of gorgeous girlfriends ready to drop trough at a moments notice. Moreover, he reminds us that bras unstrap at the sound of money.

In other words, Hefner’s legacy is the belief that men need to be pimps to be powerful.

I don’t want to think that the only way to gain mainstream status is to be accepted as a man who has a large following of females who, despite my advanced age and physical deterioration, are still ‘in to me’. I want to believe it is okay to age gracefully and that as I mature, so will my tastes. Most of all, I don’t want to feel like women are for sale to the highest bidder. Maybe this is still a significant part of our gender relations schema, but we don’t need it anymore. Its time for a change.