This shocking revelation came from the January 26th issue of Time Magazine, where Hugh Hefner was interviewed in their 10 Questions feature:
Your industry is often accused of being damaging to women, yet you assert that you are an active feminist. Could you clarify this position? Thayne Stoddard NEW HAVEN, CONN.My industry is magazine publishing. Pornography? That isn't my industry. If you call sexual images pornography, then they are negative. If you call those same images erotic, they are positive. I'm not an active feminist. I'm an active humanist. I separated ways from feminism when it became antisexual. I believe embracing sexuality is part of what it means to be free.
In other words, he separated from feminism when feminists called him out for reinforcing stereotypes and sexist gender roles. I honestly don't think that Playboy is about embracing one's sexuality or, at least, doing it in an egalitarian and informed way. I've learned more about having a happy, healthy sexuality from sex-positive feminists than anywhere else. All people should see themselves as sexual beings rather than sexual objects. An empowered sexuality is about mutual pleasure and embracing one's sexual identity not being arm candy!
"Pornography" vs. "erotica" has always seemed silly to me. I think erotica is just porn that the person describing it happens to like. Or perhaps it's just classier porn.
Hefner's comments about feminism (and what political correctness means) were deeply misinformed but in his defense he did make some very intelligent comments about same-sex marriage and how much sex has changed in America. Check it out.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: This just in: Hugh Hefner is not a feminist!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11602
OMG, I am like SO shocked that Hef is not a feminist!
So, Hefner is not in the pornography business? I guess if inventing modern pornography, as well as pornographizing consumerism through selling a lifestyle, is not part of the pornography businees, then the old perv is not in it.
Funny how the difference between pornography and erotica relies upon how much money one makes from it.
I hate when people say feminists are "anti-sex". That's so ridiculous I have a hard time believing someone actually believes that.
I think this: ""Pornography" vs. "erotica" has always seemed silly to me. I think erotica is just porn that the person describing it happens to like."
...nailed it completely.
That feminists seem anti-sex to some men is logical. To some men (I'm afraid it might even be a LOT of men) sex is only good sex when He gets to humiliate Her. And (ruling out role-play and consensual BDSM, which feminists can obviously engage in) that is something no feminist could get behind with her head screwed on straight. Thus, naturally we will appear anti-sex to them, because we are anti-their-preferred-kind-of-sex.
Yeah, Jemina, you nailed it. The thing with those people is that they believe that kind of sex is the only one actually possible.
I think Hugh Hefner is just a pathetic old man who doesn't want to grow up. Kinda like Michael Jackson.
Hello
How are you?
I believe that there are enlightened people everywhere. Which is to say, these people, men and women, are able to transcend the structure of society, and just be people.
What I find interesting is that Sayna doesn't in any way comment on Hefner's assertion that he is a humanist. Is being a humanist bad? I would think that it includes everyone, and is therefore all the more egalitarian.
I find it funny, and not in a laughing-at-you, kind of way, that on one hand, you make broad assumptions
"That feminists seem anti-sex to some men is logical" (the implicit statement/idea being that *all* feminists have a positive sexual outlook that isn't anti-male)
and then turn around and say
"To some men (I'm afraid it might even be a LOT of men) sex is only good sex when He gets to humiliate Her."
Whoa?! That's scary. I hope you are able to re-examine those ideas.
I, for one, don't believe that all Communists, Coptic Christians, Republicans, Surrealists, Feminists, Gays, are created equal.
We have to get away from this Red State/Blue State type of thinking. I believe life is more textured, more ambiguous, more gray, than can be expressed in some artificial (binary) model of how people are supposed to act.
One last idea: "Playboy" isn't intended for consumption by women. It is intended for consumption by men. To, in some way, vilify "Playboy" would be as fair as criticizing "Lifetime" or the "Oxygen" network.
I think the disconnect might be evidenced in statements such as the ones I have quoted earlier. Men think of sex differently than women do. I refuse to force a woman to think the way I do. However (!), I recognize differing perspectives, I consider them, I embrace some, and you know what? It's BEAUTIFUL.
The differences are beautiful. They are attractive. I am not speaking about the physicality, but the different attitudes/mind set/perception/emotional composition of women.
Why would I want to blend the whole of humanity into some undifferentiated android? Embrace the differences.
I wonder if this will get across to you? I am not at the most articulate now, but I think there is some substance to what's being said.
Hit me back
Aaron