7 ms·

Speaking Ill of Hugh Hefner

41 points by Firebrand 9y ago

moomin 9y ago
100. It would be a very bad idea to call for a Speaker for the Dead for Hefner.
totalZero 9y ago
I suppose respect for the deceased has gone out of style.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  Indeed, it's a shame that this op-ed wasn't written while he was alive so he could read it himself. But then it would never have received so much attention.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  If one wants to be respected after death, lead such a life. Otherwise, one should expect this stuff to be written after one's death. I don't see any reason to gloss over things just because someone has died. I wouldn't bring this sort of thing up at his funeral, however, but that isn't out of respect for the deceased - since they aren't alive to take offense or anything. It is more being kind to the friends and family that is there. I'm gonna guess a few were glad he was dead, just wouldn't admit it. I only agree with a few points in the article myself, but I understand how such a viewpoint can be written. Folks said such things before he died as well. Only seems natural to have this now.
  - totalZero 9y ago
    The way I see it, one's comments about another immediately after his passing are as much a reflection of one's own character as they are an opinion about the deceased.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      Sure. I have no respect for someone just because they happen to have died, and am honest about it. Dead folks can't take offense, and I think the family members and friends should have the frame of mind to be honest about he deceased life. That's it. It isn't like the respect is universal. A mass murder dies? It's quite alright to bring up his/her crimes. Serial rapist? Sure, it'll be brought up. Open racism? Yup, it'll probably be reported. Few complain. (I do not believe Hugh was on the level of these folks. Man wasn't perfect, though).
wallace_f 9y ago
>But in every way that mattered he made those changes worse, our culture coarser and crueler and more sterile I know that this is a political and personal, but hope this article and topic does not get shunned as yet another politically incorrect crime of thought. There is something about culture that is at least approaching a resemblance to science: it is inescapable that cultures evolved alongside people over thousands of years as not just individuals, but groups competed for resources to survive. Therefore, our cultures--including ethics and morals--are not just incidental to random variables, but the product of the competition and very bluntly the deaths of untold numbers of people. Since The Enlightenment and subsequent developments in Western ideology such as The Age of Reason, major aspects of status quo Western culture such as god-fearing Christianity have been tossed out as unreasonable. But there is maybe something to be careful about here. We are not as rational as we believe. Even scientists, even the greatest scientist ever, Newton, was a devoted Christian who spent countless hours studying and publishing secret messages in the Bible. I'm not saying we should be Christians, but perhaps there were certain aspects of organized religion that were productive and the baby is now being thrown out with the bath water. If we are not rational, perhaps there is value in, for the time being, balancing logical reasoning with traditional culture. Right now it feels liberalism has us rethinking and reshaping everything. For me personally, I am not afraid to say porn was an unredeemable and destructive vice in my life. It cultivated low self confidence in myself, and objectified and over-sexuaized women in my mind. I am glad to be away from that now. I don't think it is government's role to restrict personal liberties either: if it works for you and everyone else involved, that's none of my business. But culture could help guide us with this kind of thing. After seeing some recent Bill Nye and Adam Savage productions, this growing theme of sexualizing children's minds in particular is why I want to start a conversation. See NSFW: https://m.imgur.com/26YWvus https://m.imgur.com/26YWvus
- ralfn 9y ago
  Two thoughts immediately cross my mind. 1. You are not European, but more likely American. And 2. You didn't get the raw uncensored version of history. Show me a temple, a Playboy mansion or a church. And I'll show you a place whose sole purpose is sexual abuse. In Europe we've had to deconstruct organised religion not because it was so different from the Playboy Mansion, but because it was the same. A scam of power to enable sexual abuse. When Bill Clinton had sex with a young intern the question some people had was 'why would he jepordize his career for sex with a young girl?'. Whereas the honest question would be the reverse: 'why would he have ambition to become president if he couldn't?' The understanding of just how we are repressed by our own evolution is not making things worse -- just less hidden. We no longer sell a 12 year to an adult for ownership/sexual-abuse/marriage in a legal contract overseen by the Church. The world is actually a better place now. Not because everything is okidoki right now, but because the power structures of the past were not as glamorous or sinfree as you may seem to think. At the height of Christianity in the Roman empire having a little boy to abuse was the default. Seriously, Hugh Heffner, although not very interesting isn't anywhere near the perversion of organized religion.
trumpisyourdad 9y ago
what a fucking rag.
pmarreck 9y ago
You know, right after I heard he died I googled "Hugh Hefner" (literally, just that) and saw dozens of nice things being said about him from people in articles and tweets- he launched my career, he was always super nice, etc. Here he's calling for aid/donations: https://twitter.com/hughhefner/status/910213546977439746?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet https://twitter.com/hughhefner/status/910213546977439746?ref... And then you juxtapose it with pieces like this, and you have to wonder: Is it possible to speak this well, or this ill, of almost anyone? They say Hugh Hefner had no love for women... perhaps he just loved them too much. EDIT: Downvoting merely for disagreement? Not classy.
- exelius 9y ago
  I would just say that like any celebrity, there is Hugh Hefner the celebrity pimp and Hugh Hefner the man. In public, he literally was the Playboy brand. He had to be seen living this “man of leisure” lifestyle that looks so tacky today, but he provided an alternate version of healthy sexuality at a time when American couples often slept in separate beds. He had to be that character in public; he was sellin a lifestyle and this article roasts his public persona. Rightfully so; he was 92 years old and when the revolution he started in his 30s became part of the patriarchy, and so did he. For his time, he was pretty progressive — but his time is long over. From all accounts the private Hugh Hefner was a generous man who didn’t really live up to the stories of how wild he was (not that he was going to correct anyone!) He maintained good relationships with most of his many exes after they broke up, and was a real father figure to a lot of these girls long after they stopped working for him (despite how creepy that is with the sexual aspect). He was an early public supporter of gay rights; long before it was popular. But he’s one of those guys whose time is over. I’m glad for his contributions to society, they were a link in the chain of progressivism that brought us to we’re we are. But I’m also glad his time is over, because we as a society have moved on.
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    This seems like a lot more balanced assessment of the guy than the original article, which seems almost entirely fueled by toxic vitriol
k__ 9y ago
Women I talked to said that he indeed normalise stuff that was considered immoral or perverse. But on the cost of objectification of women. Most of the people who profited were men. The objectification is so ingrained that even people who do pornography on their own do mostly the "sexy women with some guy" stuff. Even stuff with domina's is mostly focused on the women being sexy and some dude. Sexy dudes are mostly a thing in gay porn, that's why women often watch it. Also, pornographic literature isn't valued the same as pornography. People are saying that every one watches porn and it's okay, but it's considered strange vor funny when people, especially women, read this stuff.
- 201709User 9y ago
  That's because of significant difference in sexual drive. Demand drives the supply. Besides you forgot about 50 shades of gray success. Perhaps porn needs to try to communicate how rich and powerful the guy is and downplay sex a bit to appeal to women?
dreta 9y ago
Articles by fedora-tipping allies gracing us with their superior moral values while providing biting commentary on current pop-culture events is exactly why i visit Hacker News.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Jun8 9y ago
I felt compelled to make two points faced with a piece like this: 1. You may agree or disagree with Douthat's premise but the general tone of the article is almost hysterical and has the quality of a freshmen Op Ed piece in a college daily. You may care less about Hefner but personally I see this as part of a pattern of extremism in expression that has taken hold of the NYT recently, I cancelled my longstanding membership a couple of months ago. 2. If you want to form a balanced opinion about Playboy's role (and Hefner's, by proxy since he was so influential) for good or ill in affecting women's liberation movement and general culture, in addition to reading opiniated OpEds like (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/sunday/hugh-hefner.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/sunday/hugh-hefne...) also consult the other side, one book I would recommend *The Century of Sex" by James Petersen (https://www.amazon.com/Century-Sex-Playboys-Revolution-1900-1999/dp/B000OV16OE https://www.amazon.com/Century-Sex-Playboys-Revolution-1900-...). For example, the storefront that Susan Brownmiller opened in Times Square in 1979 to educate women about pornography. The radical stance of one wing of the feminism movement against pornography is well-known (e.g. see https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/10/the-space-in-between https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/10/the-space-in-b...).
RickJWag 9y ago
Lotta truth in that article. The author smeared Hef with the same brush used to dabble a little on Cosby, Trump and Clinton. You've got to admire that-- fair and balanced.

41 points by Firebrand 9y ago

moomin 9y ago

100. It would be a very bad idea to call for a Speaker for the Dead for Hefner.

totalZero 9y ago

I suppose respect for the deceased has gone out of style.

nerdponx 9y ago
Indeed, it's a shame that this op-ed wasn't written while he was alive so he could read it himself. But then it would never have received so much attention.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
If one wants to be respected after death, lead such a life. Otherwise, one should expect this stuff to be written after one's death. I don't see any reason to gloss over things just because someone has died. I wouldn't bring this sort of thing up at his funeral, however, but that isn't out of respect for the deceased - since they aren't alive to take offense or anything. It is more being kind to the friends and family that is there. I'm gonna guess a few were glad he was dead, just wouldn't admit it. I only agree with a few points in the article myself, but I understand how such a viewpoint can be written. Folks said such things before he died as well. Only seems natural to have this now.
- totalZero 9y ago
  The way I see it, one's comments about another immediately after his passing are as much a reflection of one's own character as they are an opinion about the deceased.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Sure. I have no respect for someone just because they happen to have died, and am honest about it. Dead folks can't take offense, and I think the family members and friends should have the frame of mind to be honest about he deceased life. That's it. It isn't like the respect is universal. A mass murder dies? It's quite alright to bring up his/her crimes. Serial rapist? Sure, it'll be brought up. Open racism? Yup, it'll probably be reported. Few complain. (I do not believe Hugh was on the level of these folks. Man wasn't perfect, though).

wallace_f 9y ago

>But in every way that mattered he made those changes worse, our culture coarser and crueler and more sterile I know that this is a political and personal, but hope this article and topic does not get shunned as yet another politically incorrect crime of thought. There is something about culture that is at least approaching a resemblance to science: it is inescapable that cultures evolved alongside people over thousands of years as not just individuals, but groups competed for resources to survive. Therefore, our cultures--including ethics and morals--are not just incidental to random variables, but the product of the competition and very bluntly the deaths of untold numbers of people. Since The Enlightenment and subsequent developments in Western ideology such as The Age of Reason, major aspects of status quo Western culture such as god-fearing Christianity have been tossed out as unreasonable. But there is maybe something to be careful about here. We are not as rational as we believe. Even scientists, even the greatest scientist ever, Newton, was a devoted Christian who spent countless hours studying and publishing secret messages in the Bible. I'm not saying we should be Christians, but perhaps there were certain aspects of organized religion that were productive and the baby is now being thrown out with the bath water. If we are not rational, perhaps there is value in, for the time being, balancing logical reasoning with traditional culture. Right now it feels liberalism has us rethinking and reshaping everything. For me personally, I am not afraid to say porn was an unredeemable and destructive vice in my life. It cultivated low self confidence in myself, and objectified and over-sexuaized women in my mind. I am glad to be away from that now. I don't think it is government's role to restrict personal liberties either: if it works for you and everyone else involved, that's none of my business. But culture could help guide us with this kind of thing. After seeing some recent Bill Nye and Adam Savage productions, this growing theme of sexualizing children's minds in particular is why I want to start a conversation. See NSFW: https://m.imgur.com/26YWvus https://m.imgur.com/26YWvus

ralfn 9y ago
Two thoughts immediately cross my mind. 1. You are not European, but more likely American. And 2. You didn't get the raw uncensored version of history. Show me a temple, a Playboy mansion or a church. And I'll show you a place whose sole purpose is sexual abuse. In Europe we've had to deconstruct organised religion not because it was so different from the Playboy Mansion, but because it was the same. A scam of power to enable sexual abuse. When Bill Clinton had sex with a young intern the question some people had was 'why would he jepordize his career for sex with a young girl?'. Whereas the honest question would be the reverse: 'why would he have ambition to become president if he couldn't?' The understanding of just how we are repressed by our own evolution is not making things worse -- just less hidden. We no longer sell a 12 year to an adult for ownership/sexual-abuse/marriage in a legal contract overseen by the Church. The world is actually a better place now. Not because everything is okidoki right now, but because the power structures of the past were not as glamorous or sinfree as you may seem to think. At the height of Christianity in the Roman empire having a little boy to abuse was the default. Seriously, Hugh Heffner, although not very interesting isn't anywhere near the perversion of organized religion.

trumpisyourdad 9y ago

what a fucking rag.

pmarreck 9y ago

You know, right after I heard he died I googled "Hugh Hefner" (literally, just that) and saw dozens of nice things being said about him from people in articles and tweets- he launched my career, he was always super nice, etc. Here he's calling for aid/donations: https://twitter.com/hughhefner/status/910213546977439746?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet https://twitter.com/hughhefner/status/910213546977439746?ref... And then you juxtapose it with pieces like this, and you have to wonder: Is it possible to speak this well, or this ill, of almost anyone? They say Hugh Hefner had no love for women... perhaps he just loved them too much. EDIT: Downvoting merely for disagreement? Not classy.

exelius 9y ago
I would just say that like any celebrity, there is Hugh Hefner the celebrity pimp and Hugh Hefner the man. In public, he literally was the Playboy brand. He had to be seen living this “man of leisure” lifestyle that looks so tacky today, but he provided an alternate version of healthy sexuality at a time when American couples often slept in separate beds. He had to be that character in public; he was sellin a lifestyle and this article roasts his public persona. Rightfully so; he was 92 years old and when the revolution he started in his 30s became part of the patriarchy, and so did he. For his time, he was pretty progressive — but his time is long over. From all accounts the private Hugh Hefner was a generous man who didn’t really live up to the stories of how wild he was (not that he was going to correct anyone!) He maintained good relationships with most of his many exes after they broke up, and was a real father figure to a lot of these girls long after they stopped working for him (despite how creepy that is with the sexual aspect). He was an early public supporter of gay rights; long before it was popular. But he’s one of those guys whose time is over. I’m glad for his contributions to society, they were a link in the chain of progressivism that brought us to we’re we are. But I’m also glad his time is over, because we as a society have moved on.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  This seems like a lot more balanced assessment of the guy than the original article, which seems almost entirely fueled by toxic vitriol

k__ 9y ago

Women I talked to said that he indeed normalise stuff that was considered immoral or perverse. But on the cost of objectification of women. Most of the people who profited were men. The objectification is so ingrained that even people who do pornography on their own do mostly the "sexy women with some guy" stuff. Even stuff with domina's is mostly focused on the women being sexy and some dude. Sexy dudes are mostly a thing in gay porn, that's why women often watch it. Also, pornographic literature isn't valued the same as pornography. People are saying that every one watches porn and it's okay, but it's considered strange vor funny when people, especially women, read this stuff.

201709User 9y ago
That's because of significant difference in sexual drive. Demand drives the supply. Besides you forgot about 50 shades of gray success. Perhaps porn needs to try to communicate how rich and powerful the guy is and downplay sex a bit to appeal to women?

dreta 9y ago

Articles by fedora-tipping allies gracing us with their superior moral values while providing biting commentary on current pop-culture events is exactly why i visit Hacker News.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Jun8 9y ago

I felt compelled to make two points faced with a piece like this: 1. You may agree or disagree with Douthat's premise but the general tone of the article is almost hysterical and has the quality of a freshmen Op Ed piece in a college daily. You may care less about Hefner but personally I see this as part of a pattern of extremism in expression that has taken hold of the NYT recently, I cancelled my longstanding membership a couple of months ago. 2. If you want to form a balanced opinion about Playboy's role (and Hefner's, by proxy since he was so influential) for good or ill in affecting women's liberation movement and general culture, in addition to reading opiniated OpEds like (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/sunday/hugh-hefner.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/sunday/hugh-hefne...) also consult the other side, one book I would recommend *The Century of Sex" by James Petersen (https://www.amazon.com/Century-Sex-Playboys-Revolution-1900-1999/dp/B000OV16OE https://www.amazon.com/Century-Sex-Playboys-Revolution-1900-...). For example, the storefront that Susan Brownmiller opened in Times Square in 1979 to educate women about pornography. The radical stance of one wing of the feminism movement against pornography is well-known (e.g. see https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/10/the-space-in-between https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/10/the-space-in-b...).

RickJWag 9y ago

Lotta truth in that article. The author smeared Hef with the same brush used to dabble a little on Cosby, Trump and Clinton. You've got to admire that-- fair and balanced.