RIP Hugh Hefner

I've been reading this whole thread... And the two others about Hugh.

I'd just like to say two things....

1st, I stand by MY first comment.
Before the 100 other remarks or other threads.
The only time one person wishes ill on another is when they seek to hold them accountable for something.
And the dead can't be held accountable.

2nd, I hope everyone who did comment and blames Hugh or porn for their addiction,..... which is the equivalent of blaming a doughnut for a persons fat.....
Takes time to read @CassTeaElle comments.

 

Which is exactly why I said the "degrading" part is in the context of the person viewing it ... not in the act of being photographed all by itself.

Being photographed as an appreciation of beauty is very different from being photographed in order to exploit the sexual appetites of men. There are Instagram models who don't remove a shed of clothing in their pics, but thousands of men are fantasizing about them and fapping to their pics--are they degrading themselves? Boudoir shoots are all the rage among normal women these days ... are those women degrading themselves? There are men, like myself, who's "type" is a thicker woman--so when a woman posts body-positive pictures of her thick body in a bikini, and it turns me on, is she degrading herself? Of course not.

Spoiler

Now, we have to admit, if Playboy is porn, it's soft-core at best. The women aren't engaged in sexual acts, they aren't spreading their legs, there's no penetration, no partners, etc. The photo shoots are professionally done with high-end photographers. Now compare that to 99% of the porn that's available today--cheap, explicit, aggressive, etc.

I feel like some of you in this thread are taking Playboy centerfolds and putting them in the same camp as women in porn who do scenes that involve staged kidnapping and gang-rape, or women who do scenes where they're slapped in the face, spit on, urinated on, etc. They aren't even in the same universe.

 

But drugs are causing undeniable, scientifically-proven physical harm to the brain and body, and most certainly to the bank account. We know exactly what happens to the body when certain drugs are introduced.

However, psychological damage is much harder to pinpoint and diagnose. We are forced to rely on the subjective experience of the ... subject. Imagine a conversation going like this:

Person A: We've come to the conclusion that you're suffering from depression.
Person B: That's funny. I've never felt depressed, and I don't identify with any of the symptoms of depression.
Person A: Yeah, well, that doesn't really matter. You may not realize it, but you're depressed. So we're going to prescribe an anti-depressant, and you need to stop doing behaviors X, Y, and Z.
Person B: But I don't want to stop X, Y, or Z. I don't feel depressed and I like my life.
Person A: No, trust us, we know better. This is what's best for you.

Would that not be ridiculous? Person A is projecting onto Person B what he thinks Person B should be experiencing.

Sure, I suppose I think it is, but it makes no difference. The point is whether or not they think it's degrading. It would be the epitome of arrogance for me to say, "look, I don't care what you think ... you're degrading yourself, no matter what you say. Trust me, I know."

Of course we feel that way. We're on a forum for porn addiction. And sure, there may very well be a latent, delayed impact that these women don't realize until later. The key word in your comment was "the same could happen ...". Of course it could. I've never said otherwise. But it's not absolute or definitive. There are many retired porn stars who look back on their careers without regret. And yes, there are some who would give anything to go back and choose another path. Here's my point in all of this: it's right and good for us to talk about the possible ramifications of this stuff, and it's right to share our own subjective experience. What isn't right is for us to take our subjective experiences and project them to make absolute claims about the lives of other people.

 

I have just as much a right to say that as you do when you’re claiming the opposite.

 

I don't think my porn addiction has made me delusional. However, I will fully admit that I think the level to which porn has progressed in our society has definitely made Playboy look very, very tame--dare I say, downright classy--by comparison.

So what you're saying is, once again, that it depends on the context and the intention. If that's what you're saying, than we've been in agreement since the beginning. But I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, here. On one hand, you're saying that all women who appear in these magazines are degrading themselves. Now, you're qualifying it and saying they're only degrading themselves if the intention is to get male attention. Well, which is it?

I didn't realize that women all had universal experiences. If your personal experience automatically extrapolates and applies to all other women, then I guess I've had this all wrong.

Exactly when did we make the jump from being photographed to promiscuity? At any point have I supported sleeping around indiscriminately? When did I say that casual sex with a multitude of virtually anonymous partners is okay? Why write an entire paragraph about the sin of promiscuity when that isn't what we're talking about?

When Michaelangelo created his nude statue of David, was he degrading David, or exalting his form? Depictions of nudity are not automatically degrading. A beautiful model who disrobes in front of a Playboy photographer isn't much different than a beautiful model who disrobes in front of a classroom of art students. Both are being celebrated for their beauty. The fact that one of those artists might be salivating, dreaming about sex with her, and M'ing to fantasies of her later that day doesn't mean that what she did degraded herself.

And that's been my point since the beginning. You seem to agree with me that it's all about context, in the end--the intentions of the artist, of the subject, and of the viewer. We just disagree on where Playboy falls on that spectrum.

 

Of course you do. But notice that the person you were responding to wasn't pushing faith on anyone ... he wasn't 'preying on the weak and vulnerable' ... he wasn't pushing an agenda.

He simply said that he hoped Hefner had made his peace with God. And like a typical atheist, you just couldn't let that stand without some snarky, bullshit response.

 

It wasn’t snarky or bullshit, it was the truth.

 

You misunderstand that word. What you shared was a perception. The great thing is that you'll inevitably discover the truth one way or another.

 

Lol, how ominous. You mean I’ll inevitably know the “truth” when I’m burning in hell? What a load of bullshit. There is no such thing.

 

Well, the beautiful thing is that you get the freedom to believe whatever you want. What you don't get is the freedom to avoid the consequences of whatever you choose. If you want to live your life as if there's no God, no heaven, no hell, no transcendent purpose in life, then knock yourself out. Soak up everything this world has to offer you, because I'm afraid that might be all you ever experience.

 

I already do and so should you, you only get one life and then it’s lights out, forever.

 

Jesus said differently. I believe him and not you. You reject him, and that's your prerogative. Like I've said many times, best of luck with that, truly.

 

I can understand and sympathize with your point of view, superficially at least. However, your position is vulnerable to a reductio ad absurdum counter-argument as I will proceed to show.

While your bias is evident in your choice of the heavily loaded words "leer and drool" I hope we can agree that the purpose of all erotic material qua erotic material is to titillate men, women or both, though mostly men. I do not think this can seriously be argued against. And your argument would then be that erotic material - where it involves a woman - degrades and objectifies that woman and indirectly women in general. I hope I am being fair to your argument here.

It is clear that your argument cannot be limited temporally, ie it must be as true in history (or in the future) as it is now, since purpose has no technological or cultural content, and no-one could possibly argue that titillation is a modern discovery. It is also clear that your argument cannot be limited by medium - that it must apply equally to modern streaming porn, color images, black & white images, paintings, sketches and the like. You cannot even limit it by quality of likeness as purpose has no quality component; it is pure intent, not outcome. Similarly you cannot limit it by the effect it has on the user - as purpose is independent of whether it is fully actualized.

So to apply reductio ad absurdum - would you agree with this statement: a cave painting of a local cavewoman by a talentless caveman which bears no likeness to her but is drawn with the sole purpose of titillating his fellow cavemen degrades and objectifies the cavewoman and indirectly all cavewomen?

Because this is what your argument based solely on purpose boils down to.

 

I mean, the literal meaning of the word is to have many sexual partners. If a model is in a monogamous relationship and you're calling her promiscuous, it's because we're not using the same definition of the word. You're accusing me of twisting your words around, meanwhile you're here suggesting that I'm defending promiscuity, when I've done nothing of the sort.

Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for misunderstanding your position.

First off, yes ... I'm definitely playing the Devil's Advocate here. I don't think Playboy was bringing anything positive into the world. But I'm also not going to tell a former model that she was degrading herself no matter how she might feel about it. I'm also not going to insist that all sexualized photography of a woman is inherently degrading and destructive.

And I didn't put words into your mouth at all. You said that because you're a woman, you have a better understanding about how "these behaviors affect a woman's self-worth." The implication of that statement is that because you're a woman, you understand how those behaviors affect the self-worth of all women. Now, if that's not what you were implying, then you're acknowledging that some women might not be affected that way. But you've made it crystal clear that you definitely believe that all women are affected ... and the only way that can be true is if that type of photography is affecting them universally, with no exceptions. That's why I made the (admittedly snarky) comment. I apologize for the snark, but the point was sincere.

We know these women don't have universal experiences. Some would give anything to take it back. Some feel like it was the best thing that ever happened to them. The rest are spread out in-between. I'm just not ready to deny someone their subjective experience of life.