From the moment that Hal Holmes and I slipped quietly into his basement and he showed me his father's hidden collection of Playboy magazines, the map of my emotional geography shifted toward Chicago. In that magical city lived a man named Hugh Hefner who had Playmates possessing wondrous bits and pieces I had never seen before. I wanted to be invited to his house.
I was trembling on the brim of puberty, and aroused not so much by the rather sedate color "centerfold" of an undressed woman, as by the black and white photos that accompanied them. These showed an ordinary woman (I believe it was Janet Pilgrim) entering an office building in Chicago, and being made up for her "pictorial." Made up! Two makeup artists were shown applying powders and creams to her flesh. This electrified me. It made Pilgrim a real person. In an interview she spoke of her life and ambitions.
The photographs that burned into my mind did not reveal any of Miss Pilgrim's wondrous bits. I sensed even then that bits were not what it was about. All depended on context. Miss Pilgrim would disrobe and have her body made up by two other women for her Pictorial, and then...then... turning the page...and then she would put on a dressing gown and enter a photo studio and meet a serious and respectable looking photographer... and then...then...she would drop the gown to the floor and then... I turned the page...she would pose for the Centerfold.
It was the process that entranced me. I'd seen cheesecake pin-ups before; my own basement, across the street from Hal's, also contained certain hidden magazines we had studied. That our fathers concealed these magazines from our mothers and that we studied them secretly was surely a rite of passage into manhood. The women we found in those other magazines had no existence apart from their pages. They came into the world full-blown as we saw them, wearing polka-dot bikinis or holding Japanese umbrellas, and after the photo was taken they ceased to exist. They didn't come to work, go home from work, eat, sleep, sneeze, or have any corporeal existence. They were pin-ups. The women in Playboy were real, and lived only 135 miles from Urbana, Illinois, and in some unlikely but thinkable universe I might meet them. My pre-teen hormones cried out: Yes! This is what we're hormones for!In the years to come, Hugh Hefner was often in the news, and rarely in a story I didn't read. He lived in a Mansion. He drove a Mercedes two-seater. He smoked a pipe. In his Mansion, Tony Bennett, Julie London and Bill Cosby hung out, and there were parties every night, and something was happening that was halfway between a bachelor's pad and a bacchanal.
I promised to myself that if I ever got a job Chicago, I would get myself invited to the Mansion within six months. It didn't take that long. I was hired by the Sun-Times in the autumn of 1966, and two months later I was assigned to write a feature story about a party at the Mansion. It was a party for the top Chevrolet dealers of America. Julie London was nowhere to be seen. But there was a big buffet, and Hef was in the living room with his dressing gown, his slippers, his pipe, his Pepsi and his date. I slipped into an alcove and found my way down to the Grotto with its plate-glass window opening onto the aquatic underwater vista of the pool.And there I met, not Miss December, but a young woman named Royal Kennedy. She worked in broadcasting, and was also covering the party. She was amused by the Grotto. We later went out on one or two perfectly respectable dates. She had never met a Playmate. We had that in common. It gradually became clear to me that Bill Cosby might meet Miss December but I never would.
I went back to the Mansion several more times, for parties and movie nights. When Russ Meyer came through Chicago with his new bride Edy Williams, Hef had us over for dinner and gave us the tour. Russ shot some of the first Playmates. I covered the opening of the West Coast Mansion in Holmby Hills, and stood at the bar with Tony Curtis. Later Chaz and I went to some of Hef's New Years' Eve parties out there. In Playboy I'd read about parties at Hef's pad with people like Ray Anthony, Mel Torme and Miss October of 1967. And now it was 1988, and OMG, there they still were! Ray Anthony, Mel Torme and Miss October of 1967! And I went to one of Hef's "movie nights" at the Mansion, with Hef using notes on a yellow legal pad to introduce "Treasure Island."
Many of you will find my comments deplorable. You may believe Playboy was the enemy of women. It objectified their bodies. It schooled men to regard them as sex objects. It stood for all that feminists fought to correct. There is some truth to that, but it doesn't impact upon my experience, and the best I can do here is be truthful.
Nobody taught me to regard women as sex objects. I always did. Most men do. And truth to tell, most women regard men as sex objects. We regard many other aspects of another person, but sex is the elephant in the room. Evolution has hard-wired us that way. When we meet a new person, in some small recess of our minds we evaluate that person as a sex partner. We don't act on it, we don't dwell on it, but we do it. You know we do. And this process continues bravely until we are old and feeble.
To protect you from possible trouble at your work,the photograph that was formerly in this space is now linked here.
Yes, Playboy presented women's bodies for our regard. Yes, they were airbrushed and photo shopped to perfection. Not a blemish, not a zit, not one single chewed fingernail. This process of perfection doesn't deny nature, it reflects it. When we meditate on the partner of our dreams, the mental image we summon is without flaw. We don't dwell upon a pimple or a bad tooth or a little underarm fat. We meditate on the gestalt. We meditate on being accepted and loved by that wonderful person. Photographers like Diane Arbus photographed people realistically, and were called cruel.Nor it is only women's bodies that have been objectified and turned into sex objects. Men have undergone the same process. If few women feel they can live up to a Playmate, few men believe they belong in a Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein ad. Vogue doesn't publish 700-page holiday issues filled with models with zits. I'm not saying this is ideal. I'm saying it's the truth.
So now I move on to a larger view of Hugh Hefner. Yes, he has possibly experienced more orgasms with more different women than any other man who has ever lived. But his relationships have been consensual, and no woman has ever said, "Why, Mr. Hefner! I had no idea you were that kind of man!" It is also notable that in an age where sexual harassment lawsuits are as common as bankruptcies, Hefner has never been charged with misbehavior. We must conclude that Hefner's behavior is that of a generous gentleman who likes to get laid. That is not the worst thing in the world.
I've just finished watching a new documentary named Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist and Rebel, by Brigitte Berman, who won an Oscar for "Artie Shaw: Time is All You've Got" (1985), and also directed "Bix: Ain't None of Them Play Like Him Yet" (1983). My guess is that Hefner and Berman met through their interest in jazz. The film is pro-Hefner, although it supplies Susan Brownmiller and Pat Boone to make the obligatory arguments for the prosecution. It presents Hefner as he would probably want to be seen, as a supporter of civil rights, civil liberties, freedom of speech, and freedom of choice.His credentials in these areas have cost him some money and trouble. His syndicated TV program "Playboy After Dark," which he owned and controlled, showcased mixed-race singing groups and blacklisted performers like Pete Seeger at a time when networks enforced a ban on both. It also showed black and whites dancing together on a set supposed to be "Hef's Penthouse." Some stations in the south refused to carry it. The show went on the air not long after Nat King Cole's show left NBC after failing to find advertisers who would buy into a "black" show.
In New Orleans, Hefner franchised one of the first Playboy Clubs, later to learn it was forbidden by law to mix black and white patrons. He bought back the franchise, and reopened it to club members of all races. It was in that club that a black comedian performed before whites for the first time in Louisiana (although black musicians were "legal"). He was a young man from Chicago named Dick Gregory. Gregory appears in the film, recalling that he was a replacement for a white comic, Dr. Irwin Corey, and the Playboy event turned out to be a private party for 300 white businessmen. "Three hours later, I was still talking," Gregory says. "Everything turned around on that day." For his career, it certainly did.
It became a old joke that people said they read Playboy because of the articles. But Hefner tried much harder than necessary to maintain a high editorial standard. His issues #2 through #4 serialized Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. He championed Vladimir Nabokov, Margaret Atwood, James Baldwin and Jorge Luis Borges. His Playboy Interviews were newsworthy, and his editors must have smiled when they sent Alex Haley to interview the American Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell. (Haley recalls, "I told him I'd been called 'nigger' many times, but this time I was being well paid to hear it.") "The Hurt Locker" was based on Playboy reporting.
Hefner and Playboy have been around so long that not everyone remembers what America used to be like. It was sexually repressed and socially restrictive. College students were expelled for having sex out of wedlock. Homosexuality and miscegenation were illegal. Freedom of choice was denied. McCarthyism still cast a pall over the freedom of speech. Many people joined in the fight against that unhealthy society. Hefner was one of them, and a case can can be made that Playboy had a greater influence on our society in its first half-century than any other magazine.
No doubt Playboy objectified women and all the rest of it. But it also celebrated them, and freed their bodies from the stigma of shame. It calmly explained that women were sexual beings, and experienced orgasms, and that photographs of their bodies were not by definition "dirty pictures." Not many of today's feminists (of either gender) would be able to endure America's attitudes about women in the 1950s.
As Hefner speaks, you realize that he believes in civil rights and liberties so deeply that it's instinctive. Many people shared his politics in the 1950s and early 1960s, but not many of them ran corporations that (a) depended on mass audiences, and (b) stood to lose business because of political beliefs. When it came to African-Americans in his clubs or on his TV show (or as his centerfolds), Hefner did the right thing without calculation, and paid a financial penalty. When the (endless) Playboy Philosophy argued for change, it is unlikely he gained a single reader. But he outlined and defended a progressive philosophy. And when magazine interviews were often revolting puffery about celebrities, he went long and in detail with people like Malcolm X, Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand, Jean-Paul Sartre, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and Marshall McLuhan. The fact is that sex made money for Hefner, and he used it to produce one of the best magazines in America.He also spent money to free a man who faced a 50-year prison term for...fellatio. And helped overturn laws that made fellatio and cunnilingus a crime in all 50 states (for which many of us must be grateful). He fought against laws punishing homosexuality and interracial marriage. He supported Lenny Bruce's fight against an obscenity arrest in Chicago. He fought obscenity prosecutions brought by such as Charles Keating, founder of the Citizens for Decent Literature. He won. Berman's doc cannot resist juxtaposing shots of Keating lecturing on morality and Keating in handcuffs being led to prison for bank fraud. Hefner's Playboy Foundation fought for civil liberties in general. The cost for these activities came out of his profits, and that didn't give him a moment's pause.
Some argue, like Brownmiller, that Playboy was bad for women--that it made them objects for masturbation. I would suggest Playboy was several thousand years behind the curve in doing so. And not only women are used as subjects for meditation during masturbation. Masturbation is an equal opportunity employer. Others argue, like Boone, that Playboy promoted immoral behavior. I believe sex in our society, in general, is more moral today than it was when Playboy began. I think young people in particular have healthier attitudes toward it than they did when I was in high school. I agree that teen pregnancy and STD are tragic, but it was Hefner who fought for birth control and protection when they were illegal in some states. I was taught that a woman's body was a possible Occasion for Sin. What kind of morality is that?Hefner is returning to Chicago this week with his brother Keith, to revisit their childhood home and their old high school, Steinmetz. I went along with them on their previous return home in 1994. I'd love for him to see the Audience Award winner in this year's Chicago Film Festival, "Louder Than a Bomb." It's a documentary about the city-wide High School Poetry Slam Contest, co-directed by Jon Siskel, nephew of Hef's old poker buddy Gene. In its first year of competition, Steinmetz, an unsung school in a mixed neighborhood, came out of nowhere and won the event with a gifted group of poet-performers. In the film, it's one of the finalists again. The students of Steinmetz may not much care that Hugh Hefner graduated from their school, but without the social changes he fought for and helped to influence, all of the members of their Poetry Slam team might be in jail today along with the ghost of Lenny Bruce.
In 1992, Hef revists his childhood home.
Hef throws a house warming in 1972 at the Playboy Mansion West.
I'm fairly sure you'd write a glowing blog about Andrea Yates if the sinking car was affixed with a DNC bumper sticker.
That picture of Azizi Johari is absolutely gorgeous.
God bless Hugh Hefner, and God bless Playboy.
What a wonderful article. Thank you for this.
I also wanted to point out that he's done a lot of preservation in Hollywood as well - including saving the Hollywood Sign (twice, I think?)
You can logically color a story with pink to make it more positive. Playboy simply makes men desire only one body type (skinny, large breasts, no hips, thin thighs) and glorifies the old man-young women relationship as ideal. I see many middle ages men who are still victims of this ideal. They can't settle down wirh a nice normal woman because they are waiting for the pin up, even though they're overweight and mediocre. Hefner is simply disgusting "dating" women young enough to be his granddaughters-and having group sex wirh these brainless bimbos. How we puts up with their stupidity is hard to imagine. Retire old man, enough of pornographing the world and making men reject women who are a bit over the hill or not super skinny with fake breasts.
We are all born in our birthday suits and we will all die with our birthday suits still intact, aged a bit but still skin and bones, and hey, what's a nipple or a penis or a tush or a bush, just part of this thing called life, the sooner we get over our fear of our own bodies, the sooner we will grow up as a species. I remember a friend of mine from Nigeria, we met in Rome in a youth hostel late 60s, he told me one day "hey danielo, what's with you Western men and Playboy magazine and this fetish with breasts? In my village, we all grew up with topless women, we never even thought twice about it." And I said to him: "You know, you're right. We Westerners have made a fetish over sexual parts of the body when in fact, it should be all natural." I believe Christian Nwadike was right. CLothes are nice, but naked is natural. Long live Hugh Hefner, a prophet in our times.
A good bonding experience with my male friends (no females so far) is where they hid their first playboy. I hid mine behind a picture frame hanging on the wall across from the toilet. I delicately balanced it on the back of the frame and just had to pull it out from the wall a little to get it out.
Note: I'm starting by getting the cheap jokes out of the way.
This documentary about Hefner certainly sounds fascinating. I'd like to see it, but I think if anybody asks me why, I'll say I'm going for the articles.
Also, I'm currently wearing a T-shirt that reads, "The Constitution: I read it for the articles."
Now that that's out of the way...
Does porn degrade women? It can be argued. But so does the fashion industry; how many feminists protest low-cut tops? And what about mainstream Hollywood? They certainly aren't shy about putting women in skimpy costumes or less to get the men in the audience salivating.
I'd argue that, yes, porn exists which does degrade women. But there's also porn that empowers them. There are plenty of porn sites out there that are photographed by women ("or so I've heard"). Is it degrading for women to make pornography on the other side of the camera? Maybe porn is unhealthy, but for people who don't have relationships, or for people who just need "a little relief," well, what would you suggest?
And what's this about women being sex objects? Is that necessarily bad? Some people like being lusted after, for one reason or another. Don't let's argue that porn makes men see women less as people; if that happens, then the man certainly has issues deeper than what he watches in his spare time.
Hugh Hefner has been made into a joke of a person, and I'd argue that he's partially responsible. You can't agree to have a reality show made about your girlfriends, and air it on the E! network, and not expect people to mock you for it. But his accomplishments sound like they're being overlooked. Larry Flynt may have gotten a film about his fight for the first amendment, and finally Hefner is getting his own. I really would love to see it. Even if I have to put on a trenchcoat to do so.
To Charlotte Gotello:
Playboy does not make us men desire skinny women with large breasts, no hips and thin thighs. We already DO desire skinny women with large breasts no hips, and thin thighs. I have desired skinny women with large breasts, no hips, and thin thighs ever since I hit puberty, and that was many years before I had ever looked at a Playboy. I think Roger was trying to make that point.
As for the many overweight and mediocre middle aged men you see who reject nice, normal women to wait for pin-ups, well, they're not doing that because of Playboy, they're doing that because they're stupid.
I was recently at a party here in New York which was co-sponsored by Playboy, featuring a reading of the new translation of "Madame Bovary" by Lydia Davis. After the reading, I had a great conversation with publisher John Lumpkin about the piece and why the character still resonates.
Never thought I'd say that about my first Playboy party.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
You are one of the best writer's in the entire world! Every article that you write draws me in and I am fascinated. You have a very uncanny ability to capture the reader and in a very human style, educate us fully on the subject matter for which you are writing.
This particular article on Playboy was very well written, easy to read and covers subject matter not necessarily for the faint-hearted mind. Keep 'em coming please!
A nice tribute to ole Hef. A lot of people only knew playboy as that magazine with pictures of naked women, but in many other respects the magazine was downright subversive, taking on hard topics with an air of authority. I think it was the combination of everything - the women, the writing - when put together it was a winning combination. How long would Playboy have kept from having its lunch eaten without "the articles"?
There was also a wonderful re-posting recently of an award winning Rolling Stone interview with Bob Guccione, from 2004. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/17389/224042 which shows an entirely different approach to the genre, but equally as subversive at the time. Of the two, Hef had the more high brow approach, and with a social agenda. Bob's tastes ran to the more explicit and quickly pushed playboy to head a little further in that direction.
As a photographer and admirer of the fine art nude, Hef is the major reference to apply the phrase "I stand on the shoulders of giants" - without him, we might still be years behind in the sexual closet. I have had the pleasure of photographing one of his former playmates, who was every bit as professional and beautiful as you'd expect.
Playboy started out with a great thing, but gradually devolved into airbrushed, plastic bubble blondes. Compare the magnificent, natural models of the 1960s to the 1980s and forward, and something, with few exceptions, was definitely lost. Everything has a golden age, and in both the literature and the eye candy, it seems to have peaked along side the counter culture that went with it.
Perhaps a victim of its own success, Playboy is now firmly planted in the mainstream, and more recently made irrelevant by a cornucopia of online offerings. Nevertheless, we must raise a toast to the pioneer, the champion of so many movements and liberties we now take for granted.
Roger, at least give some warning about the picture of the undressed lady. I know that perhaps it is a picture made in good taste, but not everyone glancing at the monitor screen would think positively about a picture of an undressed lady staring back at them.
Ebert: I thought about that and decided that anyone reading an entry in defense of Hefner would understand it, in context.
I find it fascinating that, after recently viewing the People vs. Larry Flynt, that these so called "pornographers" are responsible either directly or indirectly for many of the freedoms we enjoy today. Great article, Mr. Ebert.
I don't get how a woman posing naked is a good thing for anyone other than the guy seeing the pictures. I just don't get it. If I see naked pictures of a woman, I'm far more likely to think some rather uncomplimentary things about her character than to think, "wow, that is so empowering!" If I take naked pictures, I'm not doing it because I want to be taken seriously. I'm doing it because I know it's going to get the guy it's meant for off. It's convenient for guys to call Playboy empowering. It gives you what you want - naked women. So you try to justify it. Not buying it.
What some women and men don't get is that in a patriarcal society, change most always starts with the people in power, men. Usually wealthy men. The Magna Carta didn't give rights to serfs but it did allow the nobility to leverage the strength in their numbers against their king. Knowing a good idea when they saw one, guilds of artisans and merchants and finally, "commoners", followed suit as time marched on.
The same goes for the sexual revolution. If we hadn't had men's liberation and the following conversation about the naturalness of sexual desire and sexual intercourse, does anyone really believe that women would have the platform wherein to enter the dialog and yes, perhaps change the playing field?
Women also look at men as objects of desire. Women also are consumers of pornography. Women and men are used in advertising to sell products that overtly or by subtext promise that possession of them will make you irresistable to your fantasy man/woman. Power has -- somewhat -- shifted.
Hugh started the conversation. For that and his championing of civil rights and civil liberties, we should all be grateful. The conversation will continue.
Great article!
Now if only someone would write one about "Woods porn"!
You know, that rite of passage we experience as a kid where you and your buddies know where there's some weird old porn hidden in the woods or a shed to look at. It was usually faded old playboys but sometimes you would have your mind blown when you would find the rare hustler.
When you finished pretending that you understand what you're looking at you always put the woods porn back in the same spot for the next group of kids to discover.
I wonder if there's like an Easter Bunny of porn that hides magazines in the woods for generations to come?
Charlotte Gotello: Playboy simply makes men desire one body type (skinny, large breasts, no hips, thin thighs) and glorifies the old man-young woman relationship as ideal.
Playboy doesn't create desire, it caters to it. I personally don't know many men who have a concrete "type," and fewer who'd admit to it for fear of sounding like some idiot frat boy. Also, Hefner himself may glorify old man-young woman relationships, but in the magazine itself, I've never seen photos of any nude men, let alone old ones, so I'm uncertain as to how it endorses young women dating any particular group of men.
Charlotte Gotello: They can't settle down with a nice normal woman because they're waiting for the pin up, even though they're overweight and mediocre.
Lack of accurate self-assesment is rampant in more than just relationships (and not just in men), and has more to do with the self-esteem movement than Playboy. And never mind overweight, why would any woman want to be with anyone they'd describe as "mediocre?"
Charlotte Gotello: Hefner is simply disgusting "dating" women young enough to be his granddaughters and having group sex with these brainless bimbos.
Simple law of averages says they can't all be brainless, but even if they are, would you really be so cruel as to deny an employment opportunity to a young woman whose only marketable trait is her beauty?
Charlotte Gotello: Retire old man, enough of pornographing the world and making men reject women who are a bit over the hill and not super skinny with fake breasts.
Why not? You just did it to Hef. Besides, what would he retire from? And is "pornographing" a word?
I subscribed to Playboy for the articles and fiction and interviews. I early on became bored with the Playboy women. They were perfect and pretty much interchangeable.
However, if I wanted to read a great piece of fiction, or expand my horizons on the topic of the drug war, or read an interview with John Lennon (who truly got naked via a great interviewer),...I picked up one of my Playboys and lost myself somewhere in the world outside of Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
I thought of Playboy's copycat - Penthouse - as trash. Good trash, yet trash nevertheless. I learned more about the female body from Bob Guccione than I did Hugh Hefner, but I rarely read anything in Penthouse. Except for the fetish letters. I was transfixed by some of the odd things which excited people.
Hugh Hefner was omnivorous when it came to intellectual pursuits. He surrounded himself with the best and brightest of our time, and did his best to share it all with us. I learned more from Playboy in four years than I did in the same period from college.
Thanks for putting your pen to this subject. I was gleefully reminded of when a friend and I got into his dad's collection of little booklets featuring Betty Page. There were dozens of them.
She was the person, at least to me, who defined what a mature woman looked like. I almost think Hugh would agree with me.
I implore all to read Christopher Ryan's Sex at Dawn. Now. He wrote it with his wife, Caclida Jetha, and it's a wonderful exposé of who we all are as humans--promiscuous, and they define that term and use it wisely.
Hunter-gatherers shared everything. Everything, and in a tribe of 125 to 150 people, each man and woman had several sexual relationships going on at the same time. Very, very little jealousy, no rape, because sex was available almost whenever someone wanted it.
But it's deeper than that. Read reviews, too--and read the book. You won't make excuses for being a man anymore.
Or a woman.
I just can't buy your justifications. Whatever else Hefner may have done ... I don't see supporting equal rights for women among them (birth control greatly benefited him, no doubt, so no credit there). But that's all right, right? Continually objectifying women is all right, given everything else? (Yes, he objectified, but ...)
Men being objectified is a recent phenomenon, *and* it will never affect them in terms of pay or equal opportunity. They have never been thought of as property, and so don't have sexism always under the surface.
Whether or not each sex looks at the other in terms of sexual possibility, I doubt many men are hired or rejected in Hollywood for their f**kability factor - or if they are, the proportion is likely a fraction of that for women. Nor is it as likely a factor for men in seeking any job outside Hollywood - but I can tell you it is a factor for women. It's simply not a fair or accurate comparison to say men are also thought of sexually and so dismiss the issue of objectification.
Oh, poor men - they have to compete with Calvin Klein models. BFD. Let's talk movies, since you're the expert: how many movies are there about average, nerdy, overweight, or "unattractive" women getting the gorgeous and/or younger man who sees who they really are and doesn't worry about appearances ... especially where she *doesn't* have a makeover by the end of the film to make her more "acceptable"? And how many movies are the other way around? Few, and plenty, respectively. The men can even be perpetual adolescents in addition to being less than perfectly attractive, but that's just fine with the gorgeous women!
If there *is* a film about an older woman with a younger man - she likely doesn't have an extra ounce on her, she still has full hormones and so has no menopausal issues even if she's past menopause (but older men are heroes for using Viagra) ... except for no longer needing birth control. Benefit to the man! (Nancy Meyers films might be the only recent at least semi-exception, yet she draws an exceptional amount of criticism and ridicule for portraying women's *fantasies*. From your own critique of It's Complicated: "Truth in criticism: I must report that I expect "It's Complicated" will be terrifically popular with its target demographic, which includes gal pals taking a movie break after returning Christmas presents." Because of course, only "gal pals" who shop and return presents [how shallow] would be interested in watching a movie about a middle aged woman whose ex prefers her to a stick figure. Much of your tone in that review came across as snide, by the way.)
Women's hard-won rights are being eroded daily - even to the point where we are being called "girls" again more often than "women" as one small but telling example. Hefner and Playboy may provide you with many fond memories, but none of the things you listed have helped *women* to be seen and treated as equals. Rather he has always only promoted a single image, unrealistic and unattainable for most women, and even dangerous to young girls forming self-images.
In fact we're not even allowed to be real women thanks in large part to Hefner's influence. Instead, the ideal now is perfect-looking *girls* - infantilized women (the only hair we are supposedly allowed on our bodies is on our heads, where it should be very long, because men like it that way), now with straight up and down boy bodies that have over-sized (often fake) bumps at the top. However, never, ever will any hint of feminine or little-boy physicality be considered attractive for a man.
Hugh Hefner has been good for us? I guess women aren't included in "us." How sad. The mention or sight of that man literally makes my skin crawl.
I think Roger's absolutely right in pointing the the hard-wired sexual objectification we all carry within us. There's absolutely nothing new about it. Sure, people, men and women alike, can take that objectification to unhelpful, and even unhealthy, extremes. But we deny, suppress, and repress at our peril.
The self-righteous prudishness and oppressiveness of post-war America was stifling for many, based as it was on a wholly artificial culture of social conformity and economic expansion that seemed safe, hopeful, and predictable -- and therefore sacrosanct. Understandable after the brutal upheavals of the Great Depression and World War II. But that culture simply could not persist because it demanded subservience to a vision of masculinity and femininity that bore too little relation to actual human nature. Millions in our country still cling to that mythological golden age as the 'way it ought to be' and are doing what they can to turn the cultural clock backward. Thousands of the wealthiest in our country are amping up and manipulating the fear of change expressed by those millions in order to entwine their wealth, power, and influence even more deeply into the warp and woof of American life.
I applaud Hefner for making money not by enhancing fear and promoting conformity but by openly expressing what many, if not most, men felt anyway about women, and then turning much of that money into an instrument of social change. The person who wrote earlier deriding Hefner for pushing a next-to-impossible standard for female beauty that "overweight and mediocre" middle-aged men hold out for (and where did she get the ideal that these men fall so short of?) simply doesn't understand the heady liberation represented by being able to buy such a magazine in the corner grocery store as opposed to sneakily buying French postcards in an alley. It helped make maleness OK, and injected the power of frankly sexual femininity into the mainstream.
The first pubic hair I ever saw was in the pages of Playboy -- I remember the picture vividly to this day -- and the direct look of the beautiful nude woman into the camera electrified me. I saw not embarrassment but pride. I saw power not weakness. I saw complete comfort with sexuality not cowering shame. The fact that Hefner paid his models quite well also told me something about the exclusiveness, if not the rarity, of that kind of beauty and, for me anyway, did not lead me to either expect, let alone hold out for, that kind of dramatically shaped and potently sexual personage in my own life. I had already noticed, and appreciated, large breasts and round fannies on my own anyway...
Denying and hemming-in large swaths of human nature is such a dead end for the human race. Not that I'm a libertine in favor of no limits at all on human behavior! But on the whole, I believe it's just more constructive in the long run to work with human nature than against it. I think Hefner has made his mark in this world in that regard, and it's a positive mark.
Great write up of a great man. I actually had an opportunity through a job to sit in the very chair Hef is pictured sitting in (above) showing his then-girlfriend Kendra one of his over 2,000 volume scrapbook collection.
Learning that Hef was a rabid football fan and after making it known that I, too, was a proud Illinois alumni, head archivist Steve Martinez allowed me to peruse the volume featuring hef's college years. In it, displayed in painstaking detail, paper figures crafted from vintage football programs depict the various ways in which Chief Illiniwek had defeated his various mascot foes.
Hef's broad scoping vision is parallelled only by his obsessive drive, magnetic charm and the legacy he's built from the ground up. Long live the king.
I think Hefner is a dirty old perv. (Can I have some of his models?)
Like a great many institutions Hugh Hefner and Playboy are being destroyed by the internet. Playboy learned much too late that no one was going to pay to see Playmates when copious numbers of pictures of naked women could be found for free with a couple of clicks. Writers who would have once killed to have a by-line in Playboy now blog. And thanks to reality TV this man who did so much good--yes, feminists, he did--is now considered by the youth of America to be a creepy old guy who wears pajamas in public and pays young blonde overly siliconed women to sleep with him. When my teenage niece expressed this opinion of Hefner (she's a big fan of "The Girls Next Door") I pointed out one of the show's former "stars," Kendra Wilkinson. Not only is Hefner the reason anyone knows who she is, but his influence and work spread to her personal life--she is married to and has a child with a black man and no one screamed OMG YOU NI**ER LOVING WHORE over it. I also pointed out that all these women were there by choice. I'm sure he understands that these days many want fame for fame's sake, so he gives it to them. They get their pictures in mainstream magazines or their own shows or at the very least a rich husband or boyfriend out of the deal. Feminists say he's a pig. I say he's probably one of the most honest people ever. He's never pulled punches about how he approaches things and that's what I've always liked about him. He needs a little more variety with the girlfriends but hey, his choice.
Oh, and @Charlotte Gotello--sounds like you're taking this a bit personally. If you're getting rejected by men for not looking like a Playmate, you're getting with the wrong men.
Roger, you wrote: "It became a old joke that people said they read Playboy because of the articles. But Hefner tried much harder than necessary to maintain a high editorial standard"
Actually, you're dead on with this. All winking an nudging aside, some of the written material that has appeared in Playboy is positively legendary. A fine example is the interview they did with Stephen King back in the early stages of his career,which is widely regarded as the best one-on-one with the author ever to appear in print.
Also published in Playboy: the short stories of Jean Shepherd, some of the best and most lovable literature ever to come out of my home state of Indiana. Some of the Playboy short stories, like "The Grandstand Passion Play of Delbert and the Bumpus Hounds", later became elements of Shepherd's legendary movie - "A Christmas Story." Others which weren't Christmas related, like the uproarious tale of Shep's junior prom, have been published in the books "In God We Trust (All Others Pay Cash)" and "Wanda Hickey's Night of Golden Memories."
I feel like most if not all Roger Readers would get a huge kick out of those books, and I know I do when I tell people, based on my love for Shepherd's Twain-in-Missouri-esque work, that there are great articles in Playboy. How come nobody ever believes it?
The only bit of PLAYBOY I've ever read is when John Lennon and Paul McCartney were interviewed (separately). They were marvelous interviews. Yes, the news articles were worthy. But at what cost?
I see your point, Roger, but let me ask you: How many photos of naked men did PLAYBOY display? And, as a follow-up: How many of those photos showed aroused naked men, i.e., with erections?
Double standard.
(PLAYGIRL was hardly a worthy substitute. I leafed through an issue once and replaced it unimpressed.)
The only bit of PLAYBOY I've ever read is when John Lennon and Paul McCartney were interviewed (separately). They were marvelous interviews. Yes, the news articles were worthy. But at what cost?
I see your point, Roger, but let me ask you: How many photos of naked men did PLAYBOY display? And, as a follow-up: How many of those photos showed aroused naked men, i.e., with erections?
Double standard.
(PLAYGIRL was hardly a worthy substitute. I leafed through an issue once and replaced it unimpressed.)
I have one Playboy magazine in my house. Maybe one day my son will find it. I bought it because I was a big fan of Star Trek and the cover advertised an interview with Patrick Stewart.
Of course I wouldn't have minded more magazines.
I expect the arguements that follow this thread will largely be divided along lines of gender and to this I say, "Vive la difference!"
Growing up in the 70s reading my dad's stash of Playboys (that dated to the 60s) made me, when the time came, an embodiment of the statement in The Right Stuff: No individual will have ever been so adequately prepared for an event in advance.
In comparison with the sad, violent, ever-harder stuff available on the net these days, Hef's offerings are quaint, charming and, as you point out, they have more moral and intellectual justification than one would expect. They come across more as erotica than pornography.
Heffner is that unique creature, the gentleman pimp. I'm willing to believe that he genuinely loves women.
Are you familiar with Samuel Delany's arguments concerning the social functions of pornography?
Great posting, Roger. I think that history will smile upon Hefner's legacy more and more throughout the years. On every major social issue, he has been on the side of progress. 100 years from now, his positions on the issues will seem mainstream. As you said, the risks he took were significant, and he deserves all he's received in life.
Leon, you've got your crimes mixed up. The car in the pond was Susan Smith; Andrea Yates used a bathtub.
Charlotte Gotello has a point, but a well-funded civil rights activist and literature/journalism enthusiast is better than a well-funded hedonist who promotes only himself.
Anybody who truly believes that people are -that- incapable of separating fantasy from reality should go found a nation in which video games are about teeth brushing and attractive individuals are mandated to foster their acne for the sakes of the less fortunate.
Because it's not like a woman ever had unrealistic expectations, is it, Charlotte?
Yes, Playboy playmates are pretty much interchangeable within a narrow range of body types and hair colors. Charlotte Gotello says:
"I see many middle ages men who are still victims of this ideal. They can't settle down with a nice normal woman because they are waiting for the pin up, even though they're overweight and mediocre."
These emotional pygmies are more talked about than encountered, in my opinion, though I don't deny they exist. I'd venture that a larger majority of males are nonplussed sexually by the typical Playmate once they are beyond 20 years old. That's called maturity. Unfortunately, as in movie marketing that's aimed at 14-16 year old males, we extrapolate the behavior of pubescent males to men of all ages.
If a man can't make that move forward, then 'nice normal women' everywhere should be thankful that he has taken himself out of the Darwinian struggle.
In response to Leon: Andrea Yates was a mentally ill multiple murderer who drowned her children in the bath tub. The sinking car you are thinking of belonged to Susan Smith who was not mentally ill, just narcissistic. The fact that you and others in this country compare a publisher of a magazine that features tame and beautiful pictures of naked women to murderers of children does not indicate your morality, but rather an extreme discomfort with yourself. In my own personal experience, men who enjoy Playboy are respectful of women's individual identity and rights. The men who protest most loudly against Playboy are the ones who harbor toxic ideas about women and what their "place" is in this world. I'm happy to say that my husband doesn't feel the need to hide his Playboys from me, like my father did with my mother.
He is not a crusader or a rebel; he is a savvy businessman who realized what would sell. This, like any other business with shady practices, does not forgive him the fact that he runs an empire based on selling the idea that a woman's value is based almost solely on her physical (and often surgically-modified) appearance.
We should not forgive him for being "behind the curve" of using women as objects. Just because one is not the first to capitalize on human weakness does not absolve one from the consequences.
You mentioned civil liberties, but don't forget Playboy's excellent interview with Martin Luther King, Jr.--one of the last he did before he was assassinated.
My wife and I saw this film in Boston over the summer and enjoyed it immensely. She had no idea of the history of Playboy, although I did, having been an inveterate reader (yes, reader) and looker through much of the late 50's and early 60's. When we later mentioned the film to my wife's sister the reaction was 'Oh, gross!', and my wife, a sudden convert, began defending Hef and Playboy to her.
The magazine and his lifestyle are not without fault, but on balance he has had quite a bit to do with liberating women (I fully realize that is like fingernails on chalkboard to many) and loosening the sexual strictures that were the hallmark of the times. When it comes to having had an impact on our society, it is a small list whose impact has been greater.
I remember a visit to an OB/GYN in my college town where I sought birth control pills. No dice. I had to be 21 or have parental permission. Hometown doctor not so choosy two months later.
As a young married woman I gave my husband Christmas gift subscriptions to Playboy more than once. And, yes, I read the interviews and articles and laughed at many of the cartoons. The photo spreads usually were unimpressive in my POV, but not threatening. Norman Mailer's coverage of Ali/Forman fight in Zaire... priceless.
I was proud when Hefner's daughter took over the management of the dwindling empire. It's time has passed, but there were indeed major contributions to the loosening up of American culture. My first view of a nearly naked pinup picture took place in the shop of highway construction company owned by my best friend's father. We were probably nine. The calendar was hanging on the wall by the fridge that held Cokes.
Surprising amount of anger in these early comments, Roger. Playboy culture has a lot of ick to it, but beats hell out slasher movie culture that emerged later and carries forward today in gaming sex/violence interplay. Your regard for Hefner is deeply personal and based upon your own experience. As we age we become exaggerated versions of ourselves. Hef is no different, but he stays Hef.
Good morning, Mr. Ebert:
You present a delightfully convincing argument, with which I largely agree, that Mr. Hefner's various interests, sexual or otherwise, provided valuable public services. Of these, demystifying and de-stigmatizing nudity and sexuality are no small feats. I would imagine that people who surreptitiously read Playboy, Playgirl, and other skin magazines grew up better adjusted sexually and socially than those forbidden to do so. They were able to "scratch the itch" and realize that observing a person's private anatomy is perfectly fine, so long as you don't violate that person's privacy or dignity. Surprisingly, prolonged "exposure" to nudity and sexuality may even make you jaded and blase to it. I am astounded that Mr. Hefner has not surfeited on T&A.
However, despite Mr. Hefner's efforts, Americans are still puritanically and schizophrenically insecure and restive about nudity/sexuality. For example, in some states, if you are caught streaking, under some circumstances, you may be labeled as a sex offender. On the other hand, the Internet's ubiquitous (and sometimes free) "skin websites" have made Playboy and its ilk virtually obsolete. We still have not fully emulated the Europeans' admirably relaxed and progressive attitude towards the same themes.
This is not for lack of trying, however. Studies have shown that more Americans are beginning to embrace nudity as a positive expression of themselves. More people are visiting naturist resorts (I have) and are even booking "nude cruises" (which I would like to do). San Francisco hosts an annual 7-mile walk called "Bay to Breakers" where some participants walk in the altogether. Those who do find out that their fellow nudists are generally not depraved and deprived sex fiends at all. On the contrary, (and my experience bears this out) nudist are paradoxically the friendliest, most disciplined, and conscientious people you'll ever meet. Sexually overt activity is simply not condoned.
Naturists resorts are also truly egalitarian experiences. You will meet ALL body types. Most of the time, they are not 10s (present company included). But it doesn't matter. People literally become comfortable in their own skins and accept those of others, and just enjoy the simple, natural freedom from clothing.
In closing, I refer you to Spencer Tunick, who has made a career of photographing throngs of people from around the world in the nude. The documentary "Naked States" chronicles his career, including his battle against an indecent exposure charge when he tried to photograph nudes on the streets of New York. If Mr. Tunick ever decides to visit Boston, I think I may just participate.
I have since lost the physical key, but I still recall the NY54828 number.
The integration of the clubs was a new experience for me in my 20s and freshly moved from Seattle to the Big Apple. Until I read this tribute, I had forgotten that the Playboy Club was a wonderful place where we could take our black (pre-Afro-American) friends out to dinner without concern of any kind. It was also a great place for late-night breakfast after working late on computers in the office.
And, while I never aspired to have whatever hormonal drive Hef has, and would be truly awkward around a Playmate (but maybe not Janet Pilgrim), I always read the interviews, most of the fiction, the cartoons, advisor, and other columns. Some of the graphic art was also the finest around, not just the photography. I read all of the Ian Fleming serials, for sure.
Somehow, the message of tolerance being lived that Hef expressed lingers on. On reflection, I realize that I should credit him with inspiring and cultivating that inclination in me. Thank you, Roger.
I agree with much of what you say, but you undermine your argument when you sugarcoat or gloss over a few things on the debit side. Such as ...
"What Kind of Man Reads Playboy?"
This is one of the elements of the magazine I most vividly recall. The message was clear: American men should all aspire to materialism, because only wealth, fancy clothes, expensive cars, and a shallow attitude toward life will qualify you as a true Hefner acolyte.
Nobody taught me to regard women as sex objects. I always did. Most men do. And truth to tell, most women regard men as sex objects. We regard many other aspects of another person, but sex is the elephant in the room. Evolution has hard-wired us that way. When we meet a new person, in some small recess of our minds we evaluate that person as a sex partner. We don't act on it, we don't dwell on it, but we do it. You know we do. And this process continues bravely until we are old and feeble.
Thank you for saying this. It's so true, and so important. When I first see a woman across the room, I can only see her as a sex object. I have no choice; I know nothing about her other than how she looks. For many years, I thought that was wrong, but I understand now that this is normal, and healthy, and worth celebrating. Yesterday, my girlfriend stroked my biceps and complimented me on how sexy I looked. It took months of workouts to achieve those muscles. Those are months I did not invest, until I was ready to see myself as a sex object.
Cheers to all the billions of sex objects in the world.
I am delighted you wrote this, Roger. Hugh Hefner deserves to be celebrated, as do you, and as does Russ Meyer. I'm sure you've noticed this, but life and sex are good things. This was a wonderful read, and I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Sam Longoria
sam@longoria.com
http://samlongoria.blogspot.com
Similar to Hefner, I too was brought up in a very cold household. The topic of sex, when not outright ignored, was treated with hysteria. It was something that could not be spoken of, depicted, joked about, hinted at - in short, of the devil. Sign o the times.
This upbringing brought me into immediate conflict with myself, as my hormones and curiosity did not seem to know or care about social mores.
Hefner represented (according to my upbringing) something distasteful, immoral (though fun). As a fuller functioning and mature adult male I have developed my own ideas on sex and its place in a worthwhile life (sign o the times?) and am glad to hear Hef present his opinions in the above interviews. This article made me smile. The responses in opposition will be as stereotypical and cliche as they were generations ago.
Good for you, Hef.
I agree with you, Roger, both about Playboy and about Hefner. Things were pretty grim back in the day. Playboy broke ground in many ways. Did I look at the pictures? Of course. Did I read the articles and interviews? Yes. That's where I learned about Sartre, and his turning down the Nobel Prize for literature. And my hero, Bertrand Russell.
That Hefner did all that good work on the foundation of air-brushed photos of naked women, that's worth thinking about. What he was/is and did, the magazine and the activism, just doesn't fit into neat categories about the world. Sex is like that. And so is genuine thought.
"Nobody taught me to regard women as sex objects. I always did. Most men do. And truth to tell, most women regard men as sex objects. We regard many other aspects of another person, but sex is the elephant in the room. Evolution has hard-wired us that way. When we meet a new person, in some small recess of our minds we evaluate that person as a sex partner. We don't act on it, we don't dwell on it, but we do it. You know we do. And this process continues bravely until we are old and feeble."
Of course, that evolutionary purpose is procreation and perpetuation of Homo Sapiens.
I guess I'd better get this in before Websense blocks the page ...
Although, now that I think of it, the essay about "making out" is still available ...
As is the gallery of 1950s science-fiction covers ...
Well, there it is, isn't it?
I haven't had a chance to double back on each and every entry, and for all I know your whole blog might be on a watch list.
So if my bosses feel that my young, impressionable, 60-year-old mind can still be corrupted by such things, what's an old man to do?
By the way, it's now official:
Websense is blocking Twitter and Facebook in toto for reasons of "social networking".
So my workplace is safe and pure.
*ain't I the lucky one?*
My mom was pretty much a conservative prude. Yet she didn't mind the human body being shown in a movie nearly as much as the rampant violence and foul language. I wish more Americans recognized the irony of their allowing and promoting a nonchalant attitude towards violence or vulgarity while pronouncing the depictions of the human body and sexuality immoral, offensive, disgusting and/or taboo.
I am a straight woman who started sneaking my dad's Playboy's because I was fascinated by "Little Annie Fannie". I've been reading ever since and have been a subscriber for more than ten years. My favorite comic is gone (Hef, if you read this, please rerun Fannie!), but I still think they have the best interviews of any magazine.
Thanks Roger, for giving credit where credit is due.
Apologies for the second post in less than an hour, but you've got to know about this.
After I posted, I went to the archives to look up some of the older entries. I scrolled down to "Books Do Furnish a Life", which you may recall as the one wherein I told you about Harry Stephen Keeler and Fender Tucker.
Blocked "for your protection".
Reason given: "Proxy Avoidance".
No other explanation, which means no explanation.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
At the risk of starting another thread, I'd like to know if anyone else is having this problem.
No one has made a Hugh Hefner movie yet, which is more than a bit discouraging, as his is clearly one of the great lives of the twentieth century. But one night I had the unique honor of reading the notes that Hugh Hefner typed up with an assistant about a script that had been written based on his life. And you wouldn't believe how sharp his comments were. The screenwriter had tried to paint him as a misogynist and an abuser of women, and Hefner was writing things like, "How can you write that I treated Janet Pilgrim with scorn when I loved her as much as any other woman? You don't know my life!"
And I think that Hefner's reputation has misogyny attached to it. It just comes with the territory. But what man did more for women's sexuality than he? Before Playboy and the Kinsey revolution, sex wasn't something you could think about and bring into public dialogue. And thank god Hefner read Kinsey, because if he hadn't he might've grown up thinking that the feelings he had towards women were wrong.
I've grown up looking at Playboy, and will never forget being a young kid, trying to find my Dad's hidden stash. It taught me too that the way I felt towards women was perfectly normal. And I feel like if more people talked openly about sexuality, and practiced it more often, we would all be happier.
Think I'm crazy with that last statement? Well I have yet to find a better theory explaining why Hefner has lived so long.
PS Although I don't want to mention my name here, Roger, your reference to my long comment on Godard in your Cannes blog was one of the great moments of my life. You are a phenomenal writer.
A study a year ago indicated that the tool-utilization part of the brain becomes activated when a man sees a picture of a scantily clad women. For sexist men: that is the only part of the brain that is being used; the social region of the brain isn't utilized at all. The study concludes that these type of pictures shouldn't be shown in the workplace.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/intheworkplace/a/MenObjects.htm
But there's also a hormonal component to sex, which is activated by smell, yet it is odorless like dogs, who are attracted to a b*tch (just in case of the spam filter): meaning even if we didn't have eyesight we would still, by smell (or what would be a mysterious...arousing surprise to us, as its odorless), we'd still be sexually aroused by someone else.
There was a study of this, where scientists had a women go into a club without giving off the hormone and then with the hormone, and many more men made a pass at the women when sprayed with the hormone; so, in this sense, it trumps the visual element.
I often wonder, as you might be wondering now, about how this "burning of the image into the brain" affects the brain of a young male (or even female, though the study didn't do women). Granted that this has a negative influence in the workplace, the question arises about it extending beyond the workplace, and probably most of all to children. Is there a kind of point of no return for these images or is it different than a child seeing just straight kind of sex or simulated sex?
When I was young boy of about 4 or 5 I would, uh, kind of dry hump my sister's cabbage patch kid doll (which I stopped pretty immediately after realizing that it was going to do some damage). Also, when at staying at my mother's friends house, who had two sons a bit older than I was and they were always off wrestling with each other (they were fans of wrestling, in its kind of golden age of Andre the Giant) I think I once went and...did the same thing with I don't know I guess a shoe or something (like R. Crumb). I wonder if the reason I did that was because I had either seen my mother have sex (which I doubt) or if because it had something to do with these kind of pornographic booklets in her drawer with black and white pictures and a lot of writing and advertisements; I only remember seeing a picture of a naked women, but perhaps there were other pictures in there of sex that I can't remember; I also remember trying to show my friend the booklet once.
So, this kind of masturbatory behavior (which seemed to stop at those two points), was it something learned or was it something that came as a result of the pictures.
It probably didn't came as a result of the pictures, but dry-humping a cabbage patch doll also seems a little too specific to be something instinctual.
Okay, but that was a more minor burning of an image (perhaps), but they seem to get gradually stronger.
Then at around age 6 probably (a few years later and in another state...which doesn't really matter probably), I found my mom's boyfriend's kind of skinemax sex comedy movie (why and how the hell did I keep finding this stuff?). I ended up showing some of my new friends a scene from this movie because they were funny somewhat. One showed a scantily clad women in an aerobic outfit lifting weights and then inexplicably a kind of funny noise accompanied her lifting (which, now that I think of it, was probably just me)...and there was another scene of a guy in a car with all of these sexy women all over him and he is nervous and says "I have to go pee." I guess there are always some pervs in this films, so I guess that was the comedy and perhaps kind of way of suspending the disbelief, but the aerobic women part is the only part I remember watching.
Okay, now the burning of the brain gets more intense.
At this same friends house, probably a few years later, and I saw the sex scene in "Road House" and I remember my hormones were starting to get a bit haywire there. Oh, I remember a few years earlier also watching the "Elvira" movie at around the same time as the other skinemax thing, and that seemed to be a much more minor spark, if any really (also the skinemax was kind of nothing), but the sex scene in "Road House" which was a kind of dirty darkroom sex scene in the bar was something that kind of forever burned in my brain. At school, I would often distract myself by thinking of this sexual act (not the scene, the act) kind of obsessively; it would really be a distraction and something that kind of came unconsciously. I would kind of repeatedly flare my noise and then look down at my nose, and....It would look like a guy's backside having sex...just like the scene! I was having a little porno scene going on right there in class with my nose. Distracting!
Then I saw the movie, at the same age, "Psycho Cop 2", where it had Julie Strain running around in a**less chaps.
I read an interview about her, and she said "I will haunt your dreams." She does this on purpose!
But also in the interview, she says that this kind of gives guys ambition and something to strive for, and perhaps that is true, as that certainly seemed to be true in your case.
Anyway, I was given a pretty lethal dose of these images at a young age and there's more than what I mentioned.
But really, I think, probably what is really sexy is confidence.
This girl that I was kind of head over heels for in high school kind of did a little model run way walk, and I thought it was most stunning and sexy thing I'd ever seen. She kind of arched her back and had kind of slightly violently swaying of her shoulders. And above all there was a sheer confidence exuding from her, which I know was real because she was the most honest person you would meet; she would always freely talk about her masturbating and what turned her on etc., aside from kind of telling me her secrets.
So, she was a true person and then had a kind of confidence with it that was stunning.
She also wouldn't wasn't a push over and was kind of my hero.
She told me about how once her mother slapped her in the car...and then she just wailed on her.
So, yeah, this is the kind of thing I think is sexy now: a strong and confident person.
"Nobody taught me to regard women as sex objects. I always did. Most men do."
ALL heterosexual men do. I'm glad you said this. Civilized men value them for their intellects and personalities as well, but to deny that basic male quality or label it as something bad is ridiculous.
I consider myself a feminist, but I am always bothered by the blanket condemnation of objectification. If that's the sole contributor to a man's view of woman, then that is a problem. However, men's sexual attraction is largely visual and they like viewing provocatively dressed or undressed women.
Also, playboy is rather tame and the primary reason I have bought it over the years is for the articles. The only issues I bought for the pictures were celebrity issues. If I wanted a magazine for the primary purpose of titillation, I got Penthouse or Hustler. Now the internet makes that unnecessary.
My favorite Playboy cartoon was of a man dressed in a business suit while his wife lay in bed surrounded by dildos and vibrators. The caption was "I have to go now; I guess I will leave you to your own devices."
Playboy models are a homogenous group, so far as body type is concerned, but and characterization of them as "brainless bimbos" is horrifically unneeded. They work, they get paid. Sounds like a terrible "model" to me.
Yes, Playboy does tend to feature older male, younger female relations. However, characterizing these relationships as morally wrong, or even more regrettably, these women as "abnormal" is terribly hurtful and false. No one is being victimized so long as the relationship is consensual.
Let us find the will to let others live within their own light and not allow ourselves to smudge out our own for want of theirs.
The "Firing Line" discourse between Hef and Buckley in the YouTube series you included truly unmasks how far the country has fallen with regard to how matters of moral and political disagreement are hashed out in the public arena. I suspect the lack of screaming and ad hominem insult is like something beamed from another planet to many ears and eyes. It's to be lamented, because it's exactly the kind of programming that, bit by bit, turned many minds around, I suspect. That and quite a few court battles. Thanks as always, Roger.
It is inescapable that we all live in sexualized bodies, Hugh Hefner didn't invent or exploit that, he gave it an outlet. Human beings have always enjoyed looking at idealized versions of other human beings, especially of the opposite sex. People do get sexuality tragically wrong on a major level (one only needs to look up statistics of rape and molestation to see that), but I don't see how safely enjoying idealized and erotic images makes us any worse. Especially if the magazine contains good, thought-provoking, intellectual articles.
I really enjoyed this post.
In 1982 my first wife and I lived in a small town near Provo, Utah; I was a student at Brigham Young University. We saw a TV commercial for Playboy, mentioning that the current issue had an interview with Luciano Pavarotti. An opera lover, from recordings only (I had not yet ever seen live opera) I mentioned an interest in the interview.
At my wife's suggestion I sought out a copy of the magazine - to no avail. To prevent a restrictive local ordinance the shop keepers of the county had entered into an informal agreement to NEVER carry "skin mags". On a holiday trip, we eventually found a copy at a truck stop outside of Utah. My wife bought it while I fueled the car. We both read the magazine cover to cover, and for Christmas she bought me a gift subscription.
I've ALWAYS read the articles, but of course enjoy the photos as well. Playboy has since had a spot on my coffee table, alongside the newspapers, National Review, National Geographic and scholarly journals. I still live in Utah, and my second wife has no objection in the least. It's become a litmus test for friends and neighbors, for freedom of mind. We seldom invite back anyone who finds it "disgusting."
God bless Hugh Hefner; and you Mr. Ebert, for writing this and much else.
Thanks so much for your excellent piece. I am the journalism teacher and newspaper adviser at Steinmetz. We're getting ready for our interview with Hugh Hefner Friday afternoon when he comes back to Steinmetz. You gave me so much to think about and share with my students.
I love how you end your piece with the Louder Than a Bomb connection. One correction: We're a mixed race school (teachers and students) but still in a predominantly white neighborhood (more Polish and Hispanic than black). We have more black students now than we did 10 years ago (and certainly since HH graduated) because the Chicago public schools closed Austin as a neighborhood school.
Also, I'm currently wearing a T-shirt that reads, "The Constitution: I read it for the articles."
A line in "The People vs. Larry Flynt" captured both the good and bad of Hef's artificially-created milieu of dreams for the repressed mainstream: "Did anybody really read the article about how to make the Perfect Martini?"
As Internet porn rose around us, and pretty well made all soft and hardcore print porn as functionally obsolete as carbon paper, Playboy continued to have two audiences: A) Those who DID want to make the Perfect Martini and read Norman Mailer, and B) those who were naive enough to have never seen a naked female before and wanted their first peek, from someone who you legendarily went to to find one. Hef began to look more and more like a dinosaur of some other age (for giving us "clean" shots of girls in tasteful situations), but you could also appreciate the age he did come from.
Another bit of rental viewing for reference might be Fenton Bailey's '05 documentary "Inside Deep Throat"--Where the first of what was otherwise a fairly standard 70's-porn film to hit the mainstream was raised up in the headlines and championed as a "statement" against the repressive attitudes of the Nixon era--And intellectuals and celebrities made a great show of "going to an X-rated movie" in public, as if this was the new Studio 57 that sophistication defined itself with...Despite the fact that organized crime back then still believed that stag films were "their" business and strongarmed the distribution of the movie.
(And be glad I didn't cite Don Knotts in "The Love God?" as a parody for its time on how Hef singlehandedly got the credit for a "revolution" that may have been waiting to be packaged to the suburbs anyway, despite its otherwise unsavory origins.) ;)
Hef may not have personally had the old-school bachelor-fantasy class a satin smoking jacketed conjured up, but he deserves some credit for making us think such a person could exist.
I am with several of the commenters who think this entry is a glossover, but looked at as a favor/tribute to a venerable friend, it isn't egregiously so. The thread is nicely providing a means to adjust the gloss.
The January 1981 issue of PLAYBOY exemplifies for me all that is good and bad about the Playboy phenomenon. The interview was with John Lennon and Yoko, conducted superbly by David Sheff. The centerfold, with the quintessential "Brick Shithouse" figure, was Karen Price, whose sweetness and athleticism took a back seat to a fantasy shot involving fur and mood lighting. (I'm guessing she was uncomfortable, or felt out of her element, with some of the shots.) The Party Jokes were aimed at the demographic; many would especially now be no laughing matter to many. The writing, including fine contributions by Stephen King and Ray Bradbury, was stellar. The cartoons were top-notch in quality, sometimes demeaning in content (if memory serves; I haven't seen that issue for over a decade). And the eye candy of the "past delightful dozen" was quite a bonus for them as likes such.
I agree, Hefner was hugely influential in a positive way, particularly in the areas of race relations and fair compensation for creativity. But he also had a lot to do with a mindset that, among other things, promoted a standard of beauty that spurred the barbarous practice of silicone implantation, so his contribution is not entirely without alloy.
To be honest, in my experience most men are attracted what they're attracted to regardless of what some magazine publishes. The men I know who are attracted to body types other than those presented in "Playboy" just don't look at Playboy. If they look at such things, they seek out the places that cater to their tastes. People don't like what Playboy publishes only because Playboy publishes it - Playboy publishes it because people like it.
"Nobody taught me to regard women as sex objects. I always did."
Thank you Mr. Ebert for saying what you believe. I may not agree with everything you stated about Hugh Hefner, but I think the previous statement is true in that no one tells us to think of women as being sexy but they just are.
Roger, a fascinating post, and beautifully written as usual. One thing I would like to mention is that, at least in the 70s and 80s when I mostly looked at it, there were any number of small-breasted women in there. Of course they all had pretty faces, etc., but they weren't all skinny with baZOOMs.
Wonderfully done, Roger.
For a year or two in high school, I was a subscriber to the magazine, which my Victorian grandmother dutifully threw into the trash can in the garage on the day of its arrival, and which I dutifully retrieved from said trash can that same afternoon because I knew exactly when it was supposed to arrive.
As any anthropologist could tell the prudes in the audience, humans are the most highly sexualized mammals on the planet, with both males and females having bits far out of proportion to what's necessary for simple procreation. As you said, turning people into sex objects is something that most of us do almost constantly all day, every day. We don't act on it, and often don't even acknowledge that it's happening, but I think it's near-universal.
Context makes all the difference, and that's what fantasies are for.
Once again, it's a pleasure to read you.
The city of Chicago named a street after Hugh Hefner, a man who has played games much of the day and night, lived in pajamas and devoted his life to sex -- quite a model of manhood for American boys.
Ebert: He also built a multi-million-dollar corporation and was instrumental in leading his nation out of the sexual dark ages.
I am 32 years old. And I perused Playboy with my buddy in my buddy's dad's secret drawer in the garage of their home when I was a child. Fascinating that this is some sort of right of passage for males since way back when.
Before Playboy, the "men's" mags that I could find as a 12-yr-old were cheaply printed, usually black and white, not colour, and featured narrow black bars over the naughty bits (top, not bottom; no bottoms were ever visible in such mags). For a while, yes, I hid bootleg copies of Playboy under the mattress, but Mum found them, and said, if you must look at these kind of things, I'd rather you didn't hide them. When I was 16, I tried to purchase them at my local drugstore. Salesclerk: You're not old enough. Me: Let me talk to the manager. At 16 I'm legal. Manager: You can buy it if your parents write you a note. God bless her, Mum wrote me a note, and the drugstore kept it on file, and I was able to pick up my copy every month.
Besides the pure sensuous pleasure of the slick pages, and the thickness and heft of the magazine, I also liked – such a cliché – the articles.
•Playboy did an investigative piece on the Minutemen and other far right terrorist organizations. I was amazed; I'd never heard of such groups. The graphic was a huge rattler entwining the Statue of Liberty.
•They published a piece on Jesus that featured an illustration of our saviour laughing; I'd never seen that before either, and the notion that the religion they'd been force-feeding me for years at school might have laughter in it was mind-blowing.
•They published one of the best sci-fi stories I'd ever read, "The Chronicle of the 656th," about a group of 1943 GIs who are blown back in time to the Civil War (by George Byrum, whom I'd never heard of before, and who seems to have pretty much disappeared now).
I could go on, about the fabulous interviews, about their publishing Elridge Cleaver, about their serializing Nabokov's Ada, but there's no need. Playboy was a light in the wilderness when I was a teen, in more ways than one. Thank you Hef, and thank you Roger for writing, as always, honest and true.
PS: Women DO see men as sex objects, just as we do them. Feminists imply that if this sort of objectification stops / is stopped, then utopia will be here. I register here my demurral.
...nevertheless, I've been playing around with ways to make fun of Hugh Hefner. Just because Strange Beings from Another Planet want me to.
Look who I get to play with, lately!
http://vimeo.com/13065964
Flex, flex. Gisele, love of millions, where are you? Boy, I and everybody else would like to read your take on this whole thing.
You can’t blame Hef for middle-aged men desiring younger women. It’s just basic biology. A fifty year-old man is much more likely to be able to reproduce than a fifty-year old woman. Evolution will always favor men who are attracted to younger partners over men who are attracted to older partners.
You might want to add a NSFW warning.
Ebert: To a writer, "NSFW" is an unsightly blot on an article of this sort.
Dear Mr. Ebert:
I never fail to read your Journal Entries, and though there are times when I am interested enough to post a comment of my own, I refrain from doing so because my first language is not English and I fear embarrassing myself by writting something in an incorrect manner or not getting my point across.
But the reason I am posting a comment right now, with hopes that you will reply to my question, is that I have an assigment due for my Intro to Communications class (I am a freshman at a U.S University in Ohio because I earned a scholarship!) that requires me to interview someone that has a job I would like to have after graduating,and of course you're the only one who popped into my head. I remember reading a while back one of your Journal Entries where you said the movie critic isn't the proffession it used to be anymore, due to it being hundreds of unpaid bloggers out there reviewing the same films, but I've never wanted to do anything with my life that didn't involve films, either creating or reviewing them, so I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions regarding your line of work? Maybe I could email you or do it here in the comment section?
I understand you are a busy man, and if you do not have time for it, it is okay, but I would really appreciate it.
Thank you
P.S After reading you praise the novel Suttree time and time again, I ordered it from Amazon last week, and I'm halfway through it already. Had to read the beginning a couple times over to understand and get used to the language, but I'm really enjoying it. I ordered Blood Meridian on Monday.
Thanks again.
Of COURSE I subscribed to Playboy for the articles.
All right,Roger. You did it. You did what I thought no one could do. You made a case for this feminist not thinking that Hugh Hefner is The Devil.
I still don't like some of the attitudes that Playboy seems to disseminate--but I agree with you on a number of issues: that Hef had good articles (Hey! I was a girl wondering what "grown-up me" would look like when I sneaked my brothers' and cousins' Playboys. But I also read the articles); he really did stand up against a lot of nonsense. I will always feel that Playboy sees women as objects. but you're right about "both sides" having a problem in this area--and that maybe it's not always a "problem."
And as always, you did it with style and without being ugly to anyone. Roger, that's why so many of us read you--we don't have to agree with you to appreciate what you write and why you write it.
"Don't never stop." Please continue to write about the movies--and about everything.
Weltha Wood
Men, specifically, heterosexual men do desire a single body type. It was the ones that Playboy showed throughout the 50s & 60s, before the silicone princesses took over the centerfold.
Anthropologists have shown that men in every society want a young woman with long hair & a narrow waist proportionate to moderate sized hips & breasts. The reason is that these outward physical characteristics indicate good health & the high probability of getting pregnant, giving birth to a healthy baby & living long enough to raise it. I've even seen that there is a specific formula for the proportions.
I've always thought the original, pre silicone women were & are far better looking than the ones today. The only difference is that today's centerfolds have bodies that are more physically toned than those 50 years ago.
Hugh Hefner has the luxury of being a dirty old man. What is truly sad is the kind of parenting that would make a young woman want to jump Hef's dusty old bones.
I will come out and say it, in my 25 years of buying playboy i have never read an article in it and only used it to masterbate, and that is not bad, better than going out and risking std on a hooker.
I salute Hugh Hefner, a great American.
And in addition to Playboy's other attempts to bring radical thought, jazz and authors to the US, let us not forget it was also Playboy's first attempt at film distribution that took a chance on trying to bring Monty Python to America--
Back in an age when almost nobody got the jokes, including even a bemused Roger Ebert (if you search the "And Now For Something Completely Different" review).
It was risky then, and while it might not seem that way today, in context, it just seems to fit. :)
Mr. Ebert,
I have been reading your work for years, but I still caught by the unexpected in how well you capture the essence of your subjects. Hugh Hefner is a name that meant nothing to me other than the man that created Playboy. I had the simple image of an American businessman selling sex. You have evoked the humanity of the man. I see a man who lived in a world many people disagree with and despise, but he did it without hypocrisy. That's more than what can be said for the countless tv shows, advertisements, and radio hits that sell their sex under the guise of something else. You don't have to look at Playboy to appreciate the fact that "it is what it is." Thanks for this.
Personally, I think Playboy is less about porn than most people think. Yes, there are nude women in every issue, and it's the major selling point. But when I looked at a few issues online, I have to admit, it was stunningly underwhelming as porn. You get a few pages of naked women, and a bunch of puerile cartoons with naked people*. There were tons more advertising in the issues of Playboy that I looked at than there was porn. I guess for the time it was daring, but now it feels mild.
I didn't look at the articles. But thinking about how many people say the articles are actually good makes me wonder: If somebody switched the stories in Playboy with stories from The New Yorker, would anyone notice? It's easy to say that people wouldn't notice in Playboy; it's the stereotypical response. But would readers of The New Yorker notice? I've thought that maybe, if people really did read Playboy for the articles, there should be an edition that removes all the porn and leaves the articles; unfortunately, few would buy it.**
One website I visit had a download of an "abandonware" (software once sold but since discontinued) of three decades of Playboy interviews. The download's now missing, and it doesn't run on modern computers, which is a shame, because I've grown more curious about it ever since it disappeared.
* I'm reminded of how, in one review, Ebert said that sex is funny when people take it seriously and dull when people treat it as a joke. The Playboy cartoons are Exhibit A.
** I've heard that the Braille editions of Playboy got government funding specifically because you'd have to read it for the articles, seeing as there's no need for pictures.
Y'know, I actually prefer the (relatively) tasteful way in which playmates are posed compared to other skin mags and most internet porn. If you're worried about female degradation, there are far worse places than Playboy.
Hefner himself may like young pneumatic women, but then, most of the ones he's with seem to like him.
While reading the Fifties, I read a chapter devoted first to Marilyn Monroe and then to Hugh Hefner. The connection was that he blackmailed the studio he would release a photo of her to the press.
Would you agree, Mr. Ebert, that is deplorable behavior, regardless of what his magazine did or didn't do?
Yes, me, a *female,* stumbled across my stepfather's nudie mags in elementary school. A few Playboys, some more explicit.
I was captivated.
I guess it's only a rite of passage into manhood because boys can talk about such things, but my world got a little larger, and a littler darker (yes), and a little more real. But I am so much wiser for it, even if I couldn't share it with anyone, until now.
Playboy is classy, it respects women. That is way I have always seen it.
As a male, I am somewhat unsatisfied with my looks. We suffer nowhere as much as women, but us young guys are self conscious too. Girls these days are picky too.
As a male, I am somewhat unsatisfied with my looks. We suffer nowhere as much as women, but us young guys are self conscious too. Girls these days are picky too.
Still trying to think up funny stuff about Hugh Hefner. It's been done, you claim? Well I claim that's not funny stuff. Not funny enough, anyhow.
So far all I've got is a catty comment about Hef's tailor-made duds that look like an 80s leisure suit. What's the statement there? "I'm in my eighties?"
Watched a couple three of the interviews you've put up. Neither those, nor anything, has in all my years ever shed light on why I have a slightly "ew" feeling about the man as I know him from his editorials and so on. Kind of a cellophane-wrapped feeling, I guess.
I agree of course, and know he speaks the truth, his major initiative is, or was, from a reaction to [a specifically Midwestern brand of] Puritanism. Yet there's always been a protest-too-much feeling about it for me. His models and even choice of Playboy goodies are always Puritan Perfect. Kind of like Elvis's publicists making sure everybody knew Elvis believed in "Him" and implied he went to church every Sunday.
"Puritan" has long been a buzzword for "Repressed in the name of the Rules" and slavery to artificial notions of "perfection," but the early Puritans were Baptists, and same as now, a drinkin', smokin', chawin', cussin' laughin' an' poopin' lot of quite earthy people. Excepting maybe in church. It was Teddy Schafter the Baptist who brought us our first Woods Porn, Dan M.
I guess Hefner created a psychological bridge for men, of a kind. But I can't say I'd credit him, personally, for advancements in a "sexual revolution." I'm of the age where I was cognizant of both the pics and the words back in the Playboy heyday; even among the Hippies and "free love," I never heard a word beyond the usual "I only read it for the articles" kid-hypocrisy. I and my pals read lots and lots of heavy stuff. None of us ever found a reason to bring up any Playboy article (tho' pleased that Playboy published Lenny Bruce's book.)
His magazine reflected idealized male fantasies without "trespassing" into the hard-core stuff that was easily available back then, despite the law. It didn't cause anything. I agree with those who've pointed out men were already "that way." Maybe men felt less lonely knowing there was a sea of them mooning over Playboy as they were. Maybe flaunting a Playboy signaled "I'm going to get the cutest babes and the highest paying job." Indeed, that dovetailed very nicely with Christian beliefs of the time. Except maybe for that part about masturbating. Playboy didn't stress that part.
I think it should be pretty obvious that "evolution" hasn't hard-wired anything about the species, particularly with sex, Rodge. It's only that the pop fashions of thinking ignore the staggering array of variations in people's learned sex-related habits.
Sure, basically we have penises and vaginas and the occasional hermaphrodite, but even the vast array of 'net porno hardly covers those habits, whether from big-fat-pig-looking to anorexic people screwing, coprophilia, mummification, asphyxiation, tools, toys, D/s, bestiality, sex with amputees and children, abuse, torture -- oh, and happy husband-and-wife fantasies. Our culture may be too addicted to "normalcy" to look at things with the blinders lowered. I bet I just made some people sick, too. It doesn't all make me happy either.
And it's all been around a LOT longer than Playboy has.
Where's Gisele? Darling writer, are you here yet?
Gotta be honest: I'm a big fan of my wife's naked body, even though she hasn't been airbrushed and made up. Notice that the women commenting on this article have been less than complimentary, while the men wax nostalgic about looking at someone else's wife and daughter. Hope it's working out for you guys.
I disagree with a lot of this article--and agree with parts of it. First, I must say that I disagree with commenters who think naked women are only appealing to men--as a queer woman, I find naked women to be extremely appealing, and frankly, porn and Playboy is not just a right of passage for straight men--many MANY queer women have figured out just how queer they are by looking through their father's porn/Playboy.
Having said that, the main thing I disagree with the article is the use of "sexual object." (i.e. the oft quoted paragraph about men see women as sex objects it's hardwired). Finding women sexually attractive and considering their sexual "compatibility" upon meeting is being a human being. It's being *sexual.* Which I don't think any but the most radical of feminists really have a problem with or disagree with.
Sexual *objectification* is making a person not human--it's deciding (in this case) that women are not just only good for fucking--but that they also don't have human needs or desires or feelings within the context of fucking either. The politician sending pictures of women having sex with horses is sexual objectification. The man saying he wants to use a woman as a "c*m dumpster" is sexual objectification. The picture of a naked woman going through a meat grinder is sexual objectification.
And I guess that many feminists would argue that when women were not considered quite human to begin with (i.e. the 50s house wife), how can naked pictures of a woman imbibe "women" with humanity? And how can it be that a *man* gets to "reclaim" the humanity of women? I understand your argument (about how the layout of the Bunnies made them real to you) and am willing to believe that many men and women did learn about a woman's humanity through Playboy--and I think Hefner treats the upper echelon of his workers very well (I've read how he's gone to bat for several women).
But in the context of the times that you speak of--when staying home, having kids, and cleaning the house was expected to fulfill the entirety of a woman's soul, to satisfy her entire humanity--when women went to college to major in home economics (and were expected to drop out before completion of the degree to get married and have kids, when there were regular ads and articles aimed at women on what she'd better do to keep her man happy (e.g. brew the proper cup of coffee, be neatly and properly dressed when he comes home, have dinner ready and on the table for him, be sexually available for him so that he doesn't get too stressed etc)--is it fair to say that maybe women were justified even a little in thinking that this is not the type of liberation that they had in mind? That here was yet another expectation that wasn't of their own making that they had to meet--in addition to making sure to pick the kids up from school on time? That Playboy bunnies were who they were competing against? That maybe the role of dutiful housewife and/or eager sex bunny somehow always came back to and centered on the needs of men? Is it possible to believe that women who were faced with a choice of eager sex bunny or dutiful house wife felt less than human? Like nobody cared what their soul driven needs were?
The other day after 36 years of procrastination, I finally watched Citizen Kane on your high recommendation. And of all the characters in the movie, the one I found most compelling was his second wife. The one who kept asking "what about *me*????" And over and over again, her needs were cast aside in the name of Kane's ambitions and emotions and *pride*--until she finally physically collapsed (the scene where Kane is confronted by his first wife and the way they all talk over and past and around Dorothy is so difficult to watch). It was heartbreaking to see the constant dismal, and I felt that it was perhaps the most profound aspect of the movie because a man wrote that question and put in the mouth of a woman during a time that saw women controlled with an iron fist by society, their employers, their families. Orson Wells knew the difference between sexuality/sexual desire and sexual objectification--and it's surprising to me that given your admiration of that film, there isn't more nuance in your critique or understanding of feminist positions on Playboy (or porn).
Feminism is often a reactionary ideology which attempts to (or at least seems to desire to) limit the freedom of expression of both men and women. As a liberal I see little difference between the religious right and a Feminist who tries to dictate to men what they can and cannot be attracted to while simultaneously demeaning women who seek roles and occupations that they as Feminists do not find appropriate. It is interesting how ideologies become so radical that they start to resemble the very things which they are opposing. Society needs Feminists to infringe on the First Amendment about as much as it needs sexist men to infringe on the rights of women; which is to say not at all. If I want to hear the sanctimonious naggings of some obnoxious person who wants to tell me how to live I'll listen to Pat Robertson.
Anyway, I admire anyone who fights for First Amendment and Civil Rights, so cheers to Hefner. And to Roger, who is one of the best writers on the planet at this present time.
"Hugh Hefner has been good for us." - Roger
At the end of the day, I think Playboy is ultimately self-serving.
I don't think the objective was to make the world a better place for women, so much as encourage them to embrace the male gaze and adopt it as their own.
Actions speak louder than words, Roger.
Playboy Bunnies: Behavior and training
"The Playboy Bunnies were waitresses who served drinks at Playboy Clubs. There were different types of Bunnies, including the Door Bunny, Cigarette Bunny, Floor Bunny, Playmate Bunny and the Jet Bunnies (waitresses that served on the Playboy Jet). To become a Bunny women were first carefully chosen and selected from auditions. Then they underwent thorough and strict training before officially becoming a Bunny. Bunnies were required to be able to identify 143 brands of liquor and know how to garnish 20 cocktail variations. Most dating or mingling with customers was forbidden. Customers were also not allowed to touch the Bunnies, and demerits were given if a Bunny's appearance was not properly organized. Only the C1, most important "Keyholders" (members of the Playboy Club), were allowed to date a Bunny."
"A Bunny also had to master the required maneuvers to work. These included the "Bunny Stance," a posture that was required in front of patrons. The Bunny must stand with legs together, back arched and hips tucked under. When the Bunny is resting or while waiting to be of service, she must do the "Bunny Perch." She must sit on the back of a chair, sofa, or railing without sitting too close to a patron. The most famous maneuver of all, the "Bunny Dip," was invented by Kelly Collins, once renowned for being the "Perfect Bunny"; to do the "Bunny Dip" the Bunny gracefully leaned backwards while bending at the knees with the left knee lifted and tucked behind the right leg. This maneuver allowed the Bunny to serve drinks while keeping her low-cut costume in place. Strict regulations were enforced by special workers in the guise of patrons."
"The treatment of Playboy Bunnies was exposed in a piece written by Gloria Steinem and reprinted in her 1983 book 'Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions'. Clive James wrote of the 'callous fatuity of the selection process' and observed that, "to make it as a Bunny, a girl needed more than just looks. She needed idiocy, too."
1. You had to pay for your own costume.
2. You had to give back 50% of your tips.
3. Job advertised itself as $300 week. Try $120
4. Most quit after a month.
5. Black women were called "chocolate bunnies."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRC7x6qRpks
There's nothing wrong with looking at someone you find sexually attractive - unless it comes at their expense.
I think you see Hugh Hefner through rose-colored glasses. I don't think he's a horrible person, I just think he's a self-serving one. And that from the start, Playboy gave with one hand, and took with the other. Hefner was always about having his cake and eating it too.
Question: What are the initial building blocks of sexism and misogyny? Where do men to learn to behave badly in the first place? What makes a misogynist? What the contributing factors?
Or do they emerge from a vacuum?
Between the years of 1980 and 1984, Playboy introduced me to Isaac Asmimov's writing, John Lennon, progressive politics, music criticism, the concept of hedonism, and a hell of a lot more. I owe Hugh Hefner a very large debt and I shudder to think what the USA would look like had his magazine failed early on.
Now, for a shameless plug. In my URL you will find a rebooted Star Trek series. Take a look and see if you like.
It's nice to see a respected writer finally saying this, even if he gets slagged by certain puritans for his honesty.
The greatest absurdity ever promoted by feminists was the idea that men sexually objectify women because they've been TAUGHT to do so by society, rather than having this behaviour built into their DNA from birth. And of course, countless men happily went along with this ridiculous fantasy because they now had a convenient scapegoat for their own behaviour.
Similarly, feminists keep telling us that Playboy teaches men to want women with big breasts and long shapely legs, as if we wouldn't notice these features if Playboy had not taught us to. And once again, men pretend to agree with this absurd belief because it's a convenient excuse for the parts of our nature which women have been taught to revile. "Hey, it's not me; Playboy taught me to be that way!"
To be honest, I actually take exception to the whole idea that "objectification" is intrinsically a bad thing. If that's the ONLY basis of one's attraction to a woman then that's a bad thing, but that's like saying that if you only marry for money, it's a bad thing. It's not money itself which is the problem; it's the fact that the relationship has no other dimension.
Unfortunately, the country is filled with people who teach that a man should be "above" sexual objectification, and that women should reject any man who admits otherwise. The result, of course, is that men quickly learn that they need to lie to women (unless they get as lucky as I did, and meet that rare and precious gem of a woman who prefers honesty).
To Charlotte who posted on October 27...
It's obvious from your comment that you don't understand how things are for some men. I discovered playboy as a young man, and have actually seen quite a bit in print and online over the years. I am currently a subscriber.
Has Playboy shaped my view of women? Not in the least. As a matter of fact, my tastes are geared towards taller larger women. They always have been, and they always will be. While the thought of bedding a beautiful buxom woman will always be a delightful fantasy, I truly love and cherish my wife, and I celebrate every curve, nook, and cranny.
I was exposed to porn at 12, somewhere online, on a site I accidentally entered. I never had been so excited in my life.
I am now 19. While I still watch porn occasionally, there are few things more disgusting than watching porn when not horny. Hugh Hefner doesn't have such a problem. Sex, being nothing more than a pleasurable activity our psyche drive us to participate in, has been so exploited by him through an industry that has since exploded, the products of which no child is safe from.
This mass of trash, pornography, grips children by striking at insatiable urges, during such a young age, wholly controlling their natural urges with artificial supplement. Its poisonous content infects them quickly and continuously, lest their parents teach them otherwise, or the the lucky children intuitively navigate through the garbage to understand its real value: horniness mitigation.
Hugh Hefner has been good to us.
Playboy has not.
Thank you for enlightening me about Hefner's role in advancing civil rights. I've personally never read a copy of his magazine, but in 7th grade, our entire school was abuzz with news of Billy Parrish having a copy of Playboy in his locker. Our teacher told us, "Remember, don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see." Without thinking, spontaneously, totally out of character as the the strict fundamentalist, straight-A student, unpopular, poor girl from the wrong side of the tracks that I was -- I immediately spoke up and said, "Which half are we to believe we saw?" For about five minutes, until the laughter died down, I was Miss Popular:)
In the 1970's in Dallas we had a local comedy act, Bowley and Wilson. These were two guys who met in college and sang pop tunes and did a very raucous comedy act that drew most of the college students in the area for over two decades. In the early 1980's a Dallas man who was of the social elite got angry that his daughter spent so much time at their club. Suddenly the Dallas police showed up and found an underage girl in the crowd of about 200 that night. They also decided that a neon sign that lit up and said "Asshole" that had been part of the act for years was obscene. The club was closed down and the musicians arrested. Dallas is like that. Ask Candy Barr. Hugh Hefner's Playboy defense fund supplied the money for their legal aid and helped them keep their club and their livelihood. Hugh Hefner probably has hundreds of stories like that. It would have been a much darker world without him.
Question: What are the initial building blocks of sexism and misogyny? Where do men to learn to behave badly in the first place? What makes a misogynist? What the contributing factors?
Or do they emerge from a vacuum?
Not sure whether it relates to Playboy or not, but since you asked out of context, the traditional answer to the question is "In high school".
The days when your hormones tell you you SHOULD seek out females, but your ex-6th grade training tells you you don't know how to approach them, or even why they turn you down when you approach the wrong way. So, in order to preserve identity, it's better to hang out with the guys, idealize the (safely objectified) girls you want, and guy-bond by disparaging the girls you get.
A movie where, for example, Adam Sandler has a sweet and supportive girlfriend/wife despite being able to spend his days still acting like a fratboy pig, would be a more modern example of the "dream" misogyny that couldn't be left behind at graduation. (Watch TV, for example, and see how many times a night some commercial makes a joke about what guys are "forced" to say in answer to "Does this dress make me look fat?"--That's stuff chicks say, you know.)
Don't think that QUITE relates to Hef's view: His was more the idealized version of being able to achieve a superior sophistication to the times by the having "the most toys"...Name celebrities and well-stocked cocktail lounge included. And, of course, the ultimate Toy is a more plentiful supply of no-commitment physically-approved and open-minded women to go with the Wine and Song, without the misfortune of striking out with the more complex ones.
Old-school Connery/Moore 007 is often described as "the ultimate Playboy fantasy" (rotating female entourage included), which is why the magazine always kept its Lamborghinis running and its martinis shaken, not stirred.
If you'd called the piece "Hugh Hefner has been good for me," it would have more validity. Without arguing with any of your points about the realities of sexual attraction, I think that the whole idea of a Playboy "bunny" (or a Penthouse "pet," for that matter) is a way to shrink grown women and put them in a box. (Penthouse, at least, showed what real women actually look like, unlike Playboy's weirdly infantilizing photos.) There are no equivalent terms for men. The very terms of the magazines are ones of belittlement.
A man has no standing to say that Hefner has been good for "us"; The Playboy ethos has never had any interest in women's intelligence or power or humor. It's achievement has been to diminish women. If you want to say that Hefner has been good for you personally, fine. Making this claim on behalf of our whole culture diminishes you. It's very hard to take any man seriously who puts Playboy on a pedestal.
Roger, you claim that your objectification of those naked, picture-perfect women was natural, or untrained. You justify this by saying it is an evolutionary inevitability.
I disagree with your comment on two counts. Firstly: Isn't it possible that you had been primed to react in just that way to Playboy, that societal attitudes (whether overtly or covertly) were contributory to your lustful reaction?
Most children are in their fashion terribly conservative, and fearful of "the other"; a parent's whim, or off-handed comment, is often law to a child's eye. Studies to this day show that children (children of liberal, progressive, wealthful families) continue to favor white dolls. Perhaps society has infiltrated the minds of these young children so profoundly that they have become racists (or perhaps, as I mention below, it speaks to our own inherent faults as humans). We're foolish to deny the impact of our own environment, or to fail to recognize its dangers.
Secondly, how is the "naturalness" of objectification of women any sort of justification? I may (hypothetically) be earnestly repulsed by homosexuality. I may recall these feelings to my early childhood; I know many other people who share these feelings, strongly. What does this say about the correctness of the belief, or feeling? Very little, I think.
We can't divorce the impact of our actions, yes, even our "private" (although based on the number of your friends who had discovered these Playboys of their fathers, perhaps not so private) actions from their impact upon others - in this case, all of women. Yes, I absolutely believe those women have the right to pose nude as they choose; but our decisions as men to patronize their objectification is to see sexuality through one-way, rose-tinted glasses. We've managed to get to the point where we can do as we like (I earnestly applaud this fact); now we must decide whether we ought or ought not.
When I turned 18, I received a free razor and a generous subscription offer from Playboy in the mail. Having worked at a comic book store that sold Playboy, I knew it's gig was more than naked pictures of C-list celebs and blonde women I didn't have much interest in, but my mom kind of made fun of me for showing interest in the magazine. Shame, both the emotion that I felt and a pittance for the tremendous political reporting, celebrity interviews, and short fiction I missed. It's also a shame that more, ahem, hardcore pornography was my introduction to the magical bits Playboy introduced you to. You wanna talk about unrealistic expectations and the brazen objectification of women? Start there. Sadly, internet porn is easier to come across than any old issue of Playboy,
@ Michael Wong wrote:
"The greatest absurdity ever promoted by feminists was the idea that men sexually objectify women because they've been TAUGHT to do so by society, rather than having this behaviour built into their DNA from birth."
Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure.
That's not the same thing enjoying the sight of a beautiful woman and having a sexual thought about her.
There's how you feel, and then there's how you behave because of it.
That's the issue.
"It's evolve or die, really, you have to evolve, you have to move on otherwise it just becomes stagnant." - Craig Charles
For based on your own reasoning, if DNA really does dictate how a man will behave sexually, then it becomes an excuse for behavior which includes things far worse than anything discussed in here.
This does not apply to Playboy but the problem raised to me by pornography is: do I have a particularly pressing need to see your anus? And, do you really need to show it to me? The answer to both questions appears to be "yes", else the material would not exist and be consumed, and that to me is a great uncharted mystery.
And that is scarcely the worst of it. Obviously the standards maintained by print publications, however lax they may be, don't apply to our brave new world. Still the internet is not wholly to blame; I am still recovering from the shock of walking past a shop in Pigalle selling bestiality porn, only a brisk walk from the Moulin Rouge.
I loved Andrea Dworkin's "Pornography: men possessing women." It was a ferocious tract but I came out of it wanting to be a gentle lover. So thank you, feminism.
Having defended the objectification of women in an earlier post, I want to make a slightly more nuanced statement.
Some of what people find sexually attractive is external or societal in nature. The attraction to thin women with large breasts is partially societal. There are societies where the men preferred larger women. Personally, I do not like fake breasts as they do not move in the same way natural breasts do.
That's not to mention fetishes. A child who is spanked may grow up to enjoy spanking, etc.
However, man's attraction to the naked body and exposed flesh is never taught. (At least in all societies with clothes. I have always wondered what particularly turns on adults who grew up as children in nudist colonies.)
"To be honest, I actually take exception to the whole idea that "objectification" is intrinsically a bad thing. If that's the ONLY basis of one's attraction to a woman then that's a bad thing, but that's like saying that if you only marry for money, it's a bad thing. It's not money itself which is the problem; it's the fact that the relationship has no other dimension."
I had to get to this comment before I felt a need to say only, Bravo, Michael Wong!
Yeah, porn and religion (myths) are actually very similar. They both portray unrealistic worlds that we know are not real but they are here to awoke these worlds in us because they exist in us.
But the difference is, as Hinidi portrayed that very good, that porn brings us on much lower level (only second chakra) while if we succeed with being elevated with myths and get in that trans then we are on highest possible level of experience.
Of course problem today is that many religions take myths literally and fail to achieve that and not to mention get attacked by scientists.
Hefner's influence extends far beyond naked girls and into general American fiction. One well-known writer (Ellison?) had a short story rejected from Playboy solely because the protagonist was a competent woman. The writer was told with regret that fiction published in Playboy must feature a male protagonist, and that female characters must be obviously less intelligent and less competent than the protagonist. Middle-aged female characters must be stereotypically unpleasant (mommy issues much?), while young women must be submissive and (if the story calls for it) sexually available.
This preference affected fiction well beyond Playboy and has been cited as one of the reasons for the move by female readers from general fiction to genre fiction.
Ebert: Your sources?
Marie Haws writes: "Question: What are the initial building blocks of sexism and misogyny? Where do men to learn to behave badly in the first place? What makes a misogynist? What the contributing factors?"
___________________
Sexism/ogling and misdeeds/misogyny are not synonymous. It is possible to recognize that men and women are different, and to admit that men have always enjoyed ogling women, without hating women or being unfaithful to one's wife. The first two are not ideology or hatred; they are a simple recognition of the facts on the ground.
Playboy caters to those facts, rather than pretending they are false. Frankly, I think feminists have done far more damage by promoting their outrageously false beliefs about human sexuality than Playboy could ever do by catering to the truth of man's sexual nature.
Like all other animals, we humans are generally preoccupied with reproduction; it's built into our DNA. In our younger years, this means "wanting to mate as much as possible, with as high-quality stock as possible". This is why we do not overlook physical appearance. In our later years, this means "protecting our offspring". This does not sound noble in a society which has been demonizing lust since the Bronze Age, but it's true anyway, and no amount of posturing or rhetoric will change that.
Great article and I will always be a fan of your writing and movie reviews. However, as soon as I saw Ms. Johari's picture, one thought stuck in my mind throughout the rest of this reading. "Why is it x-rated to see a white woman nude, but perfectly fine to post Azizi's perfect black frame?"
I do not object to seeing her body, or to the semi-nude male model for Calvin,(even though his privates are still,..private), but you see my point don't you? There is no way that the average reader would be allowed to see the heaving white breasts and pouty pink nipples of Miss Pilgrim without the pic being cropped to hide the naughty bits.
Although I am younger than you are, my experience with Playboy and other girly mags mirror your portrayal of exploration and the seductiveness of the female form. I remember being surprised to see the beautiful Azizi in the normally all-white, all-American pages of Playboy.
Her beauty belonged there and I can see why you chose her image out of the thousands you could have selected for this article, but as fine as she is, I still wonder if Miss Pilgrim could have been posted in all her glory?
Thank you for letting me have my say.
Rodney Dukes
Ebert: It is not x-rated to see any Playmate.
I might have posted a white Playmate, or an Asian one. I considered Cynthia Myers, who was in BVD. I chose Ms. Johari. I think the photograph is beautiful.
re: By anindita rangga satrya on October 27, 2010 1:43 AM
Roger, at least give some warning about the picture of the undressed lady. I know that perhaps it is a picture made in good taste, but not everyone glancing at the monitor screen would think positively about a picture of an undressed lady staring back at them.
Ebert: I thought about that and decided that anyone reading an entry in defense of Hefner would understand it, in context.
Roger: Great piece. But I think you missed the pt of Anindita's comment, who, I think, wasn't talking about what readers would expect to see.
It was just a suggestion to give your readers a warning so that, when reading at work, we would know to zip quickly past the upcoming pic so that PASSERSBY at the office wouldn't get the "wrong" idea about what content we were reading.
Anyway ... great work, as usual.
Ebert: I posted it smell. Don't enlarge it at work.
Marie Haws,
I just wanted to clarify that I understand your point properly:
- a woman who works at a job where she provides men the pleasure of the view of her body and the charm of her personality and her knowledge and skill with liquor is an idiot and is to be, at least, pitied if not vilified
- any man who partakes in this pleasure is a misogynist.
As for your question at the end --
Allow me to suggest the implications of your question shares much with those who assert that movies depicting violence are responsible for specific acts of violence carried out by individuals. And most of us recognize the poverty in that assertion.
Marie, bfp, good sets of thoughts there. To answer your question, Marie, "it's all the fault of religion."
Actually, it's all the fault of a too-bumptious pursuit of ideals. People hardly ever think of religion as a set of "ideals," but there it is.
Come to think of it, so many people have their ideals confused with reality it's like trying to pull a cat apart to get them to recognize the difference. Clue: one of them isn't real, but its believer could hang on a cross protesting that it is. Or at least make an embarrassingly huffy scene at the dinner table.
It's easier for artists to recognize the difference, since they work with ideas and ideals all day long and are often glad to be rid of them by bedtime.
bfp, let me state bold and bumptious that I love lesbians. Yes I do. The funnest, funnest internet episode I've had yet was playing with lesbians in an e-letter for Melissa Ferrick. They are usually smart, outspoken and there isn't all this ungainly sexual tension. You can just be pals. In person, too.
Okay, okay, I don't love ALL lesbians, or all anything else. For instance no matter what Hefner said in his interview, I can't see all that girlfriendin' and sexin' as a great ideal. Albeit I do note he has yet to die of boredom from it. I might.
As to "sexual objectification," the list I provided above (I forgot to add "incest" and "felching" and a host of other things I'm sure) are all "objectifications." Some people can't get it up without their favorite "objectification."
It's maybe tricky to recognize, but when one does, It's a bigger trick not to. Due to appallingly block-headed ideals like "normalcy," a tit-or-butt-or-leg-man will be given the imprimatur of "normal," aka "good," whereas a couple grown adults getting off on whipping each other with toilet paper will be considered "abnormal," aka "evil." They're both the same psychological mechanics and they're both "objectified" by a separation of feelings of love from the de-real-ized object being spootered.
As a two-fisted heterosexual male facing the difficulty of gaining the required trust for ferreting out secrets from two-titted heterosexual females, I s'pose I can be proud to have uncovered a very common "objectification" for said women: money and power.
What's biologically "hard-wired" about that? Been there, found it boring.
I agree 100% Mr. Ebert
Mark
Love the site and the blog, Mr. Ebert, but how about a little NSFW warning before an article like this one! I almost had a heart-attack scrolling through during my lunch break with co-workers (and bosses!) within spitting distance.
Ebert: None of them are adults?
The thing is--Feminists came up the the words "sexual objectification" for a reason. It wasn't to point to and organize against people finding other people sexually attractive. It was to point to a very real problem--men using their privilege (i.e. their position as sole money earner, as controller of media content, as part of an all male Congress, as head of all male departments, etc) to treat women like *objects*. Like they have no desires, no needs, no hopes, dreams, or fears. To treat women like they weren't *human*.
Would we feel comfortable saying we enjoy treating black people like objects? That it's ok to treat them like objects because it's hardwired DNA?
That there are so many men on this thread saying that they do, indeed, love to treat women like objects is appalling. I can only hope that people are just ignorant of the differentiation between sexual desire/sexuality and sexual objectification.
Dear Roger,
I am still in Saudi Arabia and the country's censorship department has been very kind in not blocking your webpage thus far. I keep waiting for it to happen. They have blocked countless sites -including dvdtalk.com (which I use to check for upcoming dvds) for containing a section of porn dvds. I just sweat bullets here at my gym, with the photo you posted.
I've about had it with the hypocritical crap in this society anyway, but I don't want them to take you away!
(This week, I watched 'Persona,' 'Passion of Anna,' 'Through a Glass Darkly,' and 'Winter Light' for the first time. Tomorrow I'll tackle 'The Silence')
My two cents on objectification: Playboy may "objectify" women, but a lot of entertainment "objectifies" in some way. Part of my issue with the feminism complaint on how pornography "objectifies" women is that it is too focused; it does not look at the big picture.
Today, men love the visual; pornography in a sense is no more of an objectification of a female than the football cheerleader or the Hooters waitress. Females can objectify men, too, starting with the Harlequin romance novel, and ending with the female audience for slash fiction.
Much of this I like to throw in the broader category of "gender roles". Women have to be pretty; men have to be macho. Hunting and fishing and guns are manly; shopping and fashion and pampering are girly. The curvy Barbie with big breasts and the rich male swashbuckler billionaire are the idea mate. These are the stereotypes that the "gender role" assigns us.
Many seem to perfectly willing to live the stereotypical role. So you can't dismiss the stereotype in one fell swoop without really figuring out what is attractive about it, and whether there is any real harm in such attraction.
I do not know is how much of this is hard-wired, and how much of this is culture. For pornography, well, as a species, we are hard-wired to reproduce. Culture however may influence what entices. (Women are increasingly consumers -- and creators -- of pornography, for instance. So the stereotype that only men enjoy pornographic visuals might be off.)
It would be nice to know, because I think gender roles themselves are more misogynist and misandrist than any of the stuff that gets accused of objectifying, pornography included. Who came up with the male gender role "rules" that masculinity is defined by how many fights you win or how many people you had sex with? Who came up with the female gender role "rules" proudly on display in Sex and the City 2 (lavish lifestyles, endless wardrobes)? It would be nice to know more, because many of these gender role "rules" are far more insulting to a gender than pornography ever will be.
Love this article, but I'm going to submit another vote for the NSFW warning. A lot of us blog-ites enjoy reading your articles during lunch breaks, but I, too, had to close out the window in a terrified hurry yesterday. Porn - and the HR department gets to define what that may be - is a firing offense at many companies, even the ones that are forgiving about the occasional Google Reader feed check throughout the day. In this rough time, few of us can afford to lose our jobs over a pair of breasts. Try explaining that one to family and friends, not to mention future employers.
Please do reconsider, Roger. It's the standard across the net. You can put it to a Twitter vote if you need further evidence.
I'm reading all the hysteric insults, wailing and gnashing of teeth hurled at Mr. Ebert for daring not demonize an "evil porn peddler", and all I have to say is...
Mr. Ebert, wear their hate as a badge of honor.
Excellent article.
Tom Dark wrote: "I s'pose I can be proud to have uncovered a very common "objectification" for said women: money and power. What's biologically "hard-wired" about that?"
_________________
Is this a rhetorical question? An interest in money and power is definitely biologically hard-wired. In their later child-bearing years, women are naturally attracted to men who can protect their offspring. Wealth and power are important to that end.
This is why very young females prefer men who are so beautiful as to be almost androgynous: they are seeking genetic perfection for their offspring. As they age, they seek men with more power, ruggedness, money, etc., because they are moving into "protect the offspring" mode.
This is all instinctive and biological. People are so reluctant to admit that we're really not that much different from our ape cousins.
Like all things in life there is a duality. Your points are well made, and you have a very mature and appreciative attitude towards sex and nudity. It is unfortunate and undeniable that (as one of the first few comments pointed out) some men/women do generate a false impression of what their partner should look like and potentially happy relationships cease to exist as a result. But as you said, that flawless facade reflects nature and glorifies the human physique. While we don't all achieve that level of perfection, we each hold our own in some way or another. It takes real maturity to have your mindset and appreciation towards the human body and it would be helpful if society could shift its view in that direction.
The restrictions upon sexual activity in the 50's are so odd to imagine today. They are no doubt the result of Christian influence, but I don't find anything Biblical about forcing such restrictions. For those who understand Christianity, they understand it is about honoring God for then those restrictions will be desired (and spiritually healthy). They are then not viewed as a prison but as a form of liberation. I am grateful that I don't live in a time when students are expelled for sex out of wedlock. I imagine that to be add to an already frustrating society.
I am well into my 4th year at college (a state university at that, not a private Christian school), I have been dating the same girl for 2 and a half years and we both still have our virginity. Not because we see sex outside of wedlock as an evil force that must be stopped, but because we appreciate sex as something sacred and significant that can only be fully appreciated within marriage. Not everyone shares that view however and it doesn't by any means do any good in this world if it is forced upon them.
I got a chance to talk to Hef not long ago. I'm a 32-year-old woman; I remember when my friends found a Playboy hidden under a hedge and gathered around to check it out (not just a male rite-of-passage). The documentary on Hefner is, as I wrote in the interview, "not unhagiographic," but I found that Hef himself is nothing if not a genuine idealist. I really think so. He envisioned an amazing party and spent the rest of his life trying to throw it.
It's a party I would love to go to, too. (Can you imagine the life of a Playboy Bunny in the 60s? My god, you could have had sex with Shel Silverstein and Norman Mailer in the SAME DAY. Sign my nerd-loving ass right up.)
It is an inevitable truth that women were not equals at those parties. If you think Playboy didn't do cultural damage, you're kidding yourself. That said, whatever else Hef is, I don't think he's a fraud. He wanted to do good in the world, and he did, a great amount of good. He seemed to me like a smart, joyful and rather gallant old perv. We could use more pervs like him.
I'm a bum college student voluntarily getting into Shakespeare, reading Hamlet, reading about William and his works, but there are so many analyses that I don't know what to read. For example, just started one called "Hamlet- A Successful Suicide". What are your favorite treatises? I think Anthony Burgess wrote a book on the Bard, and I would of course love to read Ebert on Shakespeare in whatever form. If you don't mind pointing me in the right direction you could simply email or perhaps respond to this comment though it doesn't offer much to Hugh Hefner and would look out of place with the other comments. Due to convenience I'd love to read Shakespeare commentary materials online but if there are some I'd have to get in book form that's okay as well.
Ebert: I posted it smell. Don't enlarge it at work.
Man, I been scratching at my monitor screen till my fingernails bleed and I still can't smell a damn thing!
@ Michael Wong wrote:
"Like all other animals, we humans are generally preoccupied with reproduction; it's built into our DNA. In our younger years, this means "wanting to mate as much as possible, with as high-quality stock as possible". This is why we do not overlook physical appearance. In our later years, this means "protecting our offspring". This does not sound noble in a society which has been demonizing lust since the Bronze Age, but it's true anyway, and no amount of posturing or rhetoric will change that."
It's not my fault. My DNA made me do it. I have no control over my own behavior. I am a victim of it.
One day, if you ever find yourself on the receiving end of unwanted sexual attention, I hope they use your excuse to account for it.
For the irony. :)
Man, this might be the finest thing you ever written...
Roger, please warn us if you're going to include nuidty in your blog posts. Some of us like to read your writings at work - and would prefer NOT to get fired for it.
Good Lord, Roger, can you write or what? Cinema reviews. Political essays. Now this memoir.
Don't act surprised if there's another Pulitzer in the offing. And . . . thanks for all the decades of words strung so very, very well.
Follow-up on my anomaly from yesterday:
When I tried to raise "Books Do Furnish a Life" -just over a year after its initial appearance, and only weeks after I'd briefly checked it out last time - this is the message I got onscreen:
This Websense category is filtered:Proxy Avoidance.Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information and are blocked by your organization.
That's what I know, which is nothing.
Maybe someone who's read that page recently can explain it to me.
*but I doubt it*
Ebert: Maybe four-letter words in the comments?
Ebert: I posted it sm[a]ll. Don't enlarge it at work.
It doesn't matter what size it was posted. That's enough to get some of us who browse at work FIRED.
Yes, we're all adults, but images like that can easily construed as sexual harassment or creating an "uncomfortable work environment".
Please, just think twice before posting stuff like that or AT LEAST post a "NSFW" (Not Safe For Work) warning at the top of your blog entry.
Ebert: Well, I've reposted it so tiny it can hardly be seen.
Roger,
I must take issue with your opposition to labeling that particular photo NSFW. Doing so would not sacrifice your principles, or the principles of your readers or dilute any of your very meaningful thoughts. However, it might keep some of your readers from losing their jobs. Many companies have a zero-tolerance policy towards using company equipment to view nekkid people in the workplace, even to the point of frowning on viewing Sports Illustrated bikini models. You might also consider that your article is about our right to sexual freedom and choice, but you didn't give your readers a choice of seeing the photo (yes it's small, but not so small that you can't see it from many feet away--after all, we're hard-wired to recognize a naked person pretty much immediately, right?)
In other words, you would be giving your readers the courtesy of a warning, without sacrificing any of the points in your article.
I think the Playboy of yours (and my) past is long gone. I remember sneaking a peek at my dad's Playboy with Patti Connors (Jimmy Connors' wife). But even in the 70s there was still a level of individuality in the way the women looked. Playboy NOW, like porn, Hollywood, and the fashion industry, has not only stripped away women's clothes, but also their individuality. It's no longer simply airbrushing out "imperfections" (which by the way are what make a woman sexual enticing in the first place). Playboy no longer simply objectifies women--it dehumanizes them. But I suppose that is what all media specializes in.
By the way, Roger, I read this article for the words. :-D
@ Scott wrote:
"I just wanted to clarify that I understand your point properly: - a woman who works at a job where she provides men the pleasure of the view of her body and the charm of her personality and her knowledge and skill with liquor is an idiot and is to be, at least, pitied if not vilified."
I think the only thing you've clarified is that you didn't take enough time to read my post.
I recounted the well-known experience of a journalist who went under-cover to work as a Playboy bunny, back in the day. And given what the job entailed/involved, and what it really paid, only an idiot would keep working there, if they could leave. That was the point Clive James was making.
Being a Playboy bunny was a job. Not a vocation or a calling. It was touted as being "one thing" and then there was reality of actually doing it.
Did Playboy help make America less uptight about sex? Yes. Did it help make America a better place for women to live and work? No.
@ EricJ wrote on October 28:
Question: What are the initial building blocks of sexism and misogyny? Where do men to learn to behave badly in the first place? What makes a misogynist? What the contributing factors?
Or do they emerge from a vacuum? - Marie
"Not sure whether it relates to Playboy or not..." - EricJ
I don't think Playboy is solely responsible for sexism or misogyny in America - or anywhere else it's sold. I do however think that it's part of a larger issue. I think men grow-up in a world which encourages them to regard women more so in a sexual light than not. And if you're a man, unless you're exposed to material or opinions which presents an alternate view and to help balance things out, that you'll grow-up more so inclined towards sexist behavior.
There's a reason some men have been known to offer a waitress $100 to show her breasts during a business lunch.
And so while I understand why Roger feels the way he does about Hefner and Playboy, I think it needs to be said that he's also had the benefit of a good education, and been exposed to a wide variety of people and places. He's got a broader, more liberal-minded view of the world than say, a middle-aged Frat boy.
Basically, I think that too many men are content to sigh and say "that's just how things are."
I'd like to hear them say that to an African America the next time someone feels they've been treated unfairly owing to racism.
"There's nothing we can do about it. Some white people simply refuse to change and that's just how God made us as people. I empathize, but... well, sucks to be you."
Thank you for this blog, Roger. I had NO idea that Hugh did any of these things. His humanitarian efforts are on par with Dr. King, yet I would've never known if not for this blog.
I once belonged to a church in Rochester where a telecast was being braodcasted in multiple churches around the country. It was geared toward men, and one of the topics was sex. The hosts discussed the role of orgasm as a tool of bonding. This alone upset a few members of the congregation; but when oral sex was discussed, the hosts said it was "okay" as long as both partners agreed...
One of the decons of the church was offended beyond measure. He angry at the host because he "sanctioned it in the body (meaning the Body of Christ, or the Church)".
I must add, this same decon got divorced after his wife cheated on him and got pregnant by another man, with him loosing his job soon after and going back to using crack-cocaine.
Needless to say, I left that church (five years ago). Though I'd be considered a heathen now, I eventually started doing many "sinful" things, with the absolute worst battles with guilt.
Today, I'm happier (and married) than I was in my days in church, when I battled severe depression, loneliness and suicidal thoughts. Yes, I still believe and ID and such (though I believe in evolution as well), but I think I'm pretty much free of the unjust moral contraints of religion.
How much more has Heff people in even worse moral bindings? Thanks to you, Roger, he's my new hero.
" If Hugh Hefner was the Caesar of magazine sex, Bob Guccione was surely the Caligula."
Richard Corliss(TIME-Oct.21,2010)
R.I.P. Bob Cuccione(1930-2010)
Thanks for the mammaries.
There's something very ironical about having a beautiful, voluptuous picture of Miss Johari deflated, like any sexual awakening is deflated when encountered with censorship, and the basis of the article in the first place. So people are mortified to be seen glancing at the picture at work, who cares? My brother walked into the room and saw me reading an article with a nearly naked man below the Johari picture. I enlarged that bombshell beauty to show him what classical Playboy was like in the 70's. The point I'm trying to make is you emasculated that picture. It now looks in need of Viagra.
By the way, I grew up with four older brothers and never saw my dad's playboy collection once. I think my dad knew where my brothers' stash was located and had the perfect defense case if caught by my mom.
Ebert: I felt so unworthy as I was doing that. It's as if I was taking a beautiful portrait and defining it as "dirty."
I must say that this article was well written and I applaud you for that. I think that if you've seen a Playboy magazine or not at some point you have viewed a male or female as a sex object. To me Playboy is a very empowering way for yes a female to show off a great body but beyond that it helps them get a foot in the door for a bigger and better career. Some of you have called these ladies brainless bimbos but if you look at some of the playmates and the playmates of the year these ladies have gone on to accomplish so much more! Look at Playmate of the Year 2010 Hope D. She is accomplished in the world of fashion/broadcast journalism as well as model and if you have ever heard her speak she is such a smart woman. If you want to judge these ladies by the image you may (or for those of you who don't) see on a page maybe you should do a little research before casting judgment upon someone you have no knowledge of.
Reply to: It gradually became clear to me that Bill Cosby might meet Miss December but I never would. - Ebert
It would be fun to find out... if you contacted Playboy directly.... how many of the Playmates who appeared in the various December issues... ie, Miss December.... would show up for the taping of the first episode of "Roger Ebert Presents At The Movies."
I think you would get at least five. Maybe more.
Looking at Hef these days, i'm thinking Charles Napier might have a good role in store someday soon playing Hugh in his later years. If not, he should!
I noticed you didn't include part 5 where homosexuality was discussed as a deviation. Even his answer then were very progressive for his time. It is easy to judge from the distance of time, but what a great fighter for the personal right to live our own life.
Ebert: If there was a part 5 I didn't see it. I've found #5 and posted it.
Roger,
After making the first comment, I've re-read your article and many of the comments. I remain totally unconvinced that Hugh Hefner has somehow improved the quality of life for anyone but Hugh Hefner.
Putting aside the ad hominem angle (he's a 90 year old married man who sleeps with 18 year old girls on television, for example), pornography is the antithesis of the things we should value and seek as human beings. Instead of connection, it offers isolation. Instead of love, it offers insulary gratification. And so forth.
This myth of Hefner (or Larry Flint, for that matter) as crusaders for feminism and free expression is laughable leftist hokum. Hefner is a businessman, and a good one, but nothing more enlightened than that (and in some ways, much less - at least Tony Heyward loves his wife). If his political sensibilities drifted towards, say, libertarianism, I don't think you'd find him nearly as attractive.
That was my initial point, though perhaps it was a bit too obtuse for some. In writing this, you've yet again put the partisan cart ahead of the horse. Hugh Hefner is a multi-millionaire who got that way taking pictures of naked women who finds satisfaction in sleeping with women who just graduated high school. If he were a conservative, you'd find him odious on any one of those counts.
Roger,
As it so happens, I'm 9 and I've never held a Playboy. I never got the sense from my childhood friends that it was a right of passage, either. Of course, my generation was the first to grow up with the internet; porn is now an invasive species. I guess it's always been my feeling that 99.9% of pornography is degrading, to both the subjects and the viewer. I found nude art much more fascinating. Playboy, it seems, falls much closer to that category, these days, than pornography.
As far as the morality of it all, I think it's safe to say that people benefit from honesty and a refusal of judgment in regards to sex. I like seeing naked women. Some appreciate that, others do not. So it goes.
Ebert: Dear James:
Forget about Playboy. Tell us more about yourself. I'm impressed by your writing and thinking. I want to know more. Many college graduates would be envious of this post.
WHAT?
There is a decent, erotic picture of a beautiful woman that is not depicted any more in its normal size beacuse of NSFW issues? The latter ones clearly linked to pornographic stuff? Really? Is that your conclusion in a post about Hugh Hefner approving what he has achieved? That after what he did throughout his live against all odds you have to resize a clearly non-pornographic picture beacuse some commenters are dicknoses? And that at the same time you can show an erotic picture of a man showing exactly as much of his body as the woman? For that's a huge mistake! Because, you know, as a homosexual I feel titillated by that pic, and as I cannot stand being titillated, since my narrow-minded education tells me not to be titillated outside darkrooms, porn cinemas and other insulated places designed for the BAD, SINFUL stuff, I urge you to immediately REMOVE that. After that, I can finally hide myself away from the rest of society as I no longer want to bother others with my being overtly, hence aggressively, homosexual. I guess - and you?
I wasn't going to comment on this, but as I was looking through a book on Ramona Solberg, I noted a piece by a man called Don Tompkins called "Hugh Hefner." The piece includes a pipe, a pig (with male chauvinist imprinted on it) a dog, a human butt on a coin and a car.
I do not think what Playboy stands for is natural beauty.
CLothes are nice, but naked is natural. Long live Hugh Hefner, a prophet in our times.
The airbrushing, the silicone-implants, artificial poses are far from being natural. I don't think Hefner is a prophet of our times unless every shrewd businessman is a prophet.
What I see in Los Angeles, where the Playboy mansion is, where Larry Flynt's Penthouse is headquartered, and where the porn industry is a major player is women who believe they need plastic surgery to be beautiful.
What I've seen in art classes, is that women pose differently than men and people are more embarrassed or shocked by male nudity than female nudity. Female nudity is more acceptable--in movies and in art galleries.
Do you remember the Guerrilla Girls who asked "Do women need to be naked to get into the MET Museum?"
That was in 1985.
In 1989, the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. refused the exhibit "Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment." In 1998, the University of Central England had a book confiscated because of questionable material ("Mapplethorpe" 1992).
The questions I ask now is: Are we really hard-wired to consider the opposite sex as sex objects? The phrase sex objects means more than desirable. The concept of objectification means the person is viewed like a passive thing, an object, like property, like a servant or slave and having no feelings, not personhood inherent to his or her being.
Do women have to prove they don't have hangups about their bodies by posing naked like Kim Kardashian?
Should getting fame by posing nude be a goal for women at any age?
My point would be that female nudity is much more acceptable in America than male nudity.
Pornography is a business. It makes money because men are willing to pay to see naked women and because women are being paid little for posing nude or having intercourse with men or women. There is no job security. There are no health benefits. It is a freelance position of a short duration. I tend to agree with Marie Haws.
To justify Hugh Hefner's business of portraying women as sex objects as okay because he included some good articles is a slippery slope. The writers of those articles and stories went on to longer careers and were, in the long run, better paid than the women who posed in those magazines.
Their careers didn't require that they look good, take off their clothes and be physically pleasing to look at or subservient in their demeanor to a large segment of the population.
The slippery slope is, if a person does something good does that justify his/her other questionable acts? The most extreme case would be Adolf Hitler who unified his country after being voted into office, by exterminating a lot of people.
I worked at a company where photos of women in various stages of undress were posted. That was only part of the hostile environment for women. Those photos weren't all from Playboy, but from our own photogs as well as Playboy wanna-be magazines.
Other women in the office were offended, but weren't as effective in making their concerns heard. If you believe there's a time for everything, in most offices there is no time for nudity.
It's not that I'm against nudity, but there's the issue of the male gaze in the theory of movies and the fine arts. And if it can create a hostile environment in the workplace, perhaps it can also create a hostile environment in other places.
In any case, there is more male nudity on stage, at least in Los Angeles, than there is in the art galleries I've been to in the U.S. and certainly on TV or in the movies.
I personally do not think that Hugh Hefner was good for us, as in Americans, male and female. When you look at him now--surrounded by women who all look tragically similar to each other and are younger than his first set of kids, can you really think that he's even good for himself?
First of all, my apologies for posting twice earlier. Technical glitch.
Secondly, I'm not going to try to answer all the critics of feminism out there. Marie is doing a better job than I could in any case, especially with Michael Wong (kudos, Marie!). However, I would like to tell you a story.
When I was in college in the Eighties, I needed to find a friend one day in the dorms. "Oh, he's in Steve's room," someone told me. So I went to Steve's room. Steve and his roommate had decorated their living quarters with cut-out collages and torn-out photos of photos from skin mags. All over the walls and on a table, I saw naked women with pouty lips and perky breasts and tight asses and tons of pubic hair. Those photos made me feel violated, dirty, and ashamed. Not because I'm a prude; I've had plenty of sex, and I enjoy looking at guys as much as(if not more than) any woman. But the overall effect of the photos was to make me painfully aware that Steve was almost certainly regarding me as an object, yes: going over me with his eyes and thinking about my breasts and ass and how I'd be in bed. It's degrading, and frightening.
Now my friend Mark, down the hall, probably was thinking the same things when I visited him in his room, but at least he didn't have evidence of it plastered all over his walls. I could talk to him and not focus on his sexual fantasies. Which I certainly could NOT do in Steve's room.
Let me ask you guys something. How would you feel to be living in a world where naked photos of men were on display in magazines all over the country, many of them in degrading poses? Where sex shops with live male dancers could be seen just off the highway everywhere you drove? Where truckers had naked guys in sexy poses on their dustflaps? Where restaurants like Hooters, except with male servers in revealing outfits, were the norm?
"Hey, I'd love it," I hear some of you saying. No. You wouldn't. Particularly in an atmosphere where you were the less physically strong (on average) sex, and you had the constant threat of rape lurking in the background. Witness all the homophobia going on in the military. If DADT is repealed, some soldiers have that same fear going on in their heads of being eyed by the guy next to them in the shower. (Which, let me be clear, I don't think is going to happen. Gay guys aren't that stupid. They're going to keep to themselves if they don't want to get the pulp beaten out of them.)
So have some respect for the way we women feel, and stop telling us we need to understand where YOU'RE coming from. We do understand. But you're not doing the same for us.
BTW, Roger, if you want to show a real piece of art using a nude woman, that PLAYBOY photo is NOT it. Try this instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Urbino
Now THAT is Art. (As is Michelangelo's "David", but I didn't see you post a photo of that, either. Hmm?)
Anyway, here's a piece of my own, if anyone still thinks I'm a prude:
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1135315-Men-Men-Men
Ebert: Dear Lynn, first of all, I read your blog and admired it so much I tweeted it.
Second, any guy with smut plastered all over his walls is a creep and possibly much worse. Your feelings are completely valid.
Third, I see why you compared Venus to Miss July 1975. Very similar poses in the way they regard us. But maybe this is just me: Miss Ohari is incomparably more attractive.Both of those pictures say Art to me, but only one says Woman!
Come on. We know you're not a lesbian. Just as a thinking woman: Which do you find more attractive?
I'm another reader mystified by your sensitivity on the NSFW issue.
I read the blog in the privacy of my own home, where I had no problem with the entry as originally posted. However, in places I've worked no distinction would be made between the propriety of that centerfold and the content of that Tribune memo video.
Excellent column. I'm a registered Independent voter who's as progressive as they come, and I never found Playboy offensive or anti-female.
The most important thing to remember about Playboy magazine is that reading it is the same as going to a movie, buying a newspaper, selecting a radio program, choosing a play to see, staying with a television show. IT'S A CHOICE.
The knock on Playboy is that it allegedly objectified a certain type of woman. The reality is that there are still a gazillion other types of women and men have never ever had a problem meeting them, dating them, or marrying them, even with the existence of Playboy.
Playboy is one man's fantasy, and he turned it into a successful business. Good for him. I never thought that reading Playboy made me a bad person, and I never thought that publishing it made Hugh Hefner a bad person. Everybody wonders what people look like naked. Hugh Hefner simply made the wondering go away.
One of the most fascinating things about Playboy and Hefner is the aura that surrounds his very successful TV show "The Girls Next Door." It's a hit because it shows us that within the Playboy mansion resides a family. I watch it, and the primary thought I always have is how pleasant everything is; how happy everybody is. Hefner has created a family. It's most assuredly not for everyone, but who cares? I like what I see. I like the comfort that Hefner's family offers.
Don't like Playboy? Then don't buy it or read its internet site or watch its television programs. In America, nobody should force anybody to do anything. I'm bored with the enemies of free choice, and they will never get my vote.
Truth be told, what would you rather watch? The scourges of Fox News, with their absurd Mommy-and-Daddy-ruling-their-children negativity and censorship, or the warm and sunny confines of Hefner's world?
Playboy's done a lot of good for free speech and civil rights and gay rights and sexual liberation. We need more Hugh Hefners, not less.
Marie Haws wrote: "It's not my fault. My DNA made me do it. I have no control over my own behavior. I am a victim of it."
__________________
Classic feminist behaviour: demonize and attack anyone who disagrees with you, by accusing them of being serial rapists in waiting.
NO ONE said that men can't control their behaviour. I did say, however, that men can't help having the desires underlying those behaviours.
Sex is the only human behaviour where we demonize not just the behaviour, but the desire. In your case, you don't even differentiate between the two. I'm not sure whether that's flagrant dishonesty or a genuine lack of understanding on your part.
I won't comment much on the nonsensical conflation of social justice/civil rights work with sexual objectification--the whole, "Look, he did some good deeds! So that makes this skin mag okay!" silliness. I'll only say to that that it reminds me of Roman Polanski, and how people defend his child-rapist ways with "Look! He's an ARTIST! And hasn't he SUFFERED ENOUGH?" to make it okay that he fled the country and will never pay for drugging and raping a 13-year-old. Am I saying Hugh Hefner is a child rapist? No. I'm saying that kind of thinking is also what's going on here.
Okay, enough of that. What I DO want to comment on is the NSFW problem with this post. I read this blog at work. I work in a cubicle. My boss and others can come up and see what I'm looking at at any time, and I do NOT need them seeing me looking at pictures of ripped men in tiny undies and naked women. Both pictures will get me in trouble. So the NSFW warning is not censorship--that's the government's work. It's common courtesy to your readers. For crying out loud. And if the solution for me is to simply not read your blogs any more, it's a dumb solution, but I might have to do it.
Interesting article. It has caused me to rethink my attitude. All my adult life, I have felt to be in competition with the “Centerfold”. To me, she did not feel human. I could not imagine having men I did not know or whom I did not consider attractive or even likeable masturbating over my picture while imagining doing all kinds of things to me. Yet on the other hand, by posing in these pictures that were so easily available these women were acknowledging the humanity of their male viewers. Which is something I did not do. I was the person who did not acknowledge the unattractive men while at the same time I would be nervous around the good-looking ones. I do what I criticized men for doing: I treated people differently based on their looks. Since I always considered myself to be plain looking, even when I looked my best, I had become the female version of the type of person played by Ernest Borgnine in Marty. I also did what he did, I got to know a really sweet guy, who was passably attractive, due to a combination of physical and inner beauty. In fact, he also had to go beyond the initial appearance with me and we fell in love.
Today I am a lot older and I realize that there are two types of women: the ones who care about who sees them naked and the ones who don’t. Feeling one way or the other does not make you a better person because it doesn’t define who you are. Sure, the women who are centerfolds, etc. are airbrushed,professionally made up and physically blessed. They also have to maintain their diets, exercise and, in some cases, have difficult surgical procedures to achieve their status. Again, I often felt that I was unfairly judged because of my age and weight. Then why do I make presumptions of the Playboy women? I consider myself to be a loving wife, mother, with a slightly off-beat sense of humor, watches horror films, love music, books, travel and could not survive without my spirituality . Many of the Playboy women, strippers, etc. are no different, I’m sure. Although I wonder how many have a comparable collection of Tigger dolls.(Don't judge me.)
"I'm fairly sure you'd write a glowing blog about Andrea Yates if the sinking car was affixed with a DNC bumper sticker."
OMG, I can not believe what that someone would utter such a statement, much less write it. What if the bumper sticker stated.......
"Jesus Saves"
Marie Haws,
Certainly, it would appear the work conditions and labour standards employed by PBB clubs were nothing special. I am not an apologist for PBB clubs nor HH. However, I would point out that, compared to other, more mainstream industries and labour standards, these conditions you listed are hardly extreme.
Do you not think your assertion that these workers were idiots is condescending and would be obviously out of place if used to describe any other labour force? Are you suggesting that these women worked there just for the money? Are you suggesting that anyone who does not derive a large income from their employment is an idiot?
I guess I dont follow that part of the argument.
Reading people's reactions to this post reminds me that I became convinced long ago that where sexuality is concerned, human beings are even more incoherent than usual.
Seeing people parse the word "objectify" in this thread is fascinating. Objectification itself is not a problem. After all, some objects are exalted in human civilization. Michelangelo's David is an object. So are the water-lily paintings of Monet. Human lives are brief; art is eternal, or appears so from our perspective. To objectify someone is often indistinguishable from idealizing someone. My wife is intelligent, kind, and in possession a profound sense of fairness and justice. But in my mind she is not only possessed of those qualities, she is the emblem of them, the ideal of Intelligence, Kindness, and Fairness. She's also, by most men's standards, gorgeous. But in my mind, she is not just beautiful and desirable, but Beauty and Desire incarnate. Objectively, of course, that is impossible of any human being, which is why to me she means more than any other human being.
The issue is what kind of object we see someone as. Repressive societies see women as objects of fear and resentment. For example, a society in which women are expected to cover their bodies whenever they are in public -- whether contemporary Saudi Arabia, or Victorian England, in which respectable women did not reveal an ankle -- clearly oppresses women. But it also warps men's sexuality.
The evidence is everywhere. I grew up in the northeast and now live in northern Virginia (the blue-state part, near D.C.), which might as well be the northeast in most ways. But I've driven up and down the coast many times, and the further south you go, the more cheap strip clubs and fire-and-brimstone churches you see. Near almost every ramshackle topless bar is a billboard promising redemption from sin. "Here," that culture says, "you can indulge your lust as long as you pay for it: money at first and guilt (and money) later."
For years one of my best friends was an Iranian woman -- beautiful, brilliant, and very western. Her father is a cardiologist, and she had grown up largely in Germany. She would get visibly upset whenever she saw a woman in a veil, and she saw post-revolution Iran and other theocratic states as literally sick. She told me once, "You have to understand. Muslim men [by which she meant the fundamentalist type, not all Muslim men] are terrified of vaginas." I laughed, but she was quite serious. She said that the consequences were everywhere in Iranian society. For one thing, she said, the men largely preferred anal sex (one reason, I'm sure, I never saw her date a Muslim). Because men had an anus, the logic went, it couldn't be as "dirty" as something only women have. Sexual repression also meant that men were engaging in far more homosexual activity. They weren't homosexual by preference, but were acting in the same way that we see among men in prison, English public schools (what we call boarding schools), and the military before women were let in. One ironic result: the government was cracking down even more on homosexuality. Thus, actual gay men were being punished for the actions of men whose orientation was straight but who were denied the preferred outlet for their desires.
Does or did Playboy objectify women? Newsflash: any representation objectifies its subject, and most idealize it because of what Italo Calvino described as "the special dignity of images." That indeed is the explicit reason Islamic art does not deal in the human body. Who knows what the Mona Lisa was like in real life? She might have had a voice like a female Gilbert Godfried and enjoyed nothing more than gossiping about what the neighbors were doing while she chewed on a bulb of raw garlic.
It's been a while, but I remember two standard types of photos in Playboy. In one, the woman is surrounded by opulence -- a fireplace, candles, heavy furniture made of dark wood, silk sheets, a brass bed, gold-rimmed mirrors. She wears jewelry, usually pearls or diamonds. The lighting is dim and the focus is soft. Her expression is seductive, suggests arousal or anticipation, but never actual sex. Her lips are slightly parted, or she may be biting the lower one slightly. The whole scene is set to suggest anticipation, hers and the viewer's.
The second is brightly lit; I remember reading that most photo shoots were done in the early morning because that is when the sunlight is most flattering to skin-tone. The photos were often taken outside, and -- perhaps because I always thought this was goofy I may remember it as more common than it was -- in a rural setting. She might literally be surrounded by hay bales. She's wearing, or half-wearing, or has just taken off, a plaid shirt, or jeans, or cowboy boots. She may have on a hat. The focus is clear, and her expression is confident and amused. She is clear-eyed, smiling, sometimes laughing. The scene says she is having fun.
These are erotic images, I suppose, but they are no more pornographic than Manet's Le Dejeuner sur L'Herbe. In fact, they are less so. Unlike in the painting, men are nowhere to be seen, and while we may presume that is because the viewer likes the fantasy that she is there for him alone, the message both of these types of images send is "This woman is a sexual being. She doesn't feel shame or guilt for it. You'd be very fortunate to be with her right now." Meanwhile, the magazine did not say that a playmate was just a sexual being. It's easy to mock the "Playmate Data [or Fact? I don't remember] Sheet," with its turn-ons and turn-offs, but it did mean the woman wasn't just a set of pictures. It included occupation and goals, and that it was in the woman's own handwriting made a difference, too. (Somehow I had no interest in looking at the pictures if she was one of those women with overly rounded, looping, childish handwriting.)
The key point is that Hefner wasn't interested in showing women as powerless or fearful. Nothing about those photos was ever hostile. The typical reaction most teenage boys had to them was an open-mouthed "Wow!" Hefner put woman on a pedestal. You can say that that is a simplification of women as human beings, but as simplifications go, it's one of the best.
Meanwhile, the magazine consistently promoted a radical view of sexuality: women like sex, and it would be better for both men and women if we abandoned the old attitudes that one obtained sex only through the legal and economic arrangement known as marriage (traditionally obtained through negotiation with a woman's father), that a woman's desirability is determined by her virginity, and that a woman's role is to "lie still and think of the empire." Hefner argued that society will be a happier place when *women* can have sex with whomever and whenever *they choose*. It presumed women had most of the power of choice in sexual relationships -- which is true. Men were the ones who had to be attractive: they had to wear the right clothes, drive the right car, have the right (meaning progressive) political attitudes, have impeccable grooming, manners, and courtesy. The Playboy man was the original metrosexual. He needed to read the articles and understand them. He was supposed to read literary fiction too. The greatest American literary magazines ever were The Atlantic under William Dean Howells, The New Yorker under William Shawn, and Hefner's Playboy. Men who had no interest in the articles or fiction were stupid for buying the magazine to begin with, because as I recall, only about 10-15% of the pages in any issue were pictorial. Anyone looking for pictures of naked women could spend his money far more efficiently.
The only problem I have with Hefner is that as he's gotten older he has clearly reverted to adolescence in some ways. When he was younger he had a few more serious relationships with a wider variety of women. Now, in his dotage, he surrounds himself with nearly interchangeable -- literally, as I think now he is dating twins, and not for the first time -- cut-rate imitations of the character Marilyn Monroe played in movies. He's become a parody of himself, which is a little sad.
I've got to give Playboy credit for broadening my horizons and not solely through the pictorials. I remember being 13 and reading the Groucho Marx interview from an issue I'd snuck into the room, enthralled with his stories of life as a vaudeville performer and doubled over with his wit and comebacks. Then there was the issue with a review of something called Salo, that rocked my adolescent sensibilities with its summary of the content and description of Al Goldstein leaving the theater pale and shaken. 30 years after the fact, the prospect of viewing that movie still intimidates the hell out of me, but that review introduced me to Pasolini and foreign filmmaking, so it's all good.
Lynn McKenzie,
Ditto what Roger said about *Steve*=creep. I would bet though that, in your experience, Steve is the exception, not the rule?
My question to you is: why do you find it degrading when a woman works in the sex or titillation trade but not when a woman works in other industries?
For example: which is more degrading to you:
- a young woman fresh from college with a degree, only able to find work in a diner for minimum wage plus meager tips, where she must work long hours to make ends meet, wearing a crappy uniform, having to smile for creepy and miserable customers, and having to put up with a lousy supervisor
- a woman without post-sec education working in a plant or shop or call center, doing the same mundane, repetitive tasks without opportunity for advancement or development, for very low wages, no benefits, no vacation pay, where there is a very high attrition rate, where there is the ever looming threat of downsizing or shutdown
- a woman who takes off her clothes in front of men, who is able to set her own hours or works much fewer hours than the previous examples, in a much nicer working environment than the other examples, who is able to make decent enough money to put herself through college without debts and, because she is able to make more money on dates with clients of her choosing is actually able to live quite comfortably
I assume the third scenario is the degrading one, to you? Why is that? If they are all equally degrading, why do people automatically refer to only the third example as *bimbos*, `idiots` etc?
First off, it's obviously not "four-letter words in the comments" that's getting the pages blocked. If that were true, your whole website would be off-limits by now (to say nothing of every other political and showbiz blog on the Net).
And anyway, how profane did anyone get on a thread about books and book-collecting?
The note I quoted above was about "a security threat to network resources and private information", whatever the hell - excuse me, heck - that means.
Back to Square One.
Meanwhile, for a change of pace, here's a comment about *surprise* the actual subject of the thread!
The side topic appears to be the image of women that Playboy projects, and how men (and women) put it to use.
My considered comment: I dunno.
But someone up above mentioned Citizen Kane and its treatment of Kane's second wife, and the writer mixed the character (Susan Alexander) with the actress (Dorothy Comingore). And that brings me to -
Semi-Irrelevant Anecdote Of The Week:
In her autobiography, Ruth Warrick told of how, during the filming of Kane, Orson Welles was always gentlemanly, even courtly, towards her, while treating Dorothy Comingore with a discourtesy bordering on contempt.
Knowing Welles's reputation with the ladies, Ms. Warrick told him that she wasn't impressed by this favoritism.
Welles told her that he had to treat Ms. Comingore this way, so when they filmed the blowup scenes, she would really hate him.
He explained himself thusly:
"She isn't an actress; she is Susan Alexander, and she's probably going to end up just like the character does."
Which is pretty much what happened to Dorothy Comingore in real life.
Moral of the story: people - men, women, children, adults, everything in between - will always have this distressing proclivity towards individuality.
Which means we're all playing it by ear.
I guess I'll have to wait til Monday to see if this has gotten through - or indeed if this page is still available to me (to say nothing of the whole site).
We all may find ourselves Darned to a fiery Heck by an angry and vengeful Gosh.
*would that be better or worse than being Nabbed by Dang?*
So, in the words Morey Amsterdam wrote to the Dick Van Dyke Show theme:
"Don't forget to keep your fingers crossed!"
As usual, Mr. Ebert has written a great article. Many of the comments posted below it are good too.
The older I get (I'll be 50 next year), the more convinced I am that Hugh Hefner and Bob Guccione were forces for positive change in North America. Religious conservatives and anti-porn feminists will vehemently disagree, but I think Hefner and Guccione did a lot to smash destructive sexual taboos and promote a freer, more egalitarian society. In fact, I suspect that they did more to liberate men and women from anxious, guilt-ridden sex than the anti-porn crowd ever did. Hefner and Guccione even managed to make a few bucks along the way. I salute them both.
Boy, reading this brought back some distant, fond memories. My first sexual experience (at 12, I believe) was aided by a Playboy; the magazine was picked from a large stack hidden in my neighbor's shed. Needless to say, I was alone, and did not have any idea of what I was doing. However, I feel I mastered the process in less than a minute.
Despite claims by right wing evangelicals, I was not scarred for life, and did not become a degenerate. Thank you Hugh Hefner!
Marie Haws,
A "pro-sex" feminist stance: defined as well as defended:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/freeinqu.htm
Some quotes:
"Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically." This sentence opens my book XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography, and it constitutes a more extreme defense of pornography than most feminists are comfortable with. I arrive at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex workers.
...
"Anti-pornography feminists treat women who disagree as either brain- washed dupes of patriarchy or as apologists for pornographers."
Pornography benefits women politically in many ways, including the following:
1. Historically, pornography and feminism have been fellow travelers and natural allies. Both have risen and flourished during the same periods of sexual freedom; both have been attacked by the same political forces, usually conservatives. Laws directed against pornography or obscenity, such as the Comstock Law in the late 1880's, have always been used to hinder women's rights, such as birth control. Although it is not possible to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the rise of pornography and that of feminism, they both demand the same social conditions -- namely, sexual freedom.
2. Pornography is free speech applied to the sexual realm. Freedom of speech is the ally of those who seek change: it is the enemy of those who seek to maintain control. Pornography, along with all other forms of sexual heresy, such as homosexuality, should have the same legal protection as political heresy. This protection is especially important to women, whose sexuality has been controlled by censorship through the centuries.
3. Viewing pornography may well have a cathartic effect on men who have violent urges toward women. If this is true, restricting pornography removes a protective barrier between women and abuse.
4. Legitimizing pornography would protect women sex work- ers, who are stigmatized by our society. Anti-pornography femi- nists are actually undermining the safety of sex workers when they treat them as 'indoctrinated women'. Dr. Leonore Tiefer, a professor of psychology observed in her essay "On Censorship and Women":
"These women have appealed to feminists for support, not rejection...Sex industry workers, like all women, are striving for economic survival and a decent life, and if feminism means anything it means sisterhood and solidarity with these women."
The law cannot eliminate pornography, any more than it has been able to stamp out prostitution. But making pornography illegal will further alienate and endanger women sex workers.
Marie Haws, (more added)
A "pro-sex" feminist stance: defined as well as defended:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/freeinqu.htm
Before there's good part about how it benefits women personally, but what I found to be the most important part, which was the idea of *uniqueness*:
A common emotional theme in the porn actresses I have interviewed is a love of exhibitionism. Yet if such a woman declares her enjoyment in flaunting her body, anti-porn feminists claim she is not merely a unique human being who reacts from a different background or personality. She is psychologically damaged and no longer responsible for her actions. In essence, this is a denial of a woman's right to choose anything outside the narrow corridor of choices offered by political/sexual correctness. The right to choose hinges on the right to make a 'wrong' choice, just as freedom of religion entails the right to be an atheist. After all, no one will prevent a woman from doing what they think she should do.
Hugh Hef and William F discuss Playboy promoting licentiousness not porn. -Hef (was given less time than windy William but said way more) "Any kind of freedom requires greater personal responsibility."
We have warped our common senses to such an insecure position where a photo of a nude is interpreted as more obscene than natural.
-Could food served at Chez Panisse be porn too if your mouth Waters to look at it?
Porn is the depiction of erotic behavior or acts to cause sexual excitement. A twelve year old should know and appreciate the distinction between art and porn.
Please return Miss July 1975 to her worthy position and provide the moans with a link to the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary for the proper definition of pornography.
Dear Roger, thank you so much for the plug! There are a LOT of people who follow you! :-D
Re your question:
I see why you compared Venus to Miss July 1975. Very similar poses in the way they regard us. But maybe this is just me: Miss Ohari is incomparably more attractive.Both of those pictures say Art to me, but only one says Woman!
Come on. We know you're not a lesbian. Just as a thinking woman: Which do you find more attractive?
I looked long and hard (no pun intended) at Miss Ohari, and honestly, I still prefer Venus. Although I do recognize and on some level appreciate Miss Ohari's beauty. Perhaps it's just that I feel more comfortable with an oil representation than with the "real" thing. (Doubtless airbrushed, you know. Then again, I'm sure Titian didn't paint every mole or scar on his model, either.)
Well, a resizing wasn't what I [and others, probably] intended. Contrary to what some readers seem to be inferring, whether or not Azizi Johari is beautiful [she is] is irrelevant to the request for a NSFW disclaimer. As another reader said: is it really worth the risk of an unsuspecting reader being fired from their job? A four-letter disclaimer would allow you to restore the image; yes, it's silly, but that's how things are these days.
I deal with words more than images. I consider "offensive language" a nonsensical notion; the offense is the emotional intent behind the language: the language is just a vehicle. But consider a word like "cunt"; think of all the emotions that can be contained in that lexical vehicle: anger, lust, humor, etc. You'd be ill-advised to use that word anywhere, no matter the emotional intent; communication is simply too subjective. Similarly, this image is just a vehicle, and the emotional intent is entirely benign; images are communication, though, and they're subject to communicative subjectivity. It's silly, but so it goes.
The workplace isn't formed around a preexisting social unit; the lowest common social denominator at work is just that--work: socially, the people there are probably completely different, so communicative subjectivity is more pronounced. In order for a society to function, there needs to be social cohesion; in order to maintain social cohesion, there needs to be effective communication; in order for there to be effective communication, communicative subjectivity needs to be limited. So, the more subjective variables [swearing, nude images, dirty jokes, etc.] are removed. Does that mean we haven't "grown up"? No. Is it the ideal situation? Maybe. Is it the most functional situation? Probably.
The Playboy man was the original metrosexual. He needed to read the articles and understand them. He was supposed to read literary fiction too. The greatest American literary magazines ever were The Atlantic under William Dean Howells, The New Yorker under William Shawn, and Hefner's Playboy.
In fact, The Articles emphasized that men who were interested in intellectual conversation, wine tasting, jazz, literature and upscale pursuits could be very, VERY heterosexual, when it came right down to it. :)
Which could be an important role model for males, no matter how shallow, materialistic or objectified it might have seemed:
With comedy being the only avenue in pop culture these day to take on the question of "male identity", males are told they must hold back their intelligence and world experience, and be Jim Belushi, Carlos Mencia or Homer Simpson to be "true" to the faith...Or that it was the dream to be one of the Happy Madison pack and live a high-school life in fear of being "trapped" into marriage/dating, while pursuing your old-style immature bonding long after the thirties had arrived.
How silly...Everyone knows we always wanted to look as good in our apartment bathrobe as Hugh Hefner did.
Excellent piece, Roger, and yes, Hef met Brigitte because of his admiration for the Bix documentary.
You may not remember, but the first time we met face-to-face (after a number of e-mails) was at the Mansion. You were in town to cover the Oscars and brought Russ with you. (Somewhere I still have a picture of the three of us giving "thumbs up.") We hung out for hours afterwards--Hef had left for a party--and you even wrote a column about it. Truly a most memorable evening with terrific company.
Ebert: Mike, of course I remember that. I even have the pic of Russ, Hef and me...but not one with you, alas.
Lucid, informative, intimate, honest.
@ scott wrote on October 29:
"...I am not an apologist for PBB clubs nor HH. However, I would point out that, compared to other, more mainstream industries and labour standards, these conditions you listed are hardly extreme."
Was it the worst job on the face of the earth? No. Did most end-up leaving it after a month? Yup.
And I quote:
'As former bunnies attest, that costume could be downright painful. "Some girls unzipped their costumes" after work, "and their backs were bloody from the stays," Judy Vander Heyden De Serio recalled in Kathryn Leigh Scott's 1998 collective memoir, "The Bunny Years." "Some bunnies tried to line the inside of the costumes with tissue paper or napkins to keep the boning from pressing into their skin.'
The costume was designed with men in mind, not those expected to wear them. The shape was more important to the male gaze than the price women had to pay for stuffing themselves into it. The physical pain of another human being was of secondary importance.
And if you can't see the selfishness of that, I can't illuminate you.
"Do you not think your assertion that these workers were idiots is condescending and would be obviously out of place if used to describe any other labour force?" Are you suggesting that these women worked there just for the money? Are you suggesting that anyone who does not derive a large income from their employment is an idiot?
I guess I don't follow that part of the argument."
Are you suggesting women didn't think of money when they applied for a job?
News flash: most people work for money, as few can afford not to.
And if you're financially able to leave a bad job and don't, then yes. I think such a person would be an idiot.
That's not the same thing however as needing money, taking a job that sounds exciting - then when the rose-colored glasses come off, having to suck it up until you're able to find something better.
Here's how it was advertised:
A page from a Playboy Bunny Recruitment Brochure
The job was based on the selfish adolescent fantasy of a man who wanted to live in a world where women embraced "his idea" of sexual freedom. And in reality, most women went home in pain, instead.
Is Hugh Hefner the Devil? No. But I do think he modeled his bunnies after his own personal preference for the well-trained girl next door who knows both her duty and her place. She serves you. She caters to your gaze.
That's not equality. It's too one-sided. It comes too much at the expense of another.
...then I came up with a Bob-and-Ray style interview: "PORTER PETERS, FIFTIES PORNOGRAPHER." Got as far as Porter getting all huffy about his mother, chuckled, quit.
Wong the Merciless, it's evident you've never been there, or you'd know. There's nothing "hard-wired" about a sexual attraction hinging on "money and power." C'mon you outraged feminists, whap 'im a good one for this.
And despite what Chippendale Boy Henry Kissinger had to say about it, I've known far better "aphrodisiacs."
Richard Nanian, my particular "parse" on the word "objectification" for this purpose is in the sense of separating one's subjective feelings toward the sexual "object" of one's penchant from the surface form it takes.
Sort of like separating the apple from its skin and making an "objective" judgment that way. It's possible only in an illusory fashion. Case in point, the pic of the pretty 1975 lady Rodge has had to reduce owing to the many complaints from the Anthony Comstocks and Miss Nancy Howells who are apparently still stalking about in our day. Reincarnation moves too slowly.
A gorgeous friend of mine once said, "I figure no matter how good looking somebody is, there's always somebody somewhere who's sick to death of 'im."
Who knows who's been sick of the pretty 1975 lady over the years?
Not even Michael Wong could convince me that when you're sick to death of somebody, they don't also tend to look like hammered shit. Been there, too.
Click on my name for an incisive, fascinating take on "love," which is missing from among the feats Hefner et al have accomplished. CLICK on it, I said.
Roger,
This is a wonderful, balanced article about Hef. The world would have been a far poorer place without him. And, Aziz Johari is extraordinary. When will people grow up, indeed.
Mr. Ebert: You say, "He also built a multi-million-dollar corporation and was instrumental in leading his nation out of the sexual dark ages."
To your first point: building 'a multi-million-dollar corporation' without decorum, dignity, or morals is not something to be proud of.
To your second point: 'leading his nation out of the sexual dark ages' is not very accurate. Years before Hefner made his mark on history, the American GIs of WWII landed in Europe, bringing with them the jitterbug and taking all the girls. Britons lamented that they were "overpaid, oversexed, over here."
I've got to give Playboy credit for broadening my horizons and not solely through the pictorials. I remember being 13 and reading the Groucho Marx interview from an issue I'd snuck into the room, enthralled with his stories of life as a vaudeville performer and doubled over with his wit and comebacks. Then there was the issue with a review of something called Salo, that rocked my adolescent sensibilities with its summary of the content and description of Al Goldstein leaving the theater pale and shaken. 30 years after the fact, the prospect of viewing that movie still intimidates the hell out of me, but that review introduced me to Pasolini and foreign filmmaking, so it's all good.
Lynn Mackenzie,
"Let me ask you guys something. How would you feel to be living in a world....Where restaurants like Hooters, except with male servers in revealing outfits, were the norm?
"Hey, I'd love it," I hear some of you saying. No. You wouldn't. Particularly in an atmosphere where you were the less physically strong (on average) sex, and you had the constant threat of rape lurking in the background."
So, we're talking about some pretty buff women here then?
And being raped by one of these physically strong women?
I get the analogy but this all sounds like good news to many men: I'll tell you that (I will get back to this more seriously in a moment).
Speaking of how we'd feel,
This would make us feel physically desired (I posted a comment not up yet of a "pro-sex" feminist who'd written a book on it in which many interviewees said that exhibitionism was a reason for their choosing a career is sex work).
And so, when I read about how you are ogling all these guys in your blog, in this age where men are pretty much being being held up a standard of beauty as women are, I tend to feel a bit of jealousness; I don't mean because of you personally, but I mean the sentiment(also, if someone is in a relationship I tend to not find them desirable so much, which I can kind of sense on seeing them, out of, I suppose, a kind of respect for love).
Also, as far as physical attractiveness body-wise, I think it's really rare when someone naturally has these kind of dream-like features.
I think that's why there's so much a thing with eating disorders with models; with some of them, they may know about this rareness and want to kind of fool everyone (and/or themselves) into thinking they have this specialness, as it were. Then they looking bony with really long arms and legs. That's what seems to be going on anyway: this kind of want for a perfect proportion to, I guess, make the curves have more impact.
Art is, after all, the illusion of spontaneity.
So, they are in a sense, trying to turn their body into great art, as it were, as that seems to be what is the most attractive; the spontaneous surprise of the curves: which isn't just for looking either.
I don't know, I've been responding to this in such a kind of clinical fashion, but let's face it people do look for attractiveness in a clinical fashion: people do look at measurements (although, typically for women).
Okay, so now I'll try to respond more seriously to your comment.
You mentioned rape.
I can't say I know too much about this, but I figure that it's best women try to stay in groups and carry some protection etc.
I'm no expert, but I suspect that these rapists look for someone that is apprehensive and the scared type (which is probably just about everyone).
I think that it's not been proven that there is a correlation between rape and overall smuttiness.
I guess what you were talking about was just to, as you said, take into consideration how women feel about this, which I take it that you might mean kindness.
Yeah, I agree.
We're living in a boorish age, thanks in large part to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's etc. systematic attack on manners.
People who don't want to be sexually objectified shouldn't have signed up for a sexually dimorphic species.
I can't believe I'm writing this with my full, real name...
Your Janet Pilgrim story reflects a feeling I've long had about photographs of nude women. The "fantasy" of the picture- the presumed story that the picture is trying to convey ("Here is Ms. April who just happens to be decorating a cake topless, while, ooops, she gets icing all over the place!")- was never as interesting to me as the thought that Ms. April was a real person who went through the process of getting their picture taken in a very intimate way. The reality of the circumstance- that a (usually) young woman with friends, family, a personality and a sense of sexuality and sensuality, worked up the courage to allow herself to be photographed in the nude. Whatever the final result of that session, that thought is far more interesting to me than the fake one that the picture is trying to instill- whatever that story may be.
For this reason, the perfect, airbrushed, photographs of Playboy models, while beautiful, haven't held as much interest for me as the less perfected imagery from other sources, because they obscure somewhat the reality of the real human being in front of the camera.
MWag -
To answer your question, if the bumper sticker "Jesus Saves" were affixed to the sinking car, Ebert would have simply assumed his assumptions about the Christian right had been validated. Undoubtedly, we'd be treated to tweets to this effect.
Clearly, however, my point was too obtuse - Ebert writes another fawning article about a thoroughly repulsive, loathsome man who, in a shocking fit of coincidence, happens to share his political outlook. Now I am the one having my assumptions validated, not for the first time.
My dad told me that his mother used to buy Playboy for his aunt, who would who say how horrible each picture was, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY FLIPPING THROUGH THE ENTIRE MAGAZINE.
I think that is what Hefner knew: that people in the 1950s subscribed to a morality that they didn't really believe in, that ran counter to human nature.
Men objectify women. Women objectify men. As one gets older, the objectification may give way to attraction based more on personality, but looks still matter. Indeed, people who are attractive tend to carry healthy genes, which may be a biological reason for beauty.
Hef is right when he said (in the clip above with TIME) that PLAYBOY is "miles away" from pornography. Nudity is not pornographic: it is beautiful and certainly more appealing to look at than is violence. And yet too many of us, still, are ashamed of our bodies. It's this shame that labels such photos as the one you had to shrink NSFW. If the woman in question were fucking goats, this might make sense, but all she is doing is showing off her beautiful body to the world. It's unfortunate that this shame of our bodies still remains, and perhaps it is because this country is still too immature to talk about our bodies, sex, and sexuality in a frank and honest manner.
Yet this is not Hef's fault. He helped push this issue out into the open, and we are slowly gaining in maturity in our acceptance of nudity and sexuality, but not enough. On European TV, men and women can be shown topless with no black bars over the women's chests. In Japan, they are downright prissy when it comes to male and female genitalia (even their pornography "fuzzes out" the "naughty" bits), but some shows at night will show women topless (though, in some ways, that country is even more sexually uninformed than we are: I'm reading a book right now called The Apprenticeship of Big Toe P that caused a furor in Japan for talking frankly about sex and sexuality--in the 1990s).
The problem now is that everything is about sex. Certainly it's a powerful force in the universe. Certainly it's worthy of discussion and debate. But too often in magazines, sex is strategized. Do this in order to get your woman to sleep with you. Try these sexual techniques to hold onto him. Men's sex tips. Women's sex tips. And love is nowhere to be found.
But I digress. And I must say that seeing Buckley debate Hefner (with Parts 5 and 6 easily found on Youtube) makes me wonder what Buckley would make of the shrill voices screaming on the TV today. I felt informed after seeing that debate, rather than revulsion.
I did not know what "NSFW" meant until now. I'm sure Ebert is flattered that you'd rather be reading his blog than doing your work but I doubt your employer is. So how about get off Ebe's back and enjoy the view on your own time.
You'd think clicking on a Playboy logo would be NSFW enough. And yes you're browsing at work but during "lunch". Nice cover.
Every time I peer into my bosses office no matter what hour she's playing the internet game "bejeweled" (by the way Ebert check out this game its totally art!!#!#---jk ha!)
I wish she was reading Ebert's blog so that we'd have something to actually relate over.
I suggest all of you who feel/believe Playboy/Hefner have scarred the world study some ethnographic studies of cultures not touched by such content. Coming of Age in Samoa is one starting point. Prudes, beware - clicking this link leads to some beautiful Samoan girls, circa 1902
NSFW
This post reminded me of an interview that I read in The Humanist which might be of interest you to: http://www.thehumanist.com/humanist/10_sept_oct/Shaffer.html
astoundingly pathetic
Thank you, Richard Nanian, for offering such an elegant riposte to some of the criticism leveled against this article. I'm a 32-year-old woman (and would consider myself a feminist), and even I can see how much Mr. Hefner's publication has done not just for liberating male sexuality, but liberating female sexuality too. Love them or hate them, his models have generally appeared as confident, seductive, cognitive humans, who were well aware of their own sexuality and celebrated it as an enjoyable part of being alive. I can imagine nothing worse than growing up in my grandmother's generation, when sex was something she was meant to endure rather than enjoy - and any woman who thought otherwise was a figure of great shame. You've also done well to argue that Playboy set a high standard for male behavior - suggesting that they needed a bit of sophistication if they ever hoped to spend a little quality time with such beautiful young ladies. It was always implied that women had the discretionary choice there. By comparison to modern Internet porn, there is nothing in Playboy that suggests a male should be hostile or boorish towards his sexual partner, nor that he should attempt to humiliate her.
There's been a bit of debate on here about the degree to which Playboy objectifies women (and whether or not that objectification is "natural") but, Roger, I'd like to suggest that your story actually highlights just the opposite effect. As a few people here have pointed out, "objectification" in the feminist sense actually means stripping someone of a sense of their humanity. Just as I might anthropomorphize a table by considering that it has feelings, then I would objectify a woman by deciding that she does not. Instead, you go on to point out how Playboy helped you to see the models as actual people - with lives outside of the nudie pictures - and you loved Hefner for it. This is the opposite of objectification. It may be true that all art objectifies to some degree, but I'd suggest that when you admire a woman from across a crowded room, you are not seeing her as a sexual object but as a sexual human being. Indeed, it is her humanity (and the possibility of her willing, consensual receptiveness to your humanity) that makes her so attractive. The picture in a magazine is a passive thing. The woman who seems to actively reach out from the picture is not.
It may well be true that all men see women as sex objects to some degree - that I can't answer, I've never lived in a man's brain. However it is only the inability to ever feel the empathy and shared humanity that causes that objectification to become a problem. I might look at an attractive young man (and not really care about what he's thinking at that moment), but if I stop caring about his feelings or rights altogether, then that's when I've stepped into more dangerous territory. You've made a very good case for arguing that that's exactly what Hefner has spent his life fighting against. There is nothing wrong with seeing people as sexual. There is nothing wrong with appreciating the way a fit, young person's body looks under good lighting. The human body is a very beautiful thing. However, there is a lot wrong with not seeing them as a person at all.
Love him or hate him, Hugh Hefner in his heyday did a lot to remind us that people (male or female, black or white) are all just that: people.
I'm rather surprised by some of the comments here. Anyone even remotely familiar with art history, and the history of images in general, knows that objectification of the female (and male) form is one of art's greatest traditions. The reclining nude, for example, has it's roots in the late Italian Renaissance and has been a staple of fine painting ever since. Is there really a difference between the image of Ms. Johari, shown here, and the reclining nudes of Titian, Ingres or Manet? In western culture, we see erotic imagery as far back as Hellenistic Greece (whose sculptures could be, I'd argue, more blatantly erotic that most Playboy centerfolds). It's only because these "fine" art pieces now take residence in museums that we assume they were created with more moral and stately aims in mind---but they weren't. The only thing that has changed is the quality of the paper, and the mindset of the viewer.
PS: Its also worth noting that throughout art history artists have idealized the features of the sitter, both male and female. The artists didn't have airbrushes back then but, they still managed to make their subjects look a hell of lot prettier than they actually were!
A "pro-sex" feminist:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/freeinqu.htm
(I found this in wikipedia because I was trying to figure just what the term sexual objectification, in this link the author deconconstructs the term)
Excerpt:
The assumed degradation is often linked to the 'objectification' of women: that is, porn converts them into sexual objects. What does this mean? If taken literally, it means nothing because objects don't have sexuality; only beings do. But to say that porn portrays women as 'sexual beings' makes for poor rhetoric. Usually, the term 'sex objects' means showing women as 'body parts', reducing them to physical objects. What is wrong with this? Women are as much their bodies as they are their minds or souls. No one gets upset if you present women as 'brains' or as 'spiritual beings'. If I concentrated on a woman's sense of humor to the exclusion of her other characteristics, is this degrading? Why is it degrading to focus on her sexuality?
I took a class on mass media and communications last year, and one of the topics that arose was the role of the pornographic imagination in music videos contributing to the objectification of women, and how portrayals of women in the media at large served to limit the aspirations of women. It was infuriating to see, in the documentary "Dreamworlds," instance after instance of women being portrayed as mere objects, and treated with contempt in reality by the bands who employed them. It is true that media all too often paints a world in which women are but means to men's ends.
But is it right to demonize Hefner, or Playboy, or — for that matter — pornography in general?
A lot of the negative reactions that I have seen to nudes and pornography, including some in this thread, have been remarkably sexist despite their apparent concern for women. I say this as an observation and not an attack: I imagine that the people whose comments I characterize as sexist do not intend to be so, and I do not wish to malign them. I merely wish to put the comments I have seen in perspective.
Having said that, more than one post here has said something to the effect that all Hugh Hefner and Playboy readers desire is real or vicarious sex, and that demeans the poor bimbos involved in making the stuff. See "Hefner is simply disgusting "dating" women young enough to be his granddaughters-and having group sex wirh these brainless bimbos" near the top, as well as "I don't get how a woman posing naked is a good thing for anyone other than the guy seeing the pictures. [...] If I see naked pictures of a woman, I'm far more likely to think some rather uncomplimentary things about her character than to think, "wow, that is so empowering!" [...] It's convenient for guys to call Playboy empowering. It gives you what you want - naked women. So you try to justify it. Not buying it." Although I don't have the link handy, there was also a lengthy discussion on the comments to an interview with porn actress Sasha Grey, a recent performance of whose in a prominent film Mr. Ebert reviewed some time back, that involved one man taking Ms. Grey apart over her choice of career. He at once calls her a victim and a lazy whore who can't get a real job. Each instance shows a curious combination of lamenting the objectification of women by men, and blaming the women involved — who are the supposed victims. The double standard reeks of sexism.
These are unflattering examples, and I bring them up before more legitimate critiques because I believe they demonstrate some of the unstated biases that underly even more sophisticated critiques of pornography. The apparent crime is that women are being demeaned by having their bodies or images thereof being used for sexual pleasure by men. (See the first interview video posted - the question about women being used as objects of masturbation.) This makes sense at first glance, but is filled with a boatload of hidden assumptions. Husbands and wives, after all, use one another's bodies for sexual pleasure. Such acts are considered enjoyable, desirable, and are considered sacraments by some religions. So what makes it different when a man admires a photograph of an unclothed woman not related by marriage? The logic only makes sense if you assume that sexuality is inherently degrading to women and empowering to men.
Think about it. Sex, by itself, is a pleasurable act that is beneficial to the health of everyone involved, provided that it is entered into consensually. Indeed, I imagine the trauma of non-consensual sex exists precisely because we desire and seek sexual contact, and thus its application to do violence becomes twice as terrifying in its perversion. Women enjoy sex as well as men, and in fact their potential for pleasure is much, much higher than that of men. Considering these facts, I find it unlikely that women desire sex less than men, and that heterosexual unions are by definition a rape-spectrum act. By all appearances, provided the partners are straightforward about their desires and look after one another's health and safety, sex and sex fantasy ought to be a blast for everyone! Particularly the fantasy bit, as there's no risk of STDs or an unwanted pregnancy.
But no. Nookie is bad for the lady, but good for the man.
But why?
Probably because some men benefit from women not enjoying sex.
All species of organism have different strategies of competition for mates and offspring. Humans achieve this by being promiscuous. It has been common wisdom for a long period of time that men have an interest in being promiscuous because it allows them to produce as many offspring as possible. Women can have comparatively fewer offspring, so they would benefit more from settling down with one man, bearing and looking after his children.
This view, however, is not entirely accurate. Women also benefit from promiscuity. While they can have fewer offspring, they can have better and stronger children if they have sex with multiple men and let the best sperm win. Indeed, from looking at the structure of the male human penis, this appears to be confirmation of this notion. Because of the penis's shape, it is especially good at scooping out sperm from previous encounters out of a woman's vagina before depositing its own. This wouldn't have evolved unless there was substantial sperm competition between males.
Unfortunately for men, women always know that their children belong to them, while men don't. If their mates are always off finagling with other men, they may never produce a viable offspring. So it is in the evolutionary interest of men to control women's reproduction. If you've ever wondered why they practice female genital mutilation in Africa, this is why: it is to eliminate the sense of pleasure, and thus the desire, to have sex, so that the man may produce as many of his children as he wishes. This is why women are punished for being raped in many countries while the men get off with a slap on the wrist. This is the root of sexism, and the shackling of women's sexuality is the key to their oppression.
As such, magazines such as Playboy can be very empowering and positive for women because they show women enjoying being subjects of desire, and thus undo a measure of this conditioning. If it sends the message "women also like sex, and you'll like it when they like it," then it liberates women not to be sexual objects, but sexual agents.
Of course, there is the issue of only certain body types being portrayed. This is a valid concern: when a limited spectrum of traits is portrayed as ideal in fantasy — or worse, as the entire scope of 'acceptable' — it affects how people see the real world and behave there. But should we be looking to Playboy for the ideal of womanhood? Why do we? Is it Hugh Hefner's fault?
I would argue that more mainstream media — music videos, movies, books, television — does more to harm the cause of feminism in the United States than Playboy or pornography. Porn is fantasy, and a very specific kind of fantasy. A woman has every right to be an avatar of Aphrodite in porn, and men Eros. The problem occurs when media that require higher standards of characterization portray women as weak, superficial, and dependent. The problem occurs when *serious* media not only fail to look past the looks and the sex appeal, or when it requires the sex appeal, but when it places matters of little consequence underneath. The problem occurs when the media sends the message "You are only as good as the man that owns you." No human should be owned by another, and no human should be made to feel they must be.
I do not know all the answers. The topic is vast, the caveats many. However, we cannot ignore sexuality as an aspect of men and women that requires acknowledgement, even celebration, and I don't think we should be quick to demonize those who portray the artistic or even pornographic nude female form, nor should we demonize those who model in such productions. Indeed, I feel that erotica is necessary to explore the inequities and flaws in our sexual values, and that more openness — not less — in regards to sex is necessary if we are to have a true feminist revolution. I think the most reasonable thing to say of Hugh Hefner is that he did some good work, but he is no longer enough. We need new voices to pioneer the next movement.
Hi, Roger.
Jeez, I didn't comment in this blog when it first came out because I couldn't figure out where to begin. There is so much here.
First the on topic. This is a wonderful tribute to who clearly is a noble man, so thank you for teaching me some of the valuable things that Hugh Hefner did for our society over the decades.
What really threw me for a loop at first was the debate between Buckley and Hefner. Although I disagreed with absolutely everything Buckley said, I was stunned at how charming he was and how civil was Buckley and Hefner's disagreement with each other. When I compare the 1966 Buckley to the 2010 counterpart (that Fox News jibberjabber whose name I can never remember because he distresses me so much **looks him up** Bill O'Reily) I realize why the contemporaries are so ineffective and hateful.
Today's talking heads do not understand debate.They only understand dial polling, skewed polling, gut reactions, kitchen sink topics and calling people names like pin heads. It makes me wonder whether so many people think we live in a bifurcated society is because the most popular talking heads have lost the ability to speak civilly to their enemies, and so people think it's not possible.
Consider, for example, the outrage contemporary "news" listeners have at the idea of Obama sitting down and talking to heads of state of enemy countries. And then compare that to the fact that those same talking heads cannot speak with grace to people they themselves hate.
Third, I agree with you that Playboy is not at all an erotic magazine. When I was 13 through 15 in the late 70's early 80's trying to build up the courage to buy a girlie magazine at a 7-11 it was not Playboy or even Penthouse I'd ask to buy but Hustler. Maybe I'm lucky that when I was 10 my dad's secret stash was very ecclectic and showed me that the pictures in Playboy were not terribly interesting. Maybe I'm also lucky that my neighbor's dad used to actually READ Playboy on the couch around his family and us when we came to visit. But I never viewed Playboy as a girlie magazine and still don't.
Fifteen years or so ago my girlfriend with whom I was living at the time bought me a subscription to Playboy for Christmas. For some reason (to which I'm grateful still) Playboy continued to send me magazines year after year without me or she paying for it. It finally stopped a few years ago, but I saw a note from Playboy once explaining this was a free courtesy subscription.
In all the time I got those Playboy magazines in the mail I really only ever did read it for the articles. Playboy's photography is extremely un-erotic. Eroticism is in the head and the attitude, and they're photographed without that attitude. But the articles in the magazine really were good. Articules such as on Sadam Hussein during that first war and afterward or articles on PC games and movies were interesting and often very good.
I haven't opened a Playboy since they stopped sending me the magazine a few years ago, but you're right, Roger, that its only value is in the articles and that it does not portray women as sexual objects.
WFB Jr. is twisted, physically and mentally, like Cheney. Yet women have children with these men.
When you write about Hefner's habit of standing behind his moral principles of equality and race, causing him grief and a great loss of money I cannot help but be reminded of the great line from "Citizen Kane" along the lines of "You're right. Last year I lost a million dollars, this year I'll lose a million dollars, and next year I'll probably lose another million. At this rate I'll be broke in about 60 years."
According to the A&E biography, at one point Hefner was one of the 10 richest men in America. More money couldn't POSSIBLY have bought him more happiness, toys, or women, so I'm glad that he was willing to lose a bit to stand for what he believed in.
Two things:
1) Look around the world at all the countries which strictly outlaw pornography or women dressing "indecently" in public. Are they bastions of sexual equality? Despite the predictions, it seems like they are the exact opposite: women in such countries are systematically mistreated and abused.
2) Far too many women (see Marie Haws' comments earlier) believe that perfectly natural male urges are somehow evil, as if urges and actions are one and the same (this is probably because the Christian religion teaches exactly that). But the fact is that "objectification" is a classic example of Orwellian ThoughtCrime, where one is demonized for having a desire, an urge, or a thought alone, even if he doesn't actually do anything to anyone. Of course, Orwell himself noted the correlation between totalitarianism and repression of sexuality.
At the end of the day, no anti-pornography crusader can produce any shred of evidence that suppression of pornography would improve the status of women in our society, or that women are well-treated in societies which strictly outlaw it. Their theories rely on a lot of circular logic (eg- "pornography is bad, and exposure to pornography desensitizes men so that they want more pornography ... which is bad"), some rather questionable cause/effect assumptions (in which it is assumed that pornography creates new behaviours rather than catering to pre-existing behaviours), and an ENORMOUS double-standard between sex and violence.
If we adopted the logic of the anti-pornography brigade, then we should outlaw all violent movies, because all of the logic underlying their anti-pornography arguments could easily be applied to action movies. Action movies portray unrealistic situations. Viewers become desensitized to action movies. Violent criminals in prison always enjoy action movies. Action movies promote the use of violence.
Had a relative who looked at Playboy when we were little. Don't think this was setting a good example for children.
Dear Roger,
Your article brought back the memory of the all too brief time that my father worked for the Playboy corporation in the late 60's. Each month the employees received a copy of the magazine. Every time he came home with the magazine, he would hand it to me and say, "I suppose you would like to see this". I most certainly did! I was about 13 at the time. Many years later, I don't remember the magazines so much as I do his open-minded attitude.
Coincidentally, I was at the Illini Homecoming game last week and they were showing pictures on the jumbotron of famous alumni. Hugh Hefner was the last picture they showed and it got the largest amount of applause. Roger, your picture was a close second.
If anything drives the point home about the repressive heritage of America, it's the NSFW debacle of genuflecting to the tyranny of lynch-mob HR standards. Maybe Ebert is too good to read at the office. Perhaps he's best enjoyed in the freedom at home.
My contact with racy material during my adolescence was brief--generally while sitting for kids down the street almost old enough to look after themselves. In some households, the material was just lying around like it was ordinary. It held the brief fascination of the forbidden, but the static poses never did much for me, and I was prematurely inured to consumerism as an entry point into the good life. More to my taste was the woman in "Decline of the American Empire" who prattles with apparent erudition about history while giving a massage, topless as an afterthought--which hardly mattered. My voyeurism of the mind was also rewarded by Egoyan's "Erotica". In neither case was the subject matter presented particularly my thing, it's all about the dynamics.
In my adult life, I've rarely given Playboy a second thought, except when Lenna shows up. Fame works in unexpected ways. Fidelity is serious work.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chuck/lennapg/
My first serious college relationship in the early 1980s was with an ardent 2nd generation feminist. I read everything on her bookshelf with an open mind. Much of what I perused on her bookshelf left me wanting. She even dragged me to a lecture by Dale Spender at the University of Toronto, in which she (Dale) refused to take a question from a male member of the audience. This was her choice and I didn't take offense, even though I found it weird. Later I came to realize that I instinctively resist polarization. I tend not to expect anything good from countering one excess with another.
I remember relatively well Gloria Steinem's bunny expose. This struck me as valid and heartfelt, but also as having limited scope. No woman I'd be interested in dating would put herself through that, having any better alternative--but it had never occurred to me in the first place that there could be any glamour in catering to self-important men. The male poverty draft takes place in mall parking lots in Flint Michigan. Women make unhappy economic choices in seedy conference centers.
Jane Austen was in the news recently for having been outed for erratic spelling in draft manuscripts, as if her mind had little else to do in the heat of composition, being a woman and all. One article suggested that one of Austen's main themes was how dependent women are on the institution of marriage for change in social status. Presumably, men have other avenues from gutter to penthouse and back again. From the woman's side, the fairy tale ending requires first of all proximity to men with means. Many of these fine fellows are found in titty bars.
The word of the day in this thread is "objectifying", a word with nothing much to contribute. It's as flat a concept as what it attempts to criticize. On Quirks and Quarks today (a long-standing CBC radio science show) there was a piece about how the congenitally blind process touch and sound *faster* than the average person, though without greater intrinsic sensitivity as was once believed. (It turns out that the brain works hard to reconstruct the patterns of nervous system data into a view of reality.) I've known about the effect discussed from psychoacoustic encoding for a long time (as used in MP3 players), so I have my own view of this in the context of gender. My feminist gal from long ago majored in cognitive psych, so I read all those books, too.
It seems that women devote more cognitive matter to emotion than men, and men devote more cognitive matter to aspects of courtship. One always hears that women are more emotionally sensitive than men. I've never bought this. I know that most women decode emotion *faster* than I do. I have to stare longer at the same expression to garner its import. But once I finally recognize what I'm seeing, when I compare notes with women, my perceptions are equally nuanced. We often mistake fluency for human capacity. If the emotions are moving too fast, I miss what a woman might see, but not the depth once apprehended.
There is a strange cultural prohibition about open discussion of the richness of a man's sexual mind. What gets termed "objectifying" in males is every bit as rich as the process of "empathizing" for which the female mind is renowned.
It's rarely discussed, but the occasional crass glimpse surfaces from time to time:
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2010/10/01/reading-lolita-at-twelve/
But let's not let the crassness at the outset overshadow the enduring layers of intricacy.
I think the least useful perspective is the presumption of symmetry. I thought Robert Trivers had put that view to rest in the early 1970s. I guess this material wasn't covered in The Fine Articles illustrating the pictures. A woman's reproductive burden is larger than a man's. Her health to endure this burden is correspondingly more fleeting. Women enjoy (double edged sword) extraordinary attention from males at a young age. Young men get relatively little attention from women until financially established. In exchange for the burden, women are given the advantage of maternal certainty (and paternal likelihood) and less uncertainty about reproductive success. Men face huge reproductive uncertainty. Even when a man believes he has succeeded, it's by no means a certainty.
In addition, the system is interlocking. If a man is not crass at some level, the woman might wonder whether he's a man at all. Behaviour a woman won't tolerate from her husband she might reconcile from a son (the daughter-in-law didn't deserve his full attention in the first place). From the perspective of reproductive success, a woman doesn't want her mate fooling around (dilution of resources), but if her male children pull this off, more power to them. We tend to ignore these double standards in the morals of women, as the movie "Kinsey" points out to great effect. The stereotype is to view men as worse than they are, and women as better. For every man adept at physical harm, there's a women adept at emotional harm. Men brag about their conquests, women disown them. I think the last lesson most men learn about women is how to counter the subterranean aggression. Women participate in their own objectification by denying these aspects of their emotions until cornered by reality.
This is a complex landscape, and the male cognitive process upon encountering feminine beauty reflects this. I spend a lot of time thinking about the degree to which beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty that initially makes a women captivating is inherent in the woman. But everything else--that's less clear. Clearly, though, in many cases aspects of a woman's beauty are triggering something inside myself. She might not have that effect on any other man. Sometimes the appeal is to a part of my exposed identity. Other times the appeal hits something shunted aside, perhaps so long ago I've never made its acquaintance. Those are by far the most entrancing and frightening women.
Nor have I ever met a woman who did not appreciate obsessive fascination with her sexuality, even the very physical aspects of her sexuality, if reciprocated in the right venue. Another subject of incredible depth is feminine reticence. Women expect to be discovered; women tend not to blurt out their emotional or sexual needs. I've never found the emotional probing to be a symmetrical endeavor. Women tend to intuit silently rather than probe actively. In my relationships, the explicit dialog has always been more centered around the woman's interior world. Women are insanely keen to be discovered. And I have to say, feminine intuition as a mode of knowing has its limits. I think this is why so many women are baffled by aspects of the male psyche, neglecting in particular portions of the male psyche too crass for subtle inference. It's only the most open-minded women who explore this territory, in my own experience.
Every difference between men and women is rooted in a similarity. It's a foreground, background relationship. Each trait plays off the other. We all know this, when we're not pissed off.
I think, if anything, Playboy had more impact for most men on material values rather than sexual values. The unhealthy message was the woman herself was not enough, that you needed all the other trappings and accessories to make the life complete. I guess if a man's attention is superficial, the props help. The code word women use for preferring the man with props is "ambition". I've never known a woman whose self-esteem didn't have a minefield or two. Some women have difficulty believing that they are worthy of sustained attention and end up in the unholy material prison of Carmela Soprano.
In the immortal words of Karen Hill: "After awhile, it got to be all normal. None of it seemed like crime. It was more like Henry was enterprising, and that he and the guys were making a few bucks hustling, while all the other guys were sitting on their asses, waiting for handouts" and "I know there are women, like my best friends, who would have gotten out of there the minute their boyfriend gave them a gun to hide. But I didn't. I got to admit the truth. It turned me on."
At this point, feminine beauty, wherever I encounter it, is just a wind chime on everything I've ever felt about the opposite sex. I think this whole concept of men objectifying women is turning a mountain into a molehill. The male cognitive apparatus is far too vast for that outcome, regardless of our fixations or tactical denials.
If, at one time, PLAYBOY could be considered a real magazine with interesting articles and good fiction, that had very little to do with Hefner and a lot to do with the editors he was smart enough to hire from the mid-50's until the mid-70's or so. Most reliable accounts of what went on at the magazine suggest that his only serious area of interest was picking the centerfold--oh, and writing The Playboy Philosophy, which apparently ran over numerous issues in the early 60's and said little that hadn't already been said -- and said more concisely. To be sure, fine articles were written for the magazine and sharp interviews and fiction were published. But Hefner had little or nothing to do with it. The only writer he really brought to the magazine personally was Jean Shepard, another mid-westerner who seemed to live more in dreams and memories than in the real world.
As for Hefner, he seems more of a sad fantasist than anything else. He still wants the high-school boy's dream of dating the prettiest girl on campus and having everybody think he's cool. As Martin Marty noted in his great essay, "The Playboy and Miss America" about two of the more dubious role-models for young men and women out there in the mid-60's, readership of the magazine dropped severely after the target audience reached their mid-30's. By then, most men were married and had figured out, even in those pre-feminist days, that a relationship with a woman was a lot more complicated and fulfilling than anything that Hefner or his magazine had to offer.
The notion that women are hardwired to be attracted to "money" makes no sense to me. How in the world does the biological self recognize "money"? Power - different thing. That would explain an attraction to investment bankers and lawyers (aggressive, alpha males) as well as artists (power over emotions), athletes (apparent physical power), and "bad boys" (physical and social dominance). But MONEY? How does a body perceive money per se?
Roger,
It appears that either Freud or the ghosts in the machine tampered with my comment and rendered my age at 9. This is not factually accurate. I will be nineteen (written thusly so as to preclude any possibility of cybernetic poltergeist tampering) in less than a month. Thanks for the reply, though.
Ebert: Well, it was an excellent comment, but if you had been nine it would have been really excellent.
You are twisted, eccentric and quirky person Mr. Ebert. That's why we love you so much. You are so freakishly brilliant. Tnx for this fantastic piece.
Ebert: Thanks, I think.
It is so great to see one of my heroes write about another one of my heroes. Especially since the content of this article sounds a lot like the arguments I have with people when they ask why I'd put somebody like Hugh on the list of my heroes and thus next to people like Helmut Schmidt.
Well, thank you, Mr. Ebert.
With best regards from Germany,
Dennis
I quote Mr. Wong:
***********************
By Michael Wong on October 30, 2010 8:02 PM
Two things:
1) Look around the world at all the countries which strictly outlaw pornography or women dressing "indecently" in public. Are they bastions of sexual equality? Despite the predictions, it seems like they are the exact opposite: women in such countries are systematically mistreated and abused.
2) Far too many women (see Marie Haws' comments earlier) believe that perfectly natural male urges are somehow evil, as if urges and actions are one and the same (this is probably because the Christian religion teaches exactly that). But the fact is that "objectification" is a classic example of Orwellian ThoughtCrime, where one is demonized for having a desire, an urge, or a thought alone, even if he doesn't actually do anything to anyone. Of course, Orwell himself noted the correlation between totalitarianism and repression of sexuality.
At the end of the day, no anti-pornography crusader can produce any shred of evidence that suppression of pornography would improve the status of women in our society, or that women are well-treated in societies which strictly outlaw it. Their theories rely on a lot of circular logic (eg- "pornography is bad, and exposure to pornography desensitizes men so that they want more pornography ... which is bad"), some rather questionable cause/effect assumptions (in which it is assumed that pornography creates new behaviours rather than catering to pre-existing behaviours), and an ENORMOUS double-standard between sex and violence.
If we adopted the logic of the anti-pornography brigade, then we should outlaw all violent movies, because all of the logic underlying their anti-pornography arguments could easily be applied to action movies. Action movies portray unrealistic situations. Viewers become desensitized to action movies. Violent criminals in prison always enjoy action movies. Action movies promote the use of violence.
***********************
This should be quoted in all high school sex ed programs.
Mr. Wong, you are a gem. Again, I refrain from comment because you have done it better.
Roger Ebert: Give this man a GOLD STAR!
Bryan Bentsmith,
"Mr. Wong, you are a gem. Again, I refrain from comment because you have done it better.
Roger Ebert: Give this man a GOLD STAR!"
And I thank Wendy Mcelroy for the quote that said the exact same thing: which I posted First!
Keith Carrizosa on October 29, 2010 2:22 PM
I agree 100% with the comments made by Barb on October 27, 2010 2:50 AM. I'm sure Hefner did some good things, but he deteriorated the image of women in our society and contributed to the self-image problems of adolescent girls today. Whatever good he has done doesn't apply to females.
By scott on October 28, 2010 10:44 AM
Marie Haws,
Allow me to suggest the implications of your question shares much with those who assert that movies depicting violence are responsible for specific acts of violence carried out by individuals. And most of us recognize the poverty in that assertion.
===========================
In relation to Michael Wong's post, I have yet to receive a response to this question I posted earlier. And Michael Wong is right of course.
I sense that the feminist argument regresses in rigor in this arch: from making dramatic sociopolitical claims (wide sweeping supported by the anecdotal) and ending somewhere near "*sigh*, you just dont get it because youre a man".
How anyone can deny there is no hormonal influence on sexual characteristics is ridiculous and suggests, to me, that there is no real debate taking place here.
================================
Lynn McKenzie:
"Let me ask you guys something. How would you feel to be living in a world where naked photos of men were on display in magazines all over the country, many of them in degrading poses? Where sex shops with live male dancers could be seen just off the highway everywhere you drove? Where truckers had naked guys in sexy poses on their dustflaps? Where restaurants like Hooters, except with male servers in revealing outfits, were the norm?"
Likely I would put it into a perspective, noting that the obvious norm is for men NOT to be employed in such ways; that virtually ALL other restaurants use normal attire. Otherwise, there appears to be a prejudice involved (kinda like saying that, after the 9/11 attacks -- "how would YOU feel if you encountered a muslim!". Now, I might feel (to extend the analogy) this way or that, but the question would really be - what feelings and thoughts would be fair?).
When it comes to assessing the financial transaction that occurs when involving men and the female form or body one wonders just who is doing the exploiting.
A teenager with her first set of wheels - earning the pinkslip after 500 hours of babysitting - quickly assembles teen female passengers for a night in San Francisco's Chinese New Year Parade. Cruising up Market street a molotov cocktail rolled under our car. Panicked, we pull over -exit to the sidewalk --run! Expecting an explosion, we pound on the nearest door - Playboy Club!
..like a dream, the door opens to three beautiful smiling Playboy Bunnies. They ushered us in and mothered us anxious girls while we laughed over their cotton tails and rabbit ears.
Thanks to the foxy guy in the herringbone tweed jacket the retrieved bottle was luckily just a fizzler. Even though, our night really was the bomb! Thanks Playboy Bunnies.
You published my comment about William Shakespeare but didn't answer it; if you desire to you can answer at iii_aaa_nnn@yahoo.com
I'm a bit surprised that an important element of Hugh Hefner -- film buff -- has received minimal attention among the comments, and I'm not referring to him putting Marilyn Monroe on the cover of an early Playboy. Hefner has contributed much money to assist film preservation, helped fund documentaries such as the pre-Code review "Complicated Women" which ran on TCM* some years back, and has frequently noted his fondness for the movies he grew up with and the stars of that era. More power to him.
* Roger, congrats on seeing you with Robert Osborne during TCM's recent "critic's choice" promotion (you chose two fine films in "The Lady Eve" and "Sweet Smell Of Success," BTW). I'm looking forward to the channel's "Moguls & Movie Stars" series that starts Monday and will run through Dec. 13, keeping my fingers crossed that it will be this decade's equivalent of Brownlow and Gill's "Hollywood."
Ebert: Hefner is very serious about his movie nights. Of course he helped save the Hollywood sign.
I think that in certain ways, yes, Hugh Hefner has had a very positive effect in helping society to get over its sexual hangups and repressions. But in other ways, he's added to the general mentality of objectifying women and promoting the whole idea of having a "perfect" body. So I would say in some ways, yes, he's "good" for us and in other ways, "not so good".
And no, I'm not saying there should be censorship, since that always seems to be the immediate reply. I'm just saying he's had positive and negative influences in society.
Ebert: This started with Hefner? What about the Gibson Girls?
I simply don't understand the enraged feminist arguments being spouted here. Men ARE objectified like that. There ARE pictures of scantily clad men all over. Someone made the argument that the heroine of a movie is never ugly or awkward. Isn't it obvious that that's true of the men as well? Why is Jason Bourne played by Matt Damon? The script doesn't require that the character be good looking. Sure, the man isn't usually as YOUNG as the woman, but how is that better? It just means that a different goofy ideal is being pushed: you know, the incredibly fit 40-something with the salt and pepper hair, rugged looking perma-stubble and velvety voice (here describing George Clooney of course).
I say: whatever. Everyone has their stupid ideals. I don't complain about the unrealistic fantasies embodied in supermarket romance novels, so lay off Playboy.
Look, just think of how many women who are old enough to be mothers of three that idolize Taylor Lautner (usually depicted wearing about as much as pin-up girl) and it'll be obvious how off-base the "it's a double standard" argument is.
Well, according to Ted Bundy, he'd look at dirty pictures, pound off for awhile, then go torture a woman to death. People put the number of his sex torture murders from three dozen to a hundred or so. I think he confessed to three dozen, then blamed porno for it all the way to the electric chair.
There's a certain... stiffness... to the writing of the porno defenders here. I'm not agin' it at all, mind you.
I don't mind Marie or any woman (or man) finding it offensive for whatever reason, but mainly, when you've got a man you love spending a lot of time ogling pics of women who look a lot sexier than you do, protests defending of the habit can be stiff indeed.
I know a beautiful woman when I see one; and I know a woman knows a sexy man when she sees one. The worship of beauty is not a crime. It pays a lot of bills. As long as society is able to distinguish between ideals and reality we are safe. I would much rather worship a woman I find beautiful than belong to a religion.
On the "degrading poses": Since we have been using Miss Johari as an example, how degrading is her pose exactly? The problem I think this discussion is having is that the people on the "anti" side of things are conflating Playboy with other publications that feature naked women, i.e, pornography. That stuff is degrading, sure, with the woman contorted into an elaborate pose that showcases as many of the fetish zones as clearly as possible. But frankly, I've always found the Playmate's poses about as dignified as anyone can ever expect a naked person to look (although I've never bought a Playboy magazine, so I'm no expert).
The funny thing about Playboy when compared to other smut (and as I conceive it this is what the original article is driving at) is how, instead of objectifying the subject, it seems to super-humanize it. Look how important Miss Johari's face is in the photo. Her body is mesmerizing, but it's her face that demands your attention. And that's not a subservient expression. It's full of life, almost challenging. Take a cursory look at any of the images of naked women which the internet eagerly supplies in floods if you search for anything remotely related. The women's faces are universally as blank as possible, like a mannequin's. Those are pictures of body parts. Cut off the head and it would be equally arousing. I don't think you could do the same with the image from the article. I wouldn't feel particularly titillated, anyway.
Erotica, especially erotica intended for men, is a culturally difficult subject, so plenty may think that rating one source as having more integrity is mere affectation and that would be a perfectly acceptable opinion, but if we are to play this rating game, we must admit that Playboy has always been about women, where it could have been about breasts, butts, and vulvas. That's the difference between admiration and objectification, I think.
I'm not one to join in glorifying Hefner Rog, specially considering the pathetic figure I feel he has become throughout the years; his own personal (and very public) relationships remind me of those of Rod Stewart: an endless pursuit of increasingly younger girls in which it will only be a matter of time until the current one will get the boot. His only real defense is that the latest "edition" had more than enough precedents to make a decision. At least I like Rod Stewart’s singing.
Has anybody ever been terribly excited about seeing a loved one depicted in Hefner’s magazine? Who knows? There's people of many tastes. I wouldn’t suggest Gene should have had any qualms about playing poker with Hef but I doubt he would have taken any of his children along with him.
What comes to my mind after reading about Hefner is a phrase uttered by Charlton Heston in “Planet of the Apes” regarding the world he left behind: “lots of love-making, but no love”.