Needless to say, the Mansion’s scene was favoured by Donald Trump. The President’s long association with Hefner included him featuring on a Playboy cover in 1990, while in 2006 he rewarded a winning team on the Apprentice with a trip to the Mansion, where according to a female contestant he lent over and said to Hef, “It’s hard for me to tell which of these girls are yours, and which are mine.” According to Hefner’s son Cooper his dad didn’t support Trump as a political figure: “We don’t respect the guy.” It makes for an interesting hierarchy of sleaze when the pornographer denounces the politician.
When you think back to Fifties Hefner, there’s total logic to this pecking order. Anyone who espouses the concept of sexual emancipation should find something to admire in Hefner as a frontline warrior of the Sexual Revolution. He said of sex, “We should embrace it, not see it as the enemy. If you don’t encourage healthy sexual expression in public you get unhealthy sexual expression in private.” It’s clear he knew whereof he spoke, describing his conservative, religious parents (originally from Nebraska) as “Puritan Prohibitionists”.
It became Hef’s life’s mission to overturn their values. He studied psychology at the University of Illinois, while also taking courses in creative writing and art and magazine became his calling. In 1953, after a brief stint on Esquire he raised $8,000 thousand dollars and launched Playboy with headline-grabbing photos featuring Marilyn Monroe in her 1949 calendar shoot (years later he would buy the crypt next to hers in LA). That first edition sold 50,000 copies and is now a collector’s item worth thousands.
That same year, 1953, saw the publication of Ian Fleming’s first Bond novel, Casino Royale, alongside the second of Alfred Kinsey’s great tomes on human sexuality Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female — which informed an astonished world that women could be just as libidinous as men and enjoyed orgasms. The forces that shaped the sexual revolution were mounting.
Hefner quickly established a style that was admired across the magazine industry: racy photo-shoots teamed with top-class writing and an influential central interview. For decades literary men would talk glowingly about the Playboy Interview, as if it had never occurred to them the mag was also full of tits‘n’arse.
I worked on GQ in the early 1990s and it struck me the formula was just the same as Playboy’s (which was when Hef’s mag started losing its USP), but with fewer world-famous writers. The roll call of people who wrote for Playboy is astonishing, including Margaret Atwood, Joseph Heller, Anthony Burgess, Roald Dahl and Ursula le Guin, while Normal Mailer was dispatched to write about Muhammad Ali’s Rumble in the Jungle. Interviewees included Mae West, Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Satre, Better Friedan, Al Pacino and, well, absolutely everyone quite frankly. Hefner established a Playboy Philosophy, was a rigorous campaigner for free speech, and espoused liberal causes including the Civil Rights movement, sending black writer Alex Haley to interview Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr.
Haley also interviewed George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party, a choice that gave Rockwell a fit of nerves, meaning he kept a handgun on the table throughout the conversation. More than that, Hefner was a leading advocate of women’s reproductive rights and a vocal supporter of legalising gay marriage, saying the struggle was “a fight for all our rights. Without it, we will turn back the sexual revolution and return to an earlier, puritanical time.”
Of course none of this white-washes the dark excesses of the Playboy Mansion. I’ve ploughed through a tonne of literature on Hefner and while I’ve never found anything that proves he himself was guilty of what a court would view as sexual assault, it’s clear the money, drugs and lure of fame were a form of coercion to the young and vulnerable. And he presided over a flesh-show that made others feel amoral behaviour was permissible.
Even so, it would be careless to dismiss the contribution Playboy and Hefner made to sexual liberation, the civil rights movement and to the cause of good writing in the mag’s first two decades. One of the curses of getting older is realising how many celebrated historical figures have feet of clay: should I cease to admire all Marie Stope’s efforts to ensure women had contraception and access to abortions because she was, at the same time, a committed eugenicist? So I won’t tell my niece to take off her sweatshirt, but I might buy her Holly Madison’s memoir and a Seventies copy of Playboy, so she knows the dual nature of what she’s buying into. As Hef would agree, informed is empowered.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSo Heffner’s Playboy and Flemming’s Bond are from ’53 – A short time after the last global war – Wonder if we will get such a refreshing change of culture after this global panic pandemic – 1974 has been noted as the happiest year in the West just before the maximum circulation year…..interesting?
You should immediately get hold of copy of Lord Jonathan Sumption’s brilliant polemic on why we are committing national cultural and economic suicide, for no good reason. It was delivered on Monday, 30th March last, on Radio 4’s Word at One programme. The verbatim text can also be found on Lord Sumption’s Wikipedia page. I trust you will find it inspiring, as many of ‘us’ do.
In years to come, when archaeologists and historians (if there are any) come to discuss why the West committed suicide in 2020, Lord Sumption’s polemic will be the primary source, a sort of nano Thucydides.
Many Englishmen are astonished at the supine of behaviour of France. What has happened to the spirit of the Revolution and Mademoiselle de la Guillotine? Our own Churchillian spirit died years ago in an avalanche of political correctness, lack of moral fibre etc; But we did expect France to go berserk, particularly in view of the recent ‘yellow jackets’ protests.
It is time for you to get out the Guillotine, you haven’t used it publicly since 1939, so now is the time. To arms citizens! Courage!
.
You have to wonder if we will from now on do this for every flu epedemic……our masters do intend to ‘lockdown’ again if this one erupts again in winter……so presumably yes we will……..Although once in the coming self inflicted economic depression that history shows can kill more than this flu our masters will think again?
Thank you for this; it needed saying. If this were anonymous, I’d say a lot more, but an other is involved. I’m 67 and have experienced the heights and depths of sexual love more intensely now than at any time in my life. That it’s ended and I’m heartbroken doesn’t make it a whit less beautiful and precious, and if Groundhog Day was real, I’d repeat the whole thing until it killed me.
Thank you James for sharing your analysis on Mr. Sanders. With all his finger-pointing and posturing as a savior, I’m always astonished by how popular he is among people my age. It’s time Americans let him go.
There is only one lesson to be learned for the Far Left like Bernie and Corbyn – You’re wrong!
What happened to the copy-editing for this article? Or are ‘Normal Mailer’ and ‘Better Friedan’ meant to be satire?
Irony:
Playboy epitomsies an age of innocence.
You want dirty ? Even the internet cannot begin to describe a gay sauna
“(Germaine Greer flashing her orifices for Suck magazine, then snarking about Suzanne Moore’s “f**k-me shoes” springs to mind). Above all, I’ve learned you’ve got to view most things pertaining to sex in the context of their times.”
How can the second sentence follow the first?!
The first time I saw Playboy magazine, I thought it was a joke.
The cover page had what I thought a caricature, of a typical All-American dream woman for some over sexed cowboy fantasy
Huge chest, big teeth, huge ass and almost naked ““ as I say a caricature and to make things worse, inside the magazine, she was completely naked ““ which made things even more grotesque!
In fact, it put me off women, because it was too much, too aggressive, too cartoonish, and was difficult to take seriously.
I saw another issue some years later and now, to give some sort of legitimacy I suppose, they had fancy articles written by what I can only describe as well-known nonentities, who were unknown to me. They all had a take on whatever they scribbled about that simply didn’t register in my own world.
Mr Heffner, who owned, ran this stuff, appeared to me to be some kind of weirdo who apparently was fixated by huge mammary glands and lived in a mansion, with bunnies ““ what can I say? Maybe it was a Mother thing? I don’t know or care.
Rather like my reaction to it’s passing.
And what did it do for women – a disservice I would think – rest in peace!
I don’t doubt that Hugh Hefner had a dark side and that not all that went on in his mansion would stand scrutiny but to somehow try to implicitly rope him in to association with sexual assault or worse because ‘the money, drugs and lure of fame were a form of coercion’ is grossly unfair. There is a very big difference between the carrot and the stick – between free will and coercion. And of course, many shades of grey in between. Nonetheless the claim that offering something (money, fame, carrot, whatever) to someone who wants it is coercion is dangerous nonsense if you want to live in a free society.
Hii
Had to look up “f******g” as I’d never heard of it – now feeling slightly nauseous 😀
Are you joking? “Tolerance isn’t much of a value when it’s women being required to do all the tolerating”.
Tolerating the constant barage and violation of my fundemental human right to be a man, have freedom of thought, freedom of speech and control of my reproduction makes your whole article comical.
But I don’t want to play a game where I claim we have it worse than you. I don’t. Men and women just have a different set of challanges. It requires both genders to constructively discuss desires and methods of change.
This cannot happen when “Men are Toxic” is the catch cry of the Neo-Marixt SJW Femanazi CULT. That CULT’s primary purpose is to destroy the traditional family. As such men who are violently assaulted by the draconian policies shift react to protect themselves. The consequence being less empathy toward women and dating. Wholesale abandonment of marriage and commitment. Increased grouping into sub-culture groups opting out of society. Actions have consequences and I increasing hear from women like you that the results are not favourable.
Perhaps Ghandi had some wisdom when he suggested that if you want to see a change in the world, first look at changing yourself. That is certainly the central theme of Joran Peterson’s book, which has been widely accepted by young men but rejected by Femanazi CULT members.
Honestly the majority of men don’t think about what “women think” enough to constrain you. It just isn’t on our to do list. I think your constraints come from what other women think of your thoughts.
Seems like a rather aggressive response to a well thought out piece of writing. Are you fulfilling a stereotype here or do you have a valid point. Careful please.