April 21, 2006
JUST FOR THE ARTICLES
Smut's savvy peddler (Fr. Raymond deSouza, National Post, April 20th, 2006)
The grandiose term "Playboy philosophy" was coined by Hefner himself, who has always fancied himself something more than a savvy peddler of smut. The Playboy philosophy, written in the early 1960s, is an extended (150,000 words) riff on the findings of Alfred Kinsey, the now-discredited but massively influential sex researcher. Hefner's argument was that the sexual appetite was unruly (something one does not need Kinsey to confirm) and therefore should not be subject to rules, lest the personality be suffocated by repression. The Playboy philosophy argued that the uninhibited libido was the path of personal liberation.That ran directly counter to the more traditional wisdom that the task of civilization was precisely to domesticate the appetites, so that the sexual energies of men in particular would be channeled toward marriage and children, upon which the future of a free and virtuous society depends.
The older wisdom disdained the playboy as just that -- one who played liked a boy instead of assuming the responsibilities of a man. Hefner's philosophy was to recast the playboy not as a dissolute cad, but a refined sophisticate.
"What is a Playboy?" Hefner asked. "Is he simply a wastrel, a ne'er-do-well, a fashionable bum? Far from it: He can be a sharp-minded young business executive, a worker in the arts, a university professor, an architect or engineer. He can be many things, providing he possesses a certain point of view. He must see life not as a vale of tears but as a happy time; he must take joy in his work, without regarding it as the end and all of living; he must be an alert man, an aware man, a man of taste, a man sensitive to pleasure, a man who -- without acquiring the stigma of the voluptuary or dilettante -- can live life to the hilt. This is the sort of man we mean when we use the word playboy."
Taste. Pleasure. To the hilt. Nothing about sacrifice, or endurance, or anything oriented to another. And it was, and remains, Hefner's style not to say too much about the most relevant other: the women -- or playmates, or bunnies. Like most poor philosophers, Hefner uses language mischievously. At the moment, he has a reality TV show featuring his three "girlfriends," though most men who put their multiple sleeping partners on the payroll are not considered "boyfriends."
That's the difficult bit about the Playboy philosophy -- the unrestrained male appetite requires a certain bit of servicing. The man who enjoys a nude layout alongside his book reviews and feature profiles requires somewhere a naked girl to do the posing. So Hefner devoted his energies and money to mainstreaming the porn industry. The married man suffocated in his marriage and seeking a little play on the side needs to be free of his wife. So Hefner's philosophy championed easy divorce. And above all, the playboy needs to be protected from the threat posed by the child, so Hefner was zealous in promoting easy contraception and abortion. The explanation for why feminists let Hefner off so lightly is to be found in his longstanding generosity to the abortion industry.
The Playboy philosophy, much like its photographers, airbrushes out the blemishes. Hefner never mentions, and is rarely asked, about the role of his philosophy in creating a society of disposable marriages, wives and children. The link between pornography and sexual abuse and assault is unremarked. The staggering rebellion of nature against the playboy's promiscuous practices, measured in the astonishing spread of sexually transmitted diseases, is kept discreetly out of sight, like an ugly girl who shows up at Hefner's mansion.
As Fr. de Souza shrewdly notes, Hefner’s genius lay as much in his philosophical airbrush as his photographic one. He was not unlike Disney in his knack for masking the sordid, selfish and destructive with giggles, bubbles and balloons, and the truly astounding thing about his enterprise was how quickly his opponents were disarmed and generally dismissed as prigs with complexes. Indeed, when his competitors quickly took his philosophy to rawer heights, the man who restricted his porn to Playboy came to be seen as a bit of a conservative prude.
His other genius was the way he confused and co-opted mainstream opinion among women. In focusing on abortion, Fr. de Souza sees only part of the story. Gloria Steinem tried to take him on in one of the earliest 1960's feminist brouhahas, but she was no match for the siren call of individual choice and freedom. Hef simply invited her and all her sisters to join the party and promised equal opportunity orgasms (although not breakfast), one of the oldest seduction techniques in the book. Although most women kept a wary distance on grounds of taste, they lost any principled basis for objecting to male indulgence or challenging the whole philosophy as degrading to women and a threat to children. The result was pretty much the result of all modern feminist causes--a boon for some professional and upper middle-class women and a disaster for all the rest.
Posted by Peter Burnet at April 21, 2006 6:21 AMThe man who enjoys a nude layout alongside his book reviews and feature profiles requires somewhere a naked girl to do the posing.
And ?
There's never been a shortage of women who are willing to pose naked, for money or just for fun.
And what's with the "girl" ?
Is it chauvinism, condescension, or something darker ?
The link between pornography and sexual abuse and assault is unremarked.
Largely because there is none.
Is deSouza attempting to argue that before Playboy, there was no sexual abuse or assault ?
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 21, 2006 7:41 AM
The man who enjoys a nude layout alongside his book reviews and feature profiles requires somewhere a naked girl to do the posing.
And ?
There's never been a shortage of women who are willing to pose naked, for money or just for fun.
And what's with the "girl" ?
Is it chauvinism, condescension, or something darker ?
The link between pornography and sexual abuse and assault is unremarked.
Largely because there is none.
Is deSouza attempting to argue that before Playboy, there was no sexual abuse or assault ?
at April 21, 2006 7:45 AM
Michael:
Why, oh why, do so many modern types think it is an effective reply to criticisms of their views to simply point out that bad things happened in the past? Are you saying the "older wisdom" opposed to Hefner's promoted and encouraged sexual assault? That Hefner improved the situation?
Posted by: Peter B at April 21, 2006 8:33 AMNo, Hefner didn't improve anything, as far as I know.
But Hefner and Playboy were symptoms, not causes. They were a manifestation of a trend. Hef was just the first to be widely successful.
Why, oh why, do so many modern types think it is an effective reply to criticisms of their views to simply point out that bad things happened in the past?
deSouza is attempting to assert not just that bad things happen now, but that things are worse now than they otherwise would have been, due to Playboy and its ilk.
Pointing out that he's completly mistaken seems like an effective reply, but I welcome your instruction in the matter.
How is it ineffective ?
at April 21, 2006 8:50 AM
Narcissism is usually an ugly thing, not a good thing, Michael.
Posted by: Mikey at April 21, 2006 8:51 AMI would think that a lot of women started thinking their husbands/boyfriends wanted women who were more like the centerfolds than Mrs. Cleaver.
Posted by: sharon at April 21, 2006 11:15 AM"the playboy needs to be protected from the threat posed by the child, so Hefner was zealous in promoting easy contraception and abortion"
Indeed. Abortion & the whole movement to sever sex from procreation serve men far, far more than women.
"The result was pretty much the result of all modern feminist causes--a boon for some professional and upper middle-class women and a disaster for all the rest."
Indeed again. Note the vitriol that Caitlin Flanagan gets for saying such things (and from a distinctly non-conservative background, too!). Of course, one can only shudder at the letters about her that her publishers DON'T publish...
Posted by: b at April 21, 2006 12:06 PMThe whole movement to sever sex from procreation served women far, far more than men.
After all, men always have an out.
That allowing women to control reproduction has had some downsides is undeniable, but it's a large net plus for women.
at April 21, 2006 12:43 PM
Michael: "That allowing women to control reproduction has had some downsides is undeniable, but it's a large net plus for women."
Nope. Only perhaps for women who know 100% that they don't want to have children (and who knows that for sure?). But it's pointless to argue about it here, since it would suck up tons of space and resolve nothing.
B, would you like to expand your thoughts? It seems self-evident that the Sexual revolution serves women, not men, and is destroying the foundation of civilization. It looks to me that marriage(one man, one woman) is falling apart, and we are returning to a tribal setting(one alpha man, many,many women). I keep seeing these posts about how men gained in the sexual revolution and I don't see it. Fatherhood is now a beautiful moment between a man and a birth certificate. A few golden tongued dirt bags now can get more sex, but they were always able to get sex.
Is Bill Clinton getting thousands of women instead of hundreds a step up for him?
Robert: The Sexual Revolution serves no one but those who despise the foundations of civilization.
People have always had sex outside of marriage--no one pretends otherwise. But even a century ago a guy would be a social outcast if he didn't marry a girl he got pregnant (and yes, I realize that there have always been abortions). Giving the girl the option of having a legal abortion doesn't changed the fact that a large percentage of women simply will not have one. And saying that the man must be financially responsible doesn't change the fact that many men are unwilling to pay and many women are unwilling or unable to find them anyway. Men who wish to can get their sex without any responsibility, and women who think that the cad really loves her get to be a single mother. Hence the statement that "feminism" only favors some small number of wealthy women, if even them.
Men like Ted Kennedy don't support legalized abortion so that it will be available for their daughters--they support it so it will be available for their mistresses.
That's enough. As I said, no point in prolonging this pointlessly.
Posted by: b at April 21, 2006 1:31 PM Thank you for your thoughts, B. In response, first, men are now Legal outcasts if they don't take care of their children. This is a step up in responsibility. Second, unwilling or not, provide for the child(at a level the court finds acceptable) or go to jail; this is sex without responisibility?
All the things you speak of on the women's side involve her choices. First there is abortion, and once the child is born there is adoption, and family, and foster homes. For men, children are an unexcapable responsiblity, and for women, a choice.
I keep talking about this because you can't solve a problem until you know what's causing it.
I think the problem here is a war between Mothers and Daughters. As long as you focus on 'Men are Pigs', you won't see that. I know that's hard. As long as 'Men are Pigs', you don't have to think of women as equals.
Robert:
Slap, slap, slap.
Millions of American children are being raised by single mothers, not fathers. There are serious concerns about growing problems with the mental health of young women. Date rape, a burgeoning sex/slavery trade, female depression, eating disorders, etc. all seem to be on the rise and an exploding porn trade is exploiting women to the hilt and pushing some pretty sick ideas into the mainstream. Read Tom Wolfe to get a sense of what goes on on modern campus'. Abortion is rife and is a health and psychological disaster as well as a moral one.
That women are fully complicit in the madness is true, and there are lots of good arguments on why they brought it on themselves. But let's not pretend we're the main victims of all this.
Posted by: Peter B at April 21, 2006 7:14 PM Mr. Burnet, Thanks for your time and thoughts.
Slap, slap, slap? Your second paragraph seems to negate your first. I am not saying that men are the main victims in all this. I am saying that this was caused by increasing Woman's rights, and increasing Men's responisibilities. If you can give me an example of men(in a legal sense) gaining rights or losing responisibilities I would be grateful. I keep hearing that men are pigs, or men and women are both to blame. If this is the case, what do you want men to do? Men are at fault, and should be legally required to ________?
It's true that the legalization of birth control and abortion gave women the right to control their reproduction in a way that was unavailable previously, but with that right came much more pressure to have sex outside of marriage. Wasn't it this site that had an article discussing how young women felt much more pressure to have abortions and wished abortion weren't legal? It might have been elsewhere I saw that.
In any event, the idea of men being legally responsible for the children they spawn is relatively new and requires that the mother have the financial and legal wherewithal to hire an attorney, track down the father, and get the court to agree to some level of support. This all, of course, assumes the father has a normal job with a normal paycheck and isn't living with his parents & getting paid in cash so he can avoid support. This also assumes that the custodial parent is the mother, not the father. I personally know men making far more than their ex-wives who pursued child support (once they had brainwashed the kids to come live with them at 12) not because the child needed the money but just to stick it to their ex. The moral to this story is, if you don't want to have to deal with raising kids, don't stick your *ahem* there.
Posted by: sharon at April 22, 2006 10:17 AM Men are at fault, and should be legally required to ________?
Thank you for you thoughts Sharon. A few things.
Women are human beings too. Blaming 'pressure' is an act of bad faith. They're adults. Blaming somebody else for their bad choices is a cop-out.
Hire an attorney? Track down the father? Maybe a better moral for the story is 'Keep you legs crossed until you know who the guy is, where he works, what he drives, who his friends are, and who his parents are.'. I am pleases you did not default to Rape. Base case, the woman is driving.
She talked to the guy, took the drink, got in the car, went into his apartment, went into his room, and 'partyed'. When do we get to use the 'S' word?
If your complaint is that men are pigs, and don't want to take care of their children, then why are you complaining about punitive responsibility?
In the current legal setting, men would seem to be the first choice for custodial parent. Your statement 'If you don't want to deal with raising kids don't stick your *ahem* there.' seems to agre e with a man as the primary parent.
Men are at fault, and should be legally required to ________?
There is not a good legal solution to this problem--mainstream culture has changed. Hef was a cultural trend setter for men for casual sex with women--who are mostly regarded as orgasm delivery vehicles. Today some girls regard oral sex as casual duty. See links. It seems unlikely that sex would be this way today without this shift toward women as disposable sex objects-- with unlimited concern as to where all this may go, and the possible problems. So, the sex limits are gradually eased, as Many people do not follow the legal sex limits--- All roads lead to male orgasm.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200601/oral-sex
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JennniferRobackMorse/2006/01/09/181427.html
Posted by: Lysistrata at April 22, 2006 5:02 PM