The World According....To Playboy?

[Steezie]

Playboy was a men's magazine founded in 1953 by Hugh Hefner. He said it was to bring sex out in to the open, to give the modern young single male of that time something to grab hold of. And to give the public a view of sex and sexuality that was starkly different from the Puritan attitudes of "dont ask dont tell" concerning sex during that time.

Playboy has broke new ground in many different areas. Hefner published stories by authors that were new or radical at the time. Farenheit 451, the famous story by Ray Bradbury, was published in part in Playboy. Hefner hosted a television show, Playboy's Penthouse, that featured a stylish party with various performers from Ella Fitzgerald on down.

Playboy publishes not only nude photographs of attractive young women, but interviews with famous and influential people, consumer information on fancy electronics or nice cars, stories ranging the gammut of genres, information on new books or movies.

The Playboy Philosophy advocates drastic relaxing of age-old stigmas on sex and sexuality, not to the point of danger. While Hefner himself advocates free love and a lessening of social stigmas on things such as polyamorous relationships, he has spoken out against un-safe sex numerous times in the past.

Im curious what you think of this philosophy and way of living.

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

i think if you are like most men you would not want your wife practicing free love... on the flip side i know my g/f would not be my g/f if i practiced it, and im not in favor of her practicing it

 

[benmaarof]

I believe he has contributed to the increase in the arousal level of an increased number of men. (Some of whom lived, worked or just liked to hang out near the vicinities where our daughters, sisters, wives, nieces, female friends, female work, female relatives and other female loved ones also lived, worked or hung out)

 

[GrannieAnnie]

I think he's a dirty old man who likes to make lots of money....

end of story.......

 

[Lynden1000]

I think whatever people do to get their rocks off is their own business, provided only consenting adults are involved.

If he wants to frolic with naked playboy bunnies in a jacuzzi, so be it.

 

[Saeph]

What a coincidence, we just watched Fahrenheit 451 today (the film). It's new to me that Playboy published parts of it, thanks for the info, it's a great film & novel!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Playboy was a men's magazine founded in 1953 by Hugh Hefner. He said it was to bring sex out in to the open, to give the modern young single male of that time something to grab hold of. And to give the public a view of sex and sexuality that was starkly different from the Puritan attitudes of "dont ask dont tell" concerning sex during that time.

Playboy has broke new ground in many different areas. Hefner published stories by authors that were new or radical at the time. Farenheit 451, the famous story by Ray Bradbury, was published in part in Playboy. Hefner hosted a television show, Playboy's Penthouse, that featured a stylish party with various performers from Ella Fitzgerald on down.

Playboy publishes not only nude photographs of attractive young women, but interviews with famous and influential people, consumer information on fancy electronics or nice cars, stories ranging the gammut of genres, information on new books or movies.

The Playboy Philosophy advocates drastic relaxing of age-old stigmas on sex and sexuality, not to the point of danger. While Hefner himself advocates free love and a lessening of social stigmas on things such as polyamorous relationships, he has spoken out against un-safe sex numerous times in the past.

Im curious what you think of this philosophy and way of living.

I've read The Playboy Philosophy in its entirety (no small task!), done my share of homework on Hugh Hefner, and of course, am a Playboy subscriber (And I save 50% off the newsstand price!)

My opinion is that most people have a completely wrong idea about Hef. The man is responsible for some very insightful and thought-provoking work. The fact that it gets overshadowed by the public over the incidental displays of nude women just shows that everything he said about society's repressed and puritanical view of sexuality is still true today.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe he has contributed to the increase in the arousal level of an increased number of men. (Some of whom lived, worked or just liked to hang out near the vicinities where our daughters, sisters, wives, nieces, female friends, female work, female relatives and other female loved ones also lived, worked or hung out)

Are you afraid that every aroused man on the planet is a danger to your daughter, sister, wife, neice, etc...?

 

[Bombila]

I have mixed responses to Hefner's philosophy. While the publication did provide a broadly read venue for interesting authors, and promoted some sophisticated individuals (though almost all of these were men), I don't think he did women in general any favours by promoting a sexualised airbrushed barbie doll ideal. In its early years (check out some old issues), Playboy enthusiastically indulged in a predator-prey model of male-female relations (exemplified by those ubiquitous Playboy cartoons of the satry chasing the nymph), where the manly goal was to obtain as much sex with conventionally beautiful women as possible without ever having to relate to them as people.

The Playboy clubs were reputedly unpleasant employers who paid the women who worked in them (in stiletto heels and crushingly tight boned corset costumes) no more than the average waitress, deducted money from them for a variety of sleazy reasons, expected them to endure considerable touching (including slaps on the ass) by customers, and expected them to attend favoured customers parties after work hours.

All in all, I think I prefer Harper's or Vanity Fair, both of which have a reasonably liberal attitude towards sexuality, publish a lot of sophisticated material, introduce interesting authors, but have a considerably more enlightened approach to women and men.

 

[.Sabre.]

I don't agree with the anti-feminist ideas in Playboy.

Cosmopolitan shows similar ideas without the nudie pics. Women are expected to be thin, white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, big-chested, long-legged and totally superficial...AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A "FEMINIST" MAGAZINE. How ironic.

I don't read either of those magazines, by the way.

 

[katautumn]

I can't jump on the Hef's bandwagon anymore now that I know he donated money to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Ugh. Okay, I admit, I still think it's fun to try and find the hidden bunny on every cover.

I believe he has contributed to the increase in the arousal level of an increased number of men.

...nevermind

 

[Bombila]

I don't think Cosmopolitan was ever intended to be a feminist magazine. Its intent was to cater to 'modern, sophisticated' women, and more to the point, to sell what its advertisers wanted sold, which on the whole were high end clothing and cosmetics for the wealthy.

I recall reading an article (possibly in Ms. Magazine) years ago that exposed how much editorial control big advertisers actually have. Cosmetics advertisers would check articles before publication, insist on no pictures of 'fat or ugly' women, and disallow articles in any way critical of their products.

 

[platzapS]

H.H. is a pretty cool guy, and I agree society needs to be more open about sex (see Joycelen Elders--dismissed as Surgeon General by President Clinton for suggesting that masturbation be mentioned in sex-ed class). I find it sad, though, that the models are airbrushed. Aren't women pretty enough already?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Playboy --and porn in general -- is for guys who ain't got no game. The pseudo-intellectual content is just to protect their egos and assuage their feelings of loser-dom.

 

[PassionFruit]

I can't say that I like the philosophy of Playboy. I mean, it does teach people to be more open about sexuality (and being open about sexuality isn't really a bad thing) but with Playboy I can't say that it's in any way empowering.

I also agree with sabre about the anti-feminist sentiments within Playboy. The reason why there are so many blond big chested women that pose for Playboy is because I think Hugh Hefner wanted to give the image of the "naive girl next door who's ready and willing."

"Playboy --and porn in general -- is for guys who ain't got no game. The pseudo-intellectual content is just to protect their egos and assuage their feelings of loser-dom."

I like what Cowboy said here.

 

[jayem]

This may sound like nitpicking in the grand scheme of things, but the mag is just full of cigarette ads. I don't like that he takes so much money from tobacco companies.

 

[Mumei]

Porn in general is for guys who got no game?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/06/survey_finds_evangelicals_addi.php

The Evangelicals might want to get their game on, then.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I can't jump on the Hef's bandwagon anymore now that I know he donated money to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Ugh.

You didn't think Hef would support the GOP?

 

[Nathan Poe]

H.H. is a pretty cool guy, and I agree society needs to be more open about sex (see Joycelen Elders--dismissed as Surgeon General by President Clinton for suggesting that masturbation be mentioned in sex-ed class). I find it sad, though, that the models are airbrushed. Aren't women pretty enough already?

In reality, yes. But nobody ever got rich selling reality.

 

[Bianca87]

Cosmopolitan shows similar ideas without the nudie pics. Women are expected to be thin, white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, big-chested, long-legged and totally superficial...AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A "FEMINIST" MAGAZINE. How ironic.

cosmo actually shows a different standards, still hight, but different. women's goal there is supposed to be being beautiful, sophisticated, smart and successful at the same time. playboy, not that it particulary bugs me thought, is a magazine for men that supports the idea of the pretty, dumb and willing girl. men feel more men when with girls like that. cosmopolitan is a magazine for women that promotes the idea of a good-looking, intelligent and self-confident woman who's able to hold herself. there is a difference. maybe the physical standards are a little high, but that's pretty much every media. beside sometimes they do the "clothes that fit fat girls" article.