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

[dayhiker]

I watched the video a week ago and am just not getting to post. My initial impression of both sides is that their views are not very well developed. Neither used anything very solid like studies or other data and examples to buttress their position.
To me HH's philosophy is very humanistic and a promotion of the beautiful people. Only a small percent of the population can live what his point of view is. Thus leaving the rest with feeling left out, disillusioned or even feeling rejected. That said I've been a libertarian for most of my Christian life and think the church didn't support people as well as they should have. Some churches have for example thought that condoms shouldn't be promoted as they would promote sexual immorality. But data shows there has always been a pretty large portion of youth that have premarital sex and if they followed the those churches teaching they could get pregnant and/or catch an STI. That I found to be a very unhumanistic teaching and undermined the churches teaching of compassion for people.
Buckley could have talked about how unethical sexual relationships could use the playboy philosophy in a way that would hurt many people bring in examples from STI, using people for sexual gratification and dripping them and unwanted pregnancy. He didn't seem to have much of a feel for the Judo Christian ethic of family and how to it was helping people. Mostly he just had a call to the Judo Christian tradition. Which I think has brought us a lot of benefit yet we in the west have challenged and changed since Martin Luther.

 

[Uber Genius]

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

It does seem strange that such a provocative pairing i.e. Hef and WFB jr. Would not garner more interest.

 

[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.

Yes, you're right about that! HH's point of view is confused. I think where he is confused is in thinking that because a few overly restrictive definitions and proscriptions about sexuality were made by the Church at various points in history, that by pointing this out, he is then justified in asserting his "New Morality."

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.

Yes, he does seem to express an misunderstanding of Puritanism. The point in which I'd disagree with you, just a little, is that the way in which I understand HH is that he wants complete libertarian rights for the expression of libertine sexuality. I say this because he also indicated, about 15:00 minutes or so into the video, that he didn't want to equate sexual choices with "sin," which isn't an attack on Puritanical views within the Church, but an attack on the legitimacy of Christian Ethics and Morality altogether.

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.

As to his apostasy, what I was trying to say earlier is that, according to his biography, he grew up with parents who were serious Methodists, but he found that as he grew through his childhood, he just couldn't fathom the significance of the "moral code" of the Christian faith. And whatever sympathies were left in his heart for Christian ethics were apparently blown away when his first wife cheated on him. Then he fully gave himself over to his Playboy Philosophy in the early 1950s when he started his magazine.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello Dayhiker,

Good to hear from you, and thanks for taking the time to respond to my OP! As I reply below to some of the things you've said, please realize that I expect for us to be able to disagree on this topic ...

I watched the video a week ago and am just not getting to post. My initial impression of both sides is that their views are not very well developed. Neither used anything very solid like studies or other data and examples to buttress their position.

Yes, you're right. Neither seemed to buttress their views with support, but I do think Buckley Jr. posed some poignant challenges to Hefner that made Hefner have to think and take some steps back.

To me HH's philosophy is very humanistic and a promotion of the beautiful people. Only a small percent of the population can live what his point of view is. Thus leaving the rest with feeling left out, disillusioned or even feeling rejected. That said I've been a libertarian for most of my Christian life and think the church didn't support people as well as they should have.

Yes, I think you're right about that, too (and I say this even though I'm a conservative, non-libertarian).

Some churches have for example thought that condoms shouldn't be promoted as they would promote sexual immorality. But data shows there has always been a pretty large portion of youth that have premarital sex and if they followed the those churches teaching they could get pregnant and/or catch an STI. That I found to be a very unhumanistic teaching and undermined the churches teaching of compassion for people.

Hmmmm....I'd probably disagree to some extent. The Church should be promoting chastity and morality, and not make overt concessions to the surrounding culture. This doesn't mean the Church can't make mistakes in it's thinking, but it does mean that we can't support the World's bad moral decisions and/or habits. Moreover, the Church does believe that there are consequences for sins, so to try to get people to "cover up" so they can sin more safely is kind of a contradiction in terms. And it is this kind of support for liberality Hefner would like the Church to change to, I'm sure.

Buckley could have talked about how unethical sexual relationships could use the playboy philosophy in a way that would hurt many people bring in examples from STI, using people for sexual gratification and dripping them and unwanted pregnancy. He didn't seem to have much of a feel for the Judo Christian ethic of family and how to it was helping people. Mostly he just had a call to the Judo Christian tradition. Which I think has brought us a lot of benefit yet we in the west have challenged and changed since Martin Luther.

Yes, Buckley could have talked about the consequences of unethical sexual relationships, but it seems he was more interested in trying to get Hefner to "trip up" than to establish the rightness of a Judeo-Christian sensibility. Buckley just kind of took it in stride as "given." And being that Buckley was raised Catholic, I'm not sure that he was overly concerned with the "Puritan" and/or "Protestant" position as such. Nevertheless, I do think he brought up some very telling and solid challenges to Hugh Hefner's immoral stance.

Also, it does seem Hefner didn't have much concern about the possibility that people can be taken advantage of in uncommitted sexual relationships. He seems to just give lip-service to this concern, but overall, I think he just wanted his "friends with benefits" social milieu more than anything else.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It does seem strange that such a provocative pairing i.e. Hef and WFB jr. Would not garner more interest.

Yes, it is strange. But, I suppose that in my OP address I may just be "preaching to the choir," and everyone is already aware of Hefner's affect upon society.

OR ... it's just too much of a "hot potato" for people to handle here.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Uber Genius]

Yes, it is strange. But, I suppose that in my OP address, I may just be "preaching to the choir," and everyone is already aware of Hefner's affect upon society.

OR ... it's just too much of a "hot potato" for people to handle here.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

That is a generous supposition.

I supposed laziness, due to adopting a similar lifestyle to Hef's, albeit modified, was the cause.

"The sociological implications of blah blah blah blah" "isn't the game on?"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is a generous supposition.

I supposed laziness, due to adopting a similar lifestyle to Hef's, albeit modified, was the cause.

"The sociological implications of blah blah blah blah" "isn't the game on?"

...yes, the game is definitely "on." And in saying this, I mean to re-turn the phrase, for I think many of us are playing a game that we don't realize we're playing, and we're playing it because we've been washed over too many times by the prevailing civic philosophy ... one that ol' Mr. Hefner has been more than happy to bolster.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

**bump** Ok. Let's put this at the top of the charts just one more time....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anyone consider the OP for this thread any further lately?

 

[Goodbook]

Why do you want to discuss this video?
Sorry..its just many christians wouldnt actually be interested in a inappropriate contentographer trying to justify his sin.
Especially seeing the wreckage it leaves on millions of peoples minds and lives.

Jesus says no fornicator is going to inherit the kingdom of God.

So yea. Thats a good thing! Cos I sure as hell wouldnt want to be hit on in heaven. Ugh.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why do you want to discuss this video?
Sorry..its just many christians wouldnt actually be interested in a inappropriate contentographer trying to justify his sin.
Especially seeing the wreckage it leaves on millions of peoples minds and lives.

Jesus says no fornicator is going to inherit the kingdom of God.

So yea. Thats a good thing! Cos I sure as hell wouldnt want to be hit on in heaven. Ugh.

You make very cogent points, Goodbook, and I can see that the purpose of my thread isn't needed for some folks as yourself. However, there are also persons here on CF whom I've run into who do claim to be Christian but who don't really see much of a problem with the Playboy Philosophy. It's hard to believe, I know.

Thanks for the comment. At least I know someone is reading.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You make very cogent points, Goodbook, and I can see that the purpose of my thread isn't needed for some folks as yourself. However, there are persons here on CF I've run into who do claim to be Christian, but don't really see much of a problem with the Playboy Philosophy. Hard to believe, I know. Thanks for the comment. At least I know someone is reading.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Since there is a new thread asking whether inappropriate content is wrong (or not), I'm bumping this thread to see if the OP will generate any more discussion.

Thanks,
2PhiloVoid

 

[JavaJake]

Interesting debate with with Buckley and HH. I found it interesting about his code of restrictions for his own bunnies but promotes there should be no sexual restrictions for his readers. Of course the bunnies are his business as he puts but what if they did want to hook up with a patron? Never really answered that. Maybe cause he was so called dating several of them at one time?

Thanks for sharing Phil

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting debate with with Buckley and HH. I found it interesting about his code of restrictions for his own bunnies but promotes there should be no sexual restrictions for his readers. Of course the bunnies are his business as he puts but what if they did want to hook up with a patron? Never really answered that. Maybe cause he was so called dating several of them at one time?

Thanks for sharing Phil

Yep. You're welcome.

 

[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)

Well, I guess this is a beginning......... ....it would have been better if he had repented of all he did and all that he helped to set in motion.

Hugh Hefner, Founder Of Playboy, Dead At 91