Monday, April 10, 2006

Hugh Hefner Is the Devil

Update, 1-19-07: This post is experiencing a huge amount of traffic today. I'm curious as to how people are landing here. It would be great to read comments explaining how you got here. Thanks!

He is responsible for the modern commodification (interesting that 'commodity' and 'commode' have the same Latin root, commodus) of women that has resulted in the disfigurement (physical and emotional) of an entire generation of women. He takes the power of female sexuality and compresses it into an unnatural yet potent form, somewhat like the distilling of extracts and essential oils from plants but more like a pharmaceutical chemical created to mimic those natural substances but is much stronger and more likely to have negative side-effects. Yes, he makes female sexual power equivalent to a drug.

When I first had this thought I wondered if I was being hypocritical by condemning a man for doing that when at the same time I admire women, like Mae West, who have exploited the female sexual power for their own benefit. I asked myself, "Why is it okay for a woman to use her sexuality for gain but wrong for a man to do it?"

The answer I came up with is that it is wrong for a man to use what is not intrinsically his for his own advantage. Mae West was only doing what was natural for her. She used the female sexual power that she was born with. But Hugh Hefner does not naturally possess female sexual power. He extracts it from the young women who surround him. He manipulates and exploits and adulterates that female sexual energy for his own gain. I see it as similar to stealing.

You might say, "How is that like stealing? Those women volunteer themselves." Not all stealing is that obvious, gun-in-the-face robbery. Sometimes people get misled by someone claiming to do all these things for them, caring for them and providing for them, etc., but at what price? These girls are seduced into a degrading lifestyle and pretty much sucked dry of all their youth and beauty and then they're disposed of and replaced with new girls, just like a commodity. He's a fraud and a user. Very few of those women really gain anything from all that they've invested in Hugh Hefner.

I know many men find his lifestyle enviable and ideal and perfect. But that mindset is immature and evil because it doesn't value women as equal partners but as a commodity to use and dispose of. The men who 'buy into' Hefner's offerings are just as misled and seduced as the young women he uses. And our society has suffered more than most men (and many women) would like to admit. It's no coincidence that the rise of Hefner's image of the ideal woman has corresponded to the rise in plastic surgery, especially breast implants, to make women try to attain that impossible ideal. And look at all the aging women, like Sharon Stone, who have built their lives on that image and are now going to extremes to try to maintain it. It's insane, and it's wrong.

Hefner just celebrated his 80th birthday. He doesn't look like your typical 80 year old man. Obviously, he's a vampire, forever youthful because he sucks the life-force and female sexual power from all of these young women. And that's why he's the Devil.


I googled Hugh Hefner and found these articles. I've only skimmed them so I'm not sure if they support or contradict my thoughts.

Hugh Hefner's Hollow Victory

Blows Against the Empire

13 comments:

Assorted Babble by Suzie said...

You make some very good points and one in particular that stands out to me..."Very few of those women really gain anything from all that they've invested in Hugh Hefner."

I was thinking this weekend when they were showing and interviewing the girls and Hugh...just how young these girls are and all blonde. One is 60 yrs younger....(how sick is that) It went from 5 to 3...and I wonder when these will be replaced. One was ask what happens when the camera is not present...her answer "sex".
He is a vampire of sorts....great observation.

mr_g said...

I think there's a distinction between Playboy and other vehicles in that industry. Playboy actually had helped many women further their careers...careers they wouldn't have had without the opportunities Playboy (and Heffner) give them to "use what they have".

Heffner is not "stealing" anyone's sexual power. He is using his own traits and talents (if you prefer, male "insert the term here") to provide products that sell based on womens' sexuality. There are women all over the country whose lifelong dream is to appear in Playboy..and for many of them, that doesn't include garden variety porn mags.

Basically, everything is a commodity of sorts. Some smart women have found ways to exploit the market by using their sexuality to their advantage. Others went to college...



OK...let me have it....

mr_g said...

Oh, and for the record, if I were single, I'd like to think that I wouldn't be hitting on any women at my 25 year reunion (in two years) because I'd be able to date their daughters....it's just the way things are. Guys will date the youngest, hottest thing we can afford, just like women will date the oldest, richest thing they can stomach...

Rae Ann said...

mr g, I see your point about Playboy being 'soft core' as opposed to 'hard core', but I'm getting older and wiser and that distinction just doesn't hold water anymore. I'm not so sure that appearing in Playboy has really helped any woman in the long run, like Sharon Stone. It might have helped in the short term by getting her more parts in bad movies, but what's it done for her now other than make her a cast-off has-been since her sexual power has waned?

The women who long to appear in Playboy and just deceived and seduced by the illusion of admiration and success when in reality they are just objects upon which males (and some females) spend their masturbatory fantasies on. Call me a prude, but that's not my idea of success or something to be proud of. (I'd rather be the subject of a fantasy that is based on liking me and not just an airbrushed photo of me.)

I do object to your implying that it's okay to make women a commodity. We're not objects. We're people. It wasn't okay to make blacks and jews commodities, so it's not okay to make women commodities. You may think I'm over-reacting and over-stating that case, but as a woman who has suffered through this society's obsession with Hugh Hefner's ideal for women I think I'm allowed to make that comparison. Just try to imagine how it might be for a girl growing up thinking that she'll only be desirable if she is a thin, tall, blonde, DD cup bimbo. It's caused much more damage to the female psyche than most men will ever understand. And that's my point.

Rae Ann said...

Oh, and my 68 year old dad has messed around with a 24 year old girl. I think 'more power to him' if he can keep up with her, but he's no Hugh Hefner. I know you were mostly being funny about the dating the daughters comment, but honestly, do you have enough money to attract the kind of 20 something that might be interested a 40 something guy? I think mostly men are interested in much younger women only when they can't handle an older, more mature woman. Not implying that's you though. :-)

Rae Ann said...

A couple of other points, think a little deeper about the stealing issue. Hefner is defrauding women (and men) with his shallow offerings. I don't think he has any talent. The only way he succeeded was by using female sexual power. His magazine would never have succeeded without the exploitation of women.

Also, anyone who has a daughter probably does, or at least should, feel much distain for Hugh Hefner and all he represents. I know men are 'sexual' beings, but so I am. I worry about the future for my daughter and the pressure that society puts on her to focus only on her sexual power and not the rest of her attributes. Playboy is actively marketing their 'bunny' image to young (preteen) girls. It's sickening to a mother.

Kat said...

I don't know about power and Hugh, but I wish I had enough money to buy me a hot little 20 something year old gardener!

I'm so bad!

Anne Nonymous's Husband said...

Forget the gardner, I'd settle for a 20 year old bush right about now! ;)

Rae Ann said...

kat, you're not bad! lol

anne's husband, well, you could go down to the corner and pay for a 20 year old bush. lol

Lumo said...

Hi Rae Ann! I landed here because I got a message from a cute vicious momma, went to her sitemeter, entry pages, and indeed, it's going here. Well ;-), that probably doesn't help you. Sounds unusual. Let me think. Have a great weekend, Lubos

Rae Ann said...

Hi Lubos! I very much appreciate such a nice comment from a cute physicist. ;-) How could I properly thank you for your time on this? Have a nice weekend too.

Thomas said...

I have been blessed to realize that same thing about Hugh Hefner. Thought instead of referring to him as the devil I used the term AntiChrist. Calling him that could get mixed results from people, even maybe from you. I just wanted you to know that other people think the same way. Growing up I was deceived into thinking the magazine was harmless but, it is detrimental to ethical evolution. Check out my blog sometime. http://tgette.blogspot.com Thanks for having similar points-of-view.

Grace said...

I agree with all your points.
Thank you for posting this, more people really need to know the evil that is Hugh Hefner and is stupid magazine.