RIP Hugh Hefner

Because Playboy magazine doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists in a real world where there are other things it can be compared to ... in fact, you must make comparisons in order to pass judgment on it.

 

Right. So it's about the context. It's about the intent of the artist (or the producer, if you'd prefer). Which is what I've said from the beginning. How exhausting.

 

If that were the magazine’s sole purpose, it would just be 50 pages of photos and nothing else. There would be no editorials, articles, etc.

 

That's the very point of a reductio ad absurdum argument - to produce an absurd (nonsensical) result!

But by accepting the absurdity at least you're being philosophically consistent. It certainly doesn't take much to degrade and objectify a woman is all I can say. It's a wonder any dare to come out of their houses at all...

It's called a demand for philosophical or intellectual consistency.

You invoked "purpose" as your standard. And as I have demonstrated that cannot be limited to Playboy magazines alone no matter how much you may wish it were otherwise.

Personally, I can only long for the day when the descendants of all those degraded and objectified cavewomen will finally receive reparations and a long overdue apology from the descendants of those leering and drooling cavemen.

 

The second vulnerability of your position is the super-psychological skills you presume to enjoy. The purpose of any actor, unless clearly expressed - and even then he might, of course, be lying - is part of their psychological make-up not directly open to others to observe.

Take, for example, a photographer. You do not know what is in his heart when he takes a photo. His very purpose behind each shot may be to capture a deliberately titillating image. Alternatively he may have an artist's heart and eye and wishes to capture the beauty, the essence, the complexity, the raw animal instincts, at the heart of human's sexual behavior.

This problem is compounded by the fact that photos are then selected by sub-editors then reviewed by editors each adding their own psychological make-up to the overall process. They may agree or disagree with the photographers interpretation for each image.

Further, - although not directly connected to the original purpose of the image - the person consuming the final product has his own psychological make-up. He might find one image titillating (and wank himself stupid over it), while another image he finds artful. And any two people will not always agree over which is which, nor may they agree with the photographer or editor's own interpretation - such is the wonder and diversity of mankind.

Finally, there is you. The person with super-psychological skills - able to discern the purpose lying at the heart of all these independently acting human beings.

So I'd like to ask you - what is the test? How do you discern what lies within a photographer's heart at the very moment he takes a picture? How do you discern original purpose or intent, given that it is a psychological factor? And is your test to be applied ex-ante or ex-post?

 

I'm sorry - let's just call a truce. I'm not trying to antagonize you. While I disagree with almost everything you say I find your points highly engaging and you show an open attitude to debate which is quite rare these days and is thus refreshing. I'm an extremely rational, logical person and I follow the argument where it goes and I simply enjoy arguing. For me it's not about scoring points or winning - it's about honestly approaching a subject to see where it leads. And where I'm wrong I win big exchanging truth for falsehood. But I can often do this in a overly rational, emotionally detached way. You are far more emotionally driven than I and the two types of argumentation don't mix so well when dealing with a charged subject like Playboy.

Plus on this thread you have double trouble - as I suspect @SuperFan is even more rational / logical than I am.

I wish you well. And again I'm sorry to have messed with you - it was certainly not my intention.

Have a great weekend, CTE!

 

<--- that's me, feeling like I've been a bad boy...

 

But there's an even more dastardly empowering component to this. Think of the flip side to it. It's all relative - women are empowered, not so much in their 'right' to do something, but in so far as men are disempowered in lusting after women. When men lust after women, women have the power. This is no doubt the real reason why feminists are all for pornography.

 

As to those that would want to put Playboy in context and see it as something harmless [compared to today], they are not quite putting it in context enough.... I mean, you need to envisage the history and the differences in culture, and not just look at it objectively/ anachronistically.

Back in the day, when Playboy was first published, we lived in quite innocent times. Playboy shocked that generation just as Hustler did the next. Playboy was the thin edge of the wedge that fuelled an appetite for increasingly explicit material. State censorship should have got involved earlier, but I think it lost a significant battle with Larry Flynt [there was a movie on this].

 

The male gaze would be one of power. The male 'glaze', where he is compelled by an addiction to drool uncontrollably over images, is one of disempowerment.

The reason why feminism has a foot on the world's throat today is largely because of men's addiction, one way or the other, to sex. If men were more in control of their libido, then they would simply not have put up with all the nonsense.

 

Hey, hey. Don't stoop to that, man.

If someone questions your beliefs, religious or political or whatever, just rise above it. There's no point attacking them or defending yourself. If they're not open to a discussion, it's a waste of time and energy. Just stay focused and keep moving forward.

(and this is coming from an agnostic -- no snark from me!)

 

I'm not sure I agree completely with this.

Without a doubt, a big chunk of modern-day feminism stems from the over-sexualisation of women. Movies and advertising and things like Playboy have certainly played a role in framing women largely as 'sex objects', so it makes sense that much of modern day feminism is about promoting realistic portrayals of women. And you could argue that it's the result of men's addictions. To a point.

But if you look through history, all the way through to the dawn of time, men have held the cards. The social norm for centuries has been 'men gather, women nurture' or 'men work, women raise the kids'. The general pattern is that men can do the work or the fun stuff, but the women have to stay home. I'm not a woman, so I have no crucial insight into that. But I think feminism is much more about power than sex. It's about allowing women to do the same things that men can do, rather than having to be subservient to them. If men controlled their libido, feminism wouldn't just stop. Feminism was around before playboy or porn. A quick google search shows that feminism was around 24 centuries ago in Plato's time, long before pornography.

So, I think sex is an aspect of modern-day feminism, certainly, but it's ultimately irrelevant. Feminism has been around since Plato over 2000 years ago; it won't end until that fundamental imbalance of power is addressed and women are afforded the same rights as men. I have no authority to speak on feminism, generally, but I struggle to understand the opposition that people have to affording women the same treatment as men.