Dismantling the "PLAYBOY" philosophy embedded in our culture ...

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm placing this particular thread of inquiry into this section of CF so that all Christians, both men and women, can participate in the discussion, and because it specifically has EVERYTHING to do with social philosophy and Christian ethics.

As most of us who live in Western society know, Hugh Hefner's Playboy Philosophy is, for the most part, mainstream today, and no longer just a transitional social proposition as it was back in the 1960's, during the so-called, Sexual Revolution.

Being that Hugh Hefner's philosophy is so prevalent in today's culture--in media: in advertising, in magazines, in t.v. programs, in movies, on the internet, and in people's lifestyles--and that he helped it to be so through his magazine empire which he began in 1953, and through the social 'inspiration' he has given to many others over the past several decades, not just to inappropriate contentographers, mind you, but also to the masses living in mainstream culture, we Christians need to be aware of the underlying propositions of his social philosophy so we can better counter it.

Below is a video [48 minutes] of a debate from exactly 50 years ago this year, between the late William F. Buckley, Jr., who was a conservative spokesman and the host of the talk show, FIRING LINE, and his guest, Hugh Hefner.

What I'd like to hear is your comment(s) about key points of the debate that you find interesting or points on which you disagree with either Buckley or Hefner.

For those of you who think 48 minutes is too much time to watch a video, then just view the first 17 minutes, and I think you'll get the overall gist of the debate.

Thank you - 2PhiloVoid

FIRING LINE - 1966 (Buckley VS. Hefner)

 

[Uber Genius]

No way to dismantle the destruction done in the 1960s. The genie is out of the bottle. Hedonism, materialism, and consumerism infect the church culture in the US as deeply as non-church culture.

Look at the boards of any Evangelical mega-church. Go to their houses. It is not the $45,000/year school teacher sitting there. It is doctors, lawyers, businessmen. So what you say?

Why would the top 1% of of earners make up over 50% of church boards? Giving of coarse. And not as measured by % of disposable income.

But when a doctor makes $350,000 and after taxes has $175,000. Living expenses are 50,000 and he has $125,000 left. He gives 12,500 to the church or 10% of his disposable income.

Now the school teacher earns $55,000. Pays $16,000 in taxes, spends $35,000 on living expense, has $4000 in disposable income and gives $1600 to the church.

Pastor reviews giving: doctor x gave $12,500
Teacher y gave $1600

And thinks clearly the doctor is more committed.

Of coarse this is not universally true. And Pastors do have a vested interest in maximizing giving. And nothing would be wrong at all if boards didn't take the place of elders in many of these churches. But they do. And the best and brightest (ministry-wise) are often being managed by the most worldly Christians.

And this is the least of the influences. Media consumption has completely stalemated any Christian worldview influence. When I tell people O have never owned cable TV they refuse to believe it (and those are the responses I get from the pastors

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No way to dismantle the destruction done in the 1960s. The genie is out of the bottle. Hedonism, materialism, and consumerism infect the church culture in the US as deeply as non-church culture.

Look at the boards of any Evangelical mega-church. Go to their houses. It is not the $45,000/year school teacher sitting there. It is doctors, lawyers, businessmen. So what you say?

Why would the top 1% of of earners make up over 50% of church boards? Giving of coarse. And not as measured by % of disposable income.

But when a doctor makes $350,000 and after taxes has $175,000. Living expenses are 50,000 and he has $125,000 left. He gives 12,500 to the church or 10% of his disposable income.

Now the school teacher earns $55,000. Pays $16,000 in taxes, spends $35,000 on living expense, has $4000 in disposable income and gives $1600 to the church.

Pastor reviews giving: doctor x gave $12,500
Teacher y gave $1600

And thinks clearly the doctor is more committed.

Of coarse this is not universally true. And Pastors do have a vested interest in maximizing giving. And nothing would be wrong at all if boards didn't take the place of elders in many of these churches. But they do. And the best and brightest (ministry-wise) are often being managed by the most worldly Christians.

And this is the least of the influences. Media consumption has completely stalemated any Christian worldview influence. When I tell people O have never owned cable TV they refuse to believe it (and those are the responses I get from the pastors

Well, since I received such a LARGE number of answers to my thread, I can only guess that my fellow Christian brothers and sisters feel they can counter whatever influence Hugh Hefner's sexual philosophy may pose in their lives or in their nation. Well, if so PRAISE GOD!!!

But if not, what does that say about us?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

...wow, I guess everyone's NetNanny is blocking out the title of my thread. Interesting.

 

[Armoured]

I'm placing this particular thread of inquiry into this section of CF so that all Christians, both men and women, can participate in the discussion, and because it specifically has EVERYTHING to do with social philosophy and Christian ethics.

As most of us who live in Western society know, Hugh Hefner's Playboy Philosophy is, for the most part, mainstream today, and no longer just a transitional social proposition as it was back in the 1960's, during the so-called, Sexual Revolution.

Being that Hugh Hefner's philosophy is so prevalent in today's culture--in media: in advertising, in magazines, in t.v. programs, in movies, and in people's lifestyles--and that he helped it to be so through his magazine empire which he began in 1953, and through the social 'inspiration' he has given to many others over the past several decades, not just to inappropriate contentographers, mind you, but also to the masses living in mainstream culture, we Christians need to be aware of the underlying propositions of his social philosophy so we can better counter it.

Below is a video [48 minutes] of a debate from exactly 50 years ago this year, between the late William F. Buckley, Jr., who was a conservative spokesman and the host of the talk show, FIRING LINE, and his guest, Hugh Hefner.

What I'd like to hear is your comment(s) about key points of the debate that you find interesting or points on which you disagree with either Buckley or Hefner.

For those of you who think 48 minutes is too much time to watch a video, then just view the first 16 minutes, and I think you'll get the overall gist of the debate.

Thank you - 2PhiloVoid

FIRING LINE - 1966 (Buckley VS. Hefner)

I might be an oddity here, and I apologise if this is TMI, but when I was 13ish, I found my dad's Playboys. He bought a year's subscription when we were posted in the US. This was in the early '80s, back when a monthly Playboy magazine was maybe 15 pages of "pictorials" and 300ish of articles, stories and comics. Now, yes, I spent plenty of time looking at the pictorials, but, being a rather bookish kid, I actually got into the articles, stories, and think pieces. You know how people joke about "reading it for the articles"? well, I read every article in those 12 magazines, and I have to say that the opened my mind to ways of thinking I simply hadn't been exposed to before. Surprisingly, not in the way you might be thinking, either. I don't know about Playboy today, but back then, they were something of an advocate for an inclusive, open and generally free society, and that really stuck with me. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, they were strongly in favour of women's rights, too. Dare I say it, those articles at least contributed to the person I am today, in ways I think make me a better person than I may otherwise have been.

Oh, and Terri Welles, if you're out there, I've always loved you. PM me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey Armoured,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my thread! As you can see, I haven't received many responses. I'm a little surprised by that, but on the other hand, I know many guys have problems with this stuff, even Christian men, and maybe they may have an aversion to responding on this topic. (...Or their web blocking program is blocking out my thread ...)

Regardless, I must say, I'm surprised by your position on the “PP issue,” but responses like yours tend to make discussions that much more interesting.

I might be an oddity here, and I apologise if this is TMI, but when I was 13ish, I found my dad's Playboys. He bought a year's subscription when we were posted in the US. This was in the early '80s, back when a monthly Playboy magazine was maybe 15 pages of "pictorials" and 300ish of articles, stories and comics.

What you've shared is fine, and I don't think it's too much info. So you were 13 when you first encountered a Playboy mag? I was 7 years old when I encountered this and similar material for the first time, and yes it was during the same time period that you met your first "centerfold," back when the magazines were thick with ads and articles. And I too was “supplied” with access to these through a relative, although it wasn't my dad, but by the time I was 13 I'd seen quite a few more issues than just a dozen. ...And that, for me, wasn't a "good" thing, as it turns out.

Now, yes, I spent plenty of time looking at the pictorials, but, being a rather bookish kid, I actually got into the articles, stories, and think pieces. You know how people joke about "reading it for the articles"?

In my case, as a very young kid, I remember being frustrated trying to find those “very magical” sections of the magazine; the rest was rubbish until about six years later (13?), but even then I didn't read the articles much. I wasn't much of a bookish kid at the time—my bookishness came much later.

well, I read every article in those 12 magazines, and I have to say that the opened my mind to ways of thinking I simply hadn't been exposed to before. Surprisingly, not in the way you might be thinking, either. I don't know about Playboy today, but back then, they were something of an advocate for an inclusive, open and generally free society, and that really stuck with me. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, they were strongly in favour of women's rights, too. Dare I say it, those articles at least contributed to the person I am today, in ways I think make me a better person than I may otherwise have been.

Yes, I'm sure Hugh Hefner's articles had an impact on you—especially if we consider the fact that he was degreed in Philosophy [edit: Psychology, not Philosophy], both then and now, and he seems to have used it to his advantage over the many years in selling his magazine and promoting his social/ethical views. I can imagine that his magazine, run now by his kids, still holds the same ultra-liberal views. I'd be surprised if it's changed at all since then, other than to become even more liberal than it already was.

Oh, and Terri Welles, if you're out there, I've always loved you. PM me.

I, unfortunately, remember that year, but my fix was on another centerfold who, I sadly found out later, tragically shot herself in the head years later, probably due to the cancer she was fighting at the time she took her life.

Anyway, the purpose of this thread is not so much to talk about Playboy in a general way, but more specifically about the underpinning social philosophy of Hugh Hefner. It would be great if you could watch some of the video I posted and comment (...and if you'd like, we could even debate a point or two.)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

[edit: what follows is sarcasm] While I'm thinking about it, I'd like to dedicate the following song to Hugh Hefner, for all the prolific "philosophical work" he's done on the subjects of the cultural consumption of hedonism and expression of sexual liberation, along with his gift of ...*ahem*... beauty and the playboy lifestyle he has fostered among materialistic men and women everywhere. So, if you're out there Hugh, this one's for you....!!!

[And for those of you who don't like 'hard rock,' I'm sorry. However, I'd like to suggest that you simply watch the music video below anyway so you can understand my full intention in dedicating this song to Hugh Hefner ...]

Song: Perfect Life
Band: Red

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

" the "PLAYBOY" philosophy embedded in our culture ... "

re "our" culture ?
totally different than the assembly of ecclesia as described in Scripture.

(yes , they made grievous mistakes sometimes, also,
but such was declared mistakes, sins, wrong,
not to be accepted, not to be allowed to continue )

the "world" culture ?
totally sinful.
no chance for it.
worse today than ever before.
would destroy itself and everyone with it
if YHWH doesn't intervene by sending Y'SHUA as HE SAYS in HIS WORD.

getting rid of it ?
it will go on its own (so to speak)
as evil grows worse and worse, more and more
and
replaces it with much much worse, soon if not already.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought it was kind of interesting that Hefner said in the OP video that the proliferation of the weapons/armaments problem could be solved through some kind of one world government ... Hmmmm, very interesting, Hugh. The plot thickens. I wonder if he still thinks this?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No way to dismantle the destruction done in the 1960s. The genie is out of the bottle. Hedonism, materialism, and consumerism infect the church culture in the US as deeply as non-church culture.

And this is the least of the influences. Media consumption has completely stalemated any Christian worldview influence. When I tell people O have never owned cable TV they refuse to believe it (and those are the responses I get from the pastors

... I think what I have in mind is a more individual basis for dismantling the Playboy influences of the Evil One ...

Sure, the world itself is already sold to Satan, but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt some spiritual reconnaissance and rescue ...

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Kenny'sID]

What I'd like to hear is your comment(s) about key points of the debate that you find interesting or points on which you disagree with either Buckley or Hefner.

Honestly, I couldn't take the debate seriously.

I don't think Hef is a philosopher at all...just a business man that is going to come up with whatever "philosophy" it takes to promote that business. Or promote whatever way of thinking he needs to put into peoples heads, so what he's doing is acceptable and promotable from the onset. Then once he makes it acceptable, the next stage of promotion takes place, and the sky's the limit.

We have to be convinced a product that is normally not ok, as ok before we will even think about buying it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Honestly, I couldn't take the debate seriously.

I don't think Hef is a philosopher at all...just a business man that is going to come up with whatever "philosophy" it takes to promote that business. Or promote whatever way of thinking he needs to put into peoples heads, so what he's doing is acceptable and promotable from the onset. Then once he makes it acceptable, the next stage of promotion takes place, and the sky's the limit.

We have to be convinced a product that is normally not ok, as ok before we will even think about buying it.

Yes, he worked hard to make his view acceptable; and now it is embedded in bits and pieces in many parts of our society and its media.

While the debate depicted in the OP video is old, it was a serious debate. Moreover, it is still fairly relevant, and it's content should be taken seriously.

Now, to be more accurate, I should correct what I may have said about Hugh Hefner's education. His actual degree is in Psychology, but I still count him as an unfortunate social philosopher since his "work" has had such a wide-spread influence. So, regardless of how we perceive him, we can't see him as just an uneducated buffoon or a simple business man. He is, rather, a person who should be contended with, along with the remnants of his business empire and his many (and even more perverse) imitators.

My point is that his philosophical, social and sexual "products" have affected and spiritually damaged society, with the subsequent effects being: 1) sexual addictions, 2) sexual immorality, 3) sexual disorientation, and 4) damaged marriages.

 

[Kenny'sID]

While the debate depicted in the OP video is old, it was a serious debate, and still fairly relevant. And it's content should be taken seriously.

His actual degree is in Psychology,

And it was taken seriously by many. At least from my standpoint, that degree paid off.

 

[Armoured]

Hey Armoured,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my thread! As you can see, I haven't received many responses. I'm a little surprised by that, but on the other hand, I know many guys have problems with this stuff, even Christian men, and maybe they may have an aversion to responding on this topic. (...Or their web blocking program is blocking out my thread ...)

Regardless, I must say, I'm surprised by your position on the “PP issue,” but responses like yours tend to make discussions that much more interesting.

What you've shared is fine, and I don't think it's too much info. So you were 13 when you first encountered a Playboy mag? I was 7 years old when I encountered this and similar material for the first time, and yes it was during the same time period that you first met your first "centerfold," back when the magazines where thick with ads and articles. And I too was “supplied” with access to these through a relative, although it wasn't my dad, but by the time I was 13 I'd seen quite a few more issues than just a dozen. ...And that, for me, wasn't a "good" thing, as it turns out.

In my case, as a very young kid, I remember being frustrated trying to find those “very magical” sections of the magazine; the rest was rubbish until about six years later (13?), but even then I didn't read the articles much. I wasn't much of a bookish kid at the time—my bookishness came much later.

Yes, I'm sure Hugh Hefner's articles had an impact on you—especially if we consider the fact that he was degreed in Philosophy, both then and now, and he seems to have used it to his advantage over the many years in selling his magazine and promoting his social/ethical views. I can imagine that his magazine, run now by his kids, still holds the same ultra-liberal views. I'd be surprised if it's changed at all since then, other than to become even more liberal than it already was.

I, unfortunately, remember that year, but my fix was on another centerfold who, I sadly found out later, tragically shot herself in the head years later, probably due to the cancer she was fighting at the time she took her life.

Anyway, the purpose of this thread is not so much to talk about Playboy in a general way, but more specifically about the underpinning social philosophy of Hugh Hefner. It would be great if you could watch some of the video I posted and comment (...and if you'd like, we could even debate a point or two.)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Hey, sorry I didn't get back to you, this thread hasn't come up in my alerts again. I'll respond properly later

" I, unfortunately, remember that year, but my fix was on another centerfold who, I sadly found out later, tragically shot herself in the head years later, probably due to the cancer she was fighting at the time she took her life."

That is tragic, who was that? Do you remember her name?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey, sorry I didn't get back to you, this thread hasn't come up in my alerts again. I'll respond properly later

" I, unfortunately, remember that year, but my fix was on another centerfold who, I sadly found out later, tragically shot herself in the head years later, probably due to the cancer she was fighting at the time she took her life."

That is tragic, who was that? Do you remember her name?

Good to hear from you, Armoured. I hope you're doing well. As to that particular centerfold, if my memory serves me right, her name was Debbie Boostrom. (I'm not sure if I spelled her name right, and forgive me if I don't look it up. )

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And it was taken seriously by many. At least from my standpoint, that degree paid off.

And what did you think of Buckley's critique of Hefner in the OP video?

 

[Kenny'sID]

And what did you think of Buckley's critique of Hefner in the OP video?

I think I only watched about ten minutes of it but I'll try to get to the rest and let you know.

 

[OcifferPls]

Buckley starts off with challenging HH with a question on "whether he rejects conventional Judeo-Christian codes of sexual behavior." HH responds: "Yes, at the essence of them I think I do. The philosophy really I think is an anti-Puritanism: a response really to the Puritan part of our culture, so to that extent sex is ... a part of the Judeo-Christian ethic that kind of got lost and is the part that is restrictive and not truly, I think, naturalistic."

Already HH is contradicting himself here: he thinks he rejects Judeo-Christian ethics, but also fires back with an assertion that Judeo-Christian ethics on sex were lost. The impression I have is that HH is responding intuitively to something that is much more difficult to express concisely, but is there nonetheless, for anyone to observe: simply present "traditional" conservative christians with the quandaries and ethics straight from the OT, and observe their abhorrence. Ultimately, the debate is framed within a misunderstanding that at that point had not been concisely identified, and as such, represents a historical misunderstanding which is merely grasping at kernels of truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for your comments, brother!

Buckley starts off with challenging HH with a question on "whether he rejects conventional Judeo-Christian codes of sexual behavior." HH responds: "Yes, at the essence of them I think I do. The philosophy really I think is an anti-Puritanism: a response really to the Puritan part of our culture, so to that extent sex is ... a part of the Judeo-Christian ethic that kind of got lost and is the part that is restrictive and not truly, I think, naturalistic."

Yes, HH makes a denial of the Christian faith, which I suppose is to be expected since he apostasized from the faith early on in his life. (He was raised by his parents in a Methodist context, and apparently, from what is evident in his biography, ...it didn't "take") The main problem as we all know is that he has been capitalizing on sin since 1953.

Already HH is contradicting himself here: he thinks he rejects Judeo-Christian ethics, but also fires back with an assertion that Judeo-Christian ethics on sex were lost. The impression I have is that HH is responding intuitively to something that is much more difficult to express concisely, but is there nonetheless, for anyone to observe: simply present "traditional" conservative christians with the quandaries and ethics straight from the OT, and observe their abhorrence. Ultimately, the debate is framed within a misunderstanding that at that point had not been concisely identified, and as such, represents a historical misunderstanding which is merely grasping at kernels of truth.

Good point, OP! HH did say in the video that he wanted to clear away some kind of sexual debacle which he thought was present in the American culture at the time, a social obstruction that supposedly infringed on his rights as a person.

You said "the debate is framed within a misunderstanding..." Could you elaborate a little bit on that, OP? Are you suggesting that HH is right about something?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[OcifferPls]

Thanks for your comments, brother!

Yes, HH makes a denial of the Christian faith, which I suppose is to be expected since he apostasized from the faith early on in his life. (He was raised by his parents in a Methodist context, and apparently, from what is evident in his biography, ...it didn't "take") The main problem as we all know is that he has been capitalizing on sin since 1953.

Good point, OP! HH does try to say that he wants to clear away some kind of sexual debacle that he thinks is present in the American culture at the time, a social obstruction that supposedly infringes on his rights as a person.

You said "the debate is framed within a misunderstanding..." Could you elaborate a little bit on that, OP? Are you suggesting that HH is right about something?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

To reiterate, his p.o.v. is confusing and sounds confused. I think he's intuitively grasping at something that's there, although it's not clear to him.

This post effectively summarizes what I believe to be at the root of the issue. HH calls his philosophy "anti-Puritan" but in actuality, I think Puritanism within Protestantism inherited some of its culture and morals from the Roman Catholic Church, which in turn, was already on its way in its pursuit of "purity" toward apostasizing from the Truth, rendering HH's perspective to be more anti-celibate, than anti-Puritan at its core.

So where exactly HH is on the map, is not so certain, but if HH "apostasized" from a movement that had apostasized or was heading in that direction, does that make him an apostate? Not necessarily. It's a confusing place to be in.