<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, December 27, 2010

Self-parody watch: Hef gets engaged again 


Much as I think of Hugh Hefner and his influence as a net positive and chary as I am to question true love, I wonder whether a 60-year difference in age is healthy at any level. It is definitely gross, and probably cynical.

Yes, I am a judger.


20 Comments:

By Blogger Stephen, at Mon Dec 27, 10:47:00 AM:

I heard Playboy was having financial difficulties. Didn't they have to sell the mansion? I wonder if there will be anything left for his new wife to inherit. Hopefully not Hefner's debt.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Dec 27, 11:02:00 AM:

She's 24? Hell, Hef's got rubbers in the glove box that are older than that!  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Mon Dec 27, 12:20:00 PM:

Don't be ashamed. Capacity for moral judgment is what separates us from animals.  

By Anonymous vicki pasadena ca, at Mon Dec 27, 12:57:00 PM:

All I can say is, "ew"  

By Anonymous feeblemind, at Mon Dec 27, 02:13:00 PM:

Hef's influence a 'net positive"?

That would be worthy of it's own blog post should you ever care to expatiate on the subject.  

By Blogger DEC, at Mon Dec 27, 05:11:00 PM:

Not everyone worries about ages.

During my hospitalization earlier this year, I became extremely bored.

Joan, a young nurse, walked into my room one evening. "Can I do anything for you?" she asked.

"Yes, find a sexy nurse to spend the night with me," I replied jokingly.

"How old?" Joan asked.

"Forty," I said.

Joan left the room. A few minutes later, she returned. "We don't have a forty," she said. "Will you take two twenties?"  

By Blogger Cassandra, at Mon Dec 27, 09:26:00 PM:

What Dawnfire said.

When people become ashamed of the ability to form moral distinctions, society is really circling the drain.  

By Blogger Progressively Defensive, at Tue Dec 28, 10:32:00 AM:

Yes, I suppose.

But they have an understanding and she'll never have to work another day in her life. Ladies, when the cruel fantasies of true and everlasting love, rare when actual, are disregarded, is sex for the lady that different than giving an old man a massage a few times a week? And I bet he's a spectacular social companion with entertaining stories. He's certainly got great connections. And, what does he have, 10 years?

Some ladies marry the man of their dreams who turns out to cheat on them left and right, either staying around or before leaving them at 30-35 with two kids, modest support, and no prospects.

Hefner is a positive influence. Naked women are beautiful and the articles have been amazing often enough. He's thrown some great parties. [Hah - I've of course never been.]  

By Anonymous Jim Miller, at Tue Dec 28, 11:11:00 AM:

TigerHawk - Plutarch agrees with you.  

By Blogger Cassandra, at Tue Dec 28, 06:17:00 PM:

I, too, must admit I'd pay real money to see the principled argument for Hefner's influence being a "net positive".

Bonus points if you can do so while not ignoring his own account of what motivated him and what his goals were :p  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Wed Dec 29, 08:59:00 AM:

Is it the age difference or that it's a commercial transaction?

If the latter, is it because it's "sex for hire" or because it's probably more about "publicity"?

Hef needed a publicity jolt. Any rich old guy can get laid.  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Wed Dec 29, 09:22:00 AM:

"We don't have a forty," she said. "Will you take two twenties?"

Good one that.

Didn't I see you in a Dos Equus commercial?  

By Anonymous Billy Bob Corncob, at Wed Dec 29, 09:59:00 AM:

Power and money make women wet, not looks.

If Fat HK said it, it had to be true. Hard to be much uglier than Henry the K, without being deformed.  

By Blogger Progressively Defensive, at Wed Dec 29, 11:27:00 AM:

Real money?

I couldn't possibly; my genius is my generosity.

He created a corporation, jobs, etc.

He created some of the most beautiful photographs I've ever seen.

He brought pleasure to billions of men.

Negatives?

I suppose you would say he ruined our culture, in part, the theory Cassandra, being he CAUSED men to objectify women as sexual objects. Ah, no. In fact I'd at least entertain the notion the liberated women and empowered women who were, are, and will be to those very same men and perhaps to a degree whatever our protests to all men (as well as friends but different from non-sexual friends). Some women want to show-off their naked beauty. And some women hate what advantages beautiful women, naked or otherwise, have over the less attractive. Too bad. Women objectify men as well, differently.

Because you prefer there be a different culture does not mean that Playboy is a net negative. I like Playboy and our democracy likes it. And, as far as I can tell, the more pornography the exists in a culture the more rights women have. I think there is a correlation called freedom ... their sexuality is their own, to display as THEY CHOOSE whatever women who despise them think. There are no old men in black robes or old ladies in quasi-habits to limite their rights. Hefner gets credit for that. The Middle Age European and current Islamic world provide a counter example.

Counterpoints?  

By Blogger Progressively Defensive, at Wed Dec 29, 11:30:00 AM:

Got lost there ... to a degree all women were, are, and will be sex objects to men; and all men sex objects to all women. That is what differentiates friends from sexual partners.  

By Blogger Cassandra, at Wed Dec 29, 02:54:00 PM:

This comment has been removed by the author.  

By Blogger Cassandra, at Wed Dec 29, 02:57:00 PM:

Aye yay yay... where to start? :) This will have to go in two separate comments - too long otherwise.

I suppose you would say he ruined our culture, in part, the theory Cassandra, being he CAUSED men to objectify women as sexual objects.

Great theory. Unfortunately, I don't recall saying (nor do I believe) anything of the sort.

Some women want to show-off their naked beauty. And some women hate what advantages beautiful women, naked or otherwise, have over the less attractive.

And many women don't fall into either of those categories. But then surely you didn't mean to imply these were the only two possibilities :p

Because you prefer there be a different culture does not mean that Playboy is a net negative.

So according to you, any evaluation of whether Playboy is a net positive or negative cannot take values into account? Or are only certain values irrelevant (those that don't mesh with yours, perhaps)?

I like Playboy and our democracy likes it.

Finally someone knows what our democracy thinks and is willing to go on the record for us!  

By Blogger Cassandra, at Wed Dec 29, 03:03:00 PM:

And, as far as I can tell, the more pornography the exists in a culture the more rights women have.

Egad - so correlation *does* prove causation after all?

I think there is a correlation called freedom ... their sexuality is their own, to display as THEY CHOOSE whatever women who despise them think.

So Hefner was motivated by a selfless desire to free oppressed women from layers of clothing forced on us by Teh Patriarchy? Now that *is* generous of him!

It amazes me that not only do you know what "our democracy" thinks - you know what I think, too! Why, I don't even need to come up with an argument - you already know what I would say :)

Are you seriously arguing that women who despise centerfold models were behind those pesky anti-obscenity laws? Perhaps using those gosh-durned mind control rays we womynfolk use to force helpless men to pass laws they deeply oppose? Or is it - maybe, just maybe - possible that intelligent people of good will can/do have different views on such matters? Could some of them disagree with you for reasons that have nothing to do with gender or sexual insecurity?

Naaaaaaaaaah. I like your take better :) It has the virtue of extreme simplicity.

There are no old men in black robes or old ladies in quasi-habits to limite their rights. Hefner gets credit for that.

Really? I think you need to do some reading about the history of obscenity legislation.

The Middle Age European and current Islamic world provide a counter example.

... to many things.

Nowhere in your progressively defensive response did you manage to hit on any of the arguments I would have used, were I to argue that Hef's influence was a net negative. You did, to your credit, manage to throw out pretty much the full range of stereotypical put downs typically employed during this type of discussion in lieu of actual arguments. I think Sowell calls this technique 'arguments without arguments'.

I'm not interested in arguing that Playboy shouldn't exist, principally because I'm not interested in arguing a position I don't happen to believe. I am interested in why TH things Hef's influence has been a net positive because I don't agree on that score and assume he can formulate a coherent/principled argument in support of his view.

There's a reason most women duck these kinds of debates even though I think they're worth having. Maybe some day we'll get to the point where we can argue on the merits, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one :p  

By Blogger Progressively Defensive, at Thu Dec 30, 10:44:00 AM:

Cassandra: "I am interested in why TH things Hef's influence has been a net positive because I don't agree on that score and assume he can formulate a coherent/principled argument in support of his view."

I articulated a position why Hefner has been a net positive. You did not counter any of my points. You came close I think, but you misunderstood my point which was admittedly too simply stated so confusing. I don't argue causation, Playboy/Pornography-Women's Rights, on a grande scale, but on a individual scale. Hugh Hefner empowered women to "pursue happiness." Playboy was an amazing opportunity for some young women, e.g., Marilyn Monroe.

Cassandra: "There's a reason most women duck these kinds of debates even though I think they're worth having. Maybe some day we'll get to the point where we can argue on the merits, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one :p"

I only provided a typical counter-argument because I was not sure you'd respond with counter-points. But having provided a "net positive" case, yours is to provide the "net negative" case. If I did not "hit on any of the agruments you would have used," what are they? I realize you don't want to shut Playboy down, but why do you think it's a net negative?

No hard feelings here, but I've provided the positive - you said you'd be interested, "real money" figuratively speaking. I asked for counter-points by which I meant what is Hefner's net negative?  

By Blogger Progressively Defensive, at Thu Dec 30, 10:46:00 AM:

If our democracy did not want it, it would not exist. We have the power to amend the Constitution in the most dramatic instance. But beyond that we've voted to permit it as long as it's properly regulated. Our democracy wants Playboy to exist, we vote every year.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?