Connect with us

News

Playboy founder Hugh Hefner dies, after lifetime of destroying innocence

Published

on

Late Wednesday, the Playboy Magazine Twitter account announced the death of the magazine’s founder — and perhaps the inspiration for generations of increased sexual licentiousness — Hugh Hefner at age 91.

As a public figure and avatar for a different kind of cultural change, Hefner is fair game for analysis. What is the lasting impact of his Playboy media empire and the cultural evolution it helped spawn?

Background

Playboy Magazine was founded in 1953, when Hefner was just 27 years old. Those were different times; the past is always different, both in reality and as our perceptions change.

There are too many anecdotal stories and data points which suggest but cannot conclusively support a causal connection between the advent of public sexuality, represented by Hefner’s empire and its many media avenues, and certain social ills such as children borne out of wedlock, single-parent homes, unmarried mothers, divorce and even substance abuse.

Whatever the causes, it certainly seems over the last four decades that America (if not the entire Western world, influenced heavily by American entertainment and mass media) has experienced a weakening of the association between sex and love, between sex and marriage, and chastity in general.

As sex has been pulled out of the realm of the private, it has become a subject not only welcomed in the public arena, but expected to be public in its very nature. The disturbing implication? Sex is something to which one should have no expectation of privacy, of love or indeed of any emotion.

Of course, few dare to express the actual emotions which now accompany public, unemotional, unattached sexual expression: remorse, regret, shame, guilt, emptiness and loneliness. Just to name a few.

The baggage of the so-called liberation of sex is rarely discussed. However, when several full generations have experienced it, only to consequently feel its emotional and painful aftereffects, we should wonder what the long-term ramifications have been.

When families are torn apart, when children lose their innocence at younger and younger ages, the common denominator is emotional pain.

Some people attempt to self-medicate this emotional pain, through substance abuse. Others engage in equally dangerous activity, trying to assuage their guilt or remorse by encouraging others to repeat their mistakes in an attempt to normalize dysfunction.

The Takeaway

We have seen the weakening of Western social and cultural institutions, but most particularly, the family, in recent decades stretching back perhaps to the post-World War II era (if not earlier).

Sexual liberation, involving both temptations of the flesh and producing far-reaching and damaging consequences such as unplanned pregnancies, single mothers and successive generations raised with little or no mature parental guidance, has been an effective tool for weakening these institutions and the larger society.

Now, as we see a Western civilization where ideological divides are more apparent than ever (magnified by social media) and traditional values are more openly under assault than most of us can remember in our lifetimes, it is possible than a cultural revolution — of which Hefner played a role in encouraging — is not merely ongoing, but has occurred. In fact, it could have been so profound, yet gone so unnoticed over decades, that the tipping point we might have been theorizing as to its existence has in fact already taken place.

Cultural revolutions engender political revolutions, as politics is downstream from culture.

Classic Gramsci Marxism proposed that revolution in the strongly Christian West could be achieved by weakening its institutions, targeting the family in particular.

Could this mean that Hefner, long viewed as a sexual liberation icon and worldwide celebrity, can appropriately be viewed as not just a libertine, flamboyant “playboy,” but as a Gramsci Marxist, a perhaps unwitting agent of Marxist revolution?

Perspectives

Hugh Hefner of Playboy is Dead | Erick Erickson, The Resurgent

http://theresurgent.com/hugh-hefner-of-playboy-is-dead/Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

1 John 2:15-17

If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.

John 15:18-21

That is all.

END OF AN ERA: Hugh Hefner dies at age 91 – twitchy.com

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/09/28/end-of-an-era-hugh-hefner-dies-at-age-91/Hugh Hefner published the first issue of Playboy in 1953, with Marilyn Monroe on the cover. He has died age 91. https://t.co/QvvOEyO2fD pic.twitter.com/CFowu1N2x8

Playboy founder Hugh Hefner dead at 91 – Sep. 27, 2017 | CNN

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/media/hugh-hefner/index.htmlHefner contributed an introductory essay in which he envisioned the magazine’s readers: “We like our apartment. We enjoy mixing up cocktails and an hors d’oeuvre or two, putting a little mood music on the phonograph and inviting in a female acquaintance for a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex …”

 

Reactions

Final Thoughts

[This is Steve, not Eric writing this part – Ed]

I was going to write my own obituary for Mr. Hefner, but it seems most of what I was going to say has been written for me. “Contribution” is not the word I would use to describe Hefner’s transaction with society. I’d say it was a “withdrawal.” This paragraph from CNN describes his ethos and his customer base very well.

“We like our apartment. We enjoy mixing up cocktails and an hors d’oeuvre or two, putting a little mood music on the phonograph and inviting in a female acquaintance for a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex …”

Think about that. Within years after World War II, men, many who have seen horrors beyond description and suffered emotional damage we’d call PTSD today, were looking for a life of meaning, or distraction. I’d like to contrast Hefner’s life with one of his contemporaries.

Two men rose up at about the same time. Billy Graham started his public preaching ministry in 1947, offering meaning through salvation and relationship with Jesus Christ. Hefner offered distraction, abstraction, Nietzsche (whose benighted teachings led directly to the two wars we had just fought), music and eroticism. The two things could not be more in opposition to each other.

We can observe the results with our own eyes. As Graham’s influence waned in America after the turbulent 60s and cynical 70s, the rise of Internet pornography that ultimately ruined Playboy’s almost quaint smut by comparison and its influence on society was in many ways enabled by Hefner’s societal “withdrawal.” He got the life he deserved, as the Gospel tells us, surely he has his reward. We can only pray that a deathbed confession brought redemption. But we cannot expect to live a life venerating sin and enter Heaven. Such an expectation is frequently futile and self-deceiving.

Hefner’s death is the marking of the passage of one man’s era, whose time passed a decade or more ago. Billy Graham lives on still, but his era will not pass until the one he preaches returns for His bride.

Conservative corporate lawyer, commentator, blockchain technology patent holder and entrepreneur. Headquartered in a red light district in the middle of a deep blue People's Republic.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: Women just a bad as Hugh Hefner – DNM's World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Federalists

Vice says women shouldn’t have guns

Published

on

On Friday, Vice’s Twitter account tweeted out a previous Vice article from June 14, 2016, entitled, “A Very Incomplete List of People Gun Rights Activists Think Should Be Armed.”

The brief article is a lamentation of the belief of Second Amendment advocates, specifically “the NRA and other right-wing groups,” that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The tweet (below) reads, “The NRA wants to put guns in the hands of: Schoolteachers, Preachers, Anyone who goes into a nightclub, Women …just to name a few.”

According to author Harry Cheadle – who evidently believes that women shouldn’t be afforded Constitutional protections or exercise our God-given human rights – “the goal [of 2A advocates] is to make sure everyone is prepared to engage in a shootout at all times.”

“And by everyone, I mean everyone,” he emphasized.

So, just who, exactly, does Vice believe should be considered prohibited from exercising his/her Second Amendment rights?

“Here is a surely incomplete list of people that gun rights activists believe should be packing heat. Once all of these categories of Americans are all carrying guns on them at all times, presumably we will finally be safe…”

The listed include (as worded the article), but are not limited to:

-Women

-Gay people

-Jews

-Holocaust victims

-Some people who commit domestic violence

-Firefighters

-Every black person in America

-Pilots on planes

-People on the terrorist watch list

Yes, ladies, you read that right. A gun in the hand of a woman is as great a risk as possible terrorists. I can imagine Mr. Cheadle must be petrified at the sight of a woman behind the wheel of a car!

Ahhh!

Yes, Mr. Cheadle is apparently quite fearful of women, Holocaust victims, and black Americans, among others.

Well, as you might expect, this didn’t go over too well on Twitter. Here are just a few of the (often snark-filled) reactions.



And, in case you are wondering about my own response to Vice’s tweet… I joined the NRA.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Scott Israel: SRO avoided confronting Cruz

Published

on

The latest breaking news on the Parkland Shooting reveals yet another failure in preventing or mitigating the shooting rampage. According to Sheriff Scott Israel, the school SRO positioned himself outside and never went in. This took place for about four minutes during the shooting that lasted about six minutes. The deputy’s name is Scot Peterson, and he resigned upon being suspended without pay while being investigated.

Cautious Take

There are a lot of perspectives on this development. We shouldn’t rush to judgement as this story is still developing. Was Scot Peterson a coward? Absolutely. He had a weapon and training. No doubt some of the colossal failure rests on him. But not all. Scott Israel is in charge of the Broward Sheriff’s Office, meaning Peterson reports to him. This could be the higher ups scapegoating an underling so that their contribution to the incident, such as the slow response time and failures prior to the shooting go unnoticed. Furthermore, are we to assume, as Scott Israel would have us, that during these four minutes Peterson did absolutely nothing? What if he was ordered to wait? Too many questions remain, so lets wait.

What’s also concerning about the situation is that Scott Israel has been going after the NRA. Many leftists are using this story as fuel against the idea of allowing teachers to have concealed carry. Perhaps that was Sheriff Israel’s purpose in throwing his guy under the bus. Remember this as the government and elected officials play the blame game: Aaron Feis did more to protect students with less.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Blue wave looking weak in Pennsylvania special election

Published

on

Comparable to the Arizona Special Election that is to take next week, the Pennsylvania 18th district is in a special election situation because of unacceptable behavior of Rep. Tim Murphy who during an extramarital affair reportedly asked his mistress to get an abortion. The Republicans have handily controlled PA18 for years and don’t want Murphy’s buffoonery to mess things up. The Republican champion in this race is Rick Saccone.  An open seat in a northern state presents a great opportunity for Democrats to cash in on the Blue Wave they keep boasting. The victory of Doug Jones provides a road win Democrats have so far lacked since 2016. Looking to be PA18’s Doug Jones is Conor Lamb. Lamb is an assistant US attorney who served in the Marine Corps. His platform emphasizes healthcare related issues as well as student debt and energy.

Who is Rick Saccone?

The House of Representatives would be a promotion for the current State Rep. However, Rick Saccone hardly has an active record in the PA legislature. For the most part, Saccone has a record of sponsoring lighthearted, if not outright nonsensical bills, such as a resolution appreciating Heinz Ward and Juneteenth. In the legislature, he has a record of voting in favor of guns and unborn. However, Rick Saccone is not a limited government conservative on a local level. In the past he has voted for tax increases.

State of the Race

As of now, all of the recent polling has the 18th district reliably in the GOP’s hands. However, polling in 2018 will likely continue its downward trend of effectiveness. So take it with a grain of salt. The endorsements are piling high for Rick Saccone. He has the thumbs up from both Trump and Pence, along with several conservative organizations. The recent polling is perhaps responsible for what seems like the Democrats capping their support for Lamb. The GOP, on the contrary, is throwing heavy cash on keeping a seat where Tim Murphy ran unopposed in 2016.

Rating: Likely Republican

My Take

Rick Saccone will in my mind comes away as the winner on March 13th. However, he is not nearly suitable for the job as he should be. He legislative record is one of recognizing days of the year as special for a person or group. He does not have a record of sponsoring serious conservative legislation. Though he does have a record of voting conservative, he isn’t a leader on the issues he is campaigning on. The GOP is right to break the bank for his campaign as they aren’t short on cash in this moment. Saccone isn’t a strong candidate in my opinion, but, with some bankroll, he is.

Conor Lamb isn’t a weak candidate but doesn’t have the resources. As for the Democrats, this investment looks like its going sour. Special elections present a time for more eggs to be placed in a single basket. But the Democrats seem to know they are unlikely to win. The Senate races of 2018 looks bleak for them, so the Blue Wave is supposed to take or come close to securing the House of Representatives. In order to do that, they need road wins. Just like the Arizona 8th, this will not be that road win. The crest of the Blue Wave is getting shorter and shorter.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.