Community Chat

[Noel7]

"Well, said, Pops."

That was great 😃

I agree with the points made that the culture and time had passed him by.  Good article.

# @suzyQ3

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

---

@Bri36 wrote:

@sunshine45, I know exactly who that is 

Thanks for posting it 

---

I had to look it up...yes!  And she’s still holding her beauty.

Playmates are definitely an honored Sorority...like being a 

Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader....a resume bullet point. 

---

@sidsmom

???  You think being a cheerleader is an honor?  Seriously?

[Iluvhandbags]

Some of the comments on this thread are laughable at best! Calling Heffner some type of "classy" visionary and so superior to the evil nasty pervert Flynt....hysterical! Oh yes, of course, a soft filter and a strategical placed piece of fabric or a hand are so much empowering and classy! Only showing one body part is just so artistic! That other stuff.....well it's just downright trashy.

You can sit all day long and try to justify Heffner's objectification of women as somehow noble because of his "good interviews" and "fight for civil rights" but the man objectified women. Period. He made women nothing more than a piece of meat. Could he not have done all that stuff without the nak*d women?? He was no different than Larry Flynt. He just packaged his particular brand of objectification differently, that's all.

[Ms tyrion2]

---

@BreezeHill wrote:

For the degradation he placed upon women ... he is now suffering the consequences.

---

I'm no fan, but I've got to ask. What consequences?

Death? I've got news for you. We will all suffer that consequence sooner or later.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@LinaL wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Love4cats wrote:

---

@Oznell wrote:

Whew-- complex discussion.  Because of my particular world view, I believe that sexuality was created for marriage.  I think an intelligence greater than our own, knew that something as potent as sex was best served by the safeguards of marriage.

I do feel very sorry for Mr. Hefner, regret for the type of life he lived and encouraged several generations of people to live.

Perhaps, at the end, he regretted it in his heart.  I'm going to hope for that.

---

Oznell, It is so refreshing to see someone who share's my view on sexuality, and it being created for marriage. Thank You

---

In your opinion.

In my opinion, sex is there to have fun

Responsible fun, but fin nonetheless.

Thank G-d we don't have to be tied to one sexual partner for life!

We have the freedom to experiment!

---

Sex was created for procreation. We, humans, are lucky enough that it's so much fun and enjoyable, too --a bonus. Even more luckily, we don't have to procreate or get married (or be monogamous) to partake and enjoy. Everyone can participate according to their own comfort levels. 

---

@LinaL  @Plaid Pants_2

Honestly, I find some of the rather narrow views here quite surprising.   We're aware (I hope) that animals engage in sexual activity when fertilization is imminent.  "In heat" is the term that comes to mind, and they do it without benefit of marriage, LOL.  (I hope that doesn't mean they are subject to eternal damnation, ha ha ha)

I remember a well known anthropologist commenting on the differences between sex for animals and for humans.   The gist of it was that Mother Nature (my reference) saw to the next generation differently with different species.  For animals, after impregnation, the father was rarely necessary.  Mom could have and nurture the babies on her own in most cases, and the kids were adults in less than a year.   Job accomplished!

For humans, continued loving bonding reinforcement was really necessary because the job of bringing babies to adulthood took almost 2 decades, and Mom continued to need Dad's help.   The sexual bonding had to continue without impregnation every single time, so it was likely Dad would stick around while his young were being raised.

Another interesting fact was that, going way back to the cave man days, human children that resemble Dad were more likely to survive because it was much more difficult for a man to abandon children that he could see himself in.     

Nevertheless, this was for the survival of the human species, and they didn't need to sign up and follow any of the hundreds of religions to know what to do.   Human nature overrode anyone's religious rule book.

[Iluvhandbags]

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

---

@LinaL wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Love4cats wrote:

---

@Oznell wrote:

Whew-- complex discussion.  Because of my particular world view, I believe that sexuality was created for marriage.  I think an intelligence greater than our own, knew that something as potent as sex was best served by the safeguards of marriage.

I do feel very sorry for Mr. Hefner, regret for the type of life he lived and encouraged several generations of people to live.

Perhaps, at the end, he regretted it in his heart.  I'm going to hope for that.

---

Oznell, It is so refreshing to see someone who share's my view on sexuality, and it being created for marriage. Thank You

---

In your opinion.

In my opinion, sex is there to have fun

Responsible fun, but fin nonetheless.

Thank G-d we don't have to be tied to one sexual partner for life!

We have the freedom to experiment!

---

Sex was created for procreation. We, humans, are lucky enough that it's so much fun and enjoyable, too --a bonus. Even more luckily, we don't have to procreate or get married (or be monogamous) to partake and enjoy. Everyone can participate according to their own comfort levels. 

---

@LinaL  @Plaid Pants_2

Honestly, I find some of the rather narrow views here quite surprising.   We're aware (I hope) that animals engage in sexual activity when fertilization is imminent.  "In heat" is the term that comes to mind, and they do it without benefit of marriage, LOL.  (I hope that doesn't mean they are subject to eternal damnation, ha ha ha)

I remember a well known anthropologist commenting on the differences between sex for animals and for humans.   The gist of it was that Mother Nature (my reference) saw to the next generation differently with different species.  For animals, after impregnation, the father was rarely necessary.  Mom could have and nurture the babies on her own in most cases, and the kids were adults in less than a year.   Job accomplished!

For humans, continued loving bonding reinforcement was really necessary because the job of bringing babies to adulthood took almost 2 decades, and Mom continued to need Dad's help.   The sexual bonding had to continue without impregnation every single time, so it was likely Dad would stick around while his young were being raised.

Another interesting fact was that, going way back to the cave man days, human children that resemble Dad were more likely to survive because it was much more difficult for a man to abandon children that he could see himself in.     

Nevertheless, this was for the survival of the human species, and they didn't need to sign up and follow any of the hundreds of religions to know what to do.   Human nature overrode anyone's religious rule book.

---

Calling someone narrow minded because they follow religous beliefs different from your own is in fact as narrow minded as you claim them to be!

We are NOT animals! We do in fact have complete control over our instincts. That's what sets us apart from the animals. Unlike animals, we have a soul whether you chose to believe it or not.

Your scorn of the idea of a family unit and the absolute need for a father in a child's life is actually quite sad. The effects of fatherless children in our society today is disheartening and troubling. If this is survival of the fitness, no thanks! I'm not interested.

[Plaid Pants2]

A lot of successful people have been raised by single mothers.

Fact is, outside of religion, marraige is not needed or neccessary for sex.

Thank G-d for that!

[Greeneyedlady21]

This is an interesting discussion. I don't put Hefner and Playboy on the same level as Penthouse and Hustler and other porn. Playboy showcased beautiful women with beautiful bodies. Yes airbrushed to perfection but that's how that goes. As long as those women were in control of their lIves and how they were portrayed and how they posed and how much they were paid, well I'd say it was up to them. Part of female empowerment is body image and sexuality. And of course you can still have a highly developed brain along with those looks. Not mutually exclusive. Female empowerment is comprised of many different elements. I place more emphasis on some than others, but I also appreciate the physical beauty of women.

As for women in charge in that industry, there used to be a woman in charge of an erotica film company...it was all by women for women. I can't remember her name.

Hugh Hefner did put his daughter Christie in charge of the magazine and company for a while, that was an interesting topic of discussion at the time. 

[Tinkrbl44]

@Iluvhandbags

Oh brother ....  You are either just trying to put words in my mouth ... or you didn't even bother to actually read my post.   You misunderstood a few things .... 

Nowhere did I "scorn" the family unit ..... nor did I say fathers weren't necessary for human beings.   I did say that often fathers weren't necessary for animals, after procreation, but I guess you just ignored that in an attempt to make a point.   OF COURSE we are not animals .... and I don't see where I said we were.  Actually, I was pointing out the differences an anthropologist discussed in her book. 

No, we do NOT have complete control over our instincts.  Many don't even have complete control over their impulses ... which I think is the word you meant.   If someone is holding your head under water to drown you, your instinct is to fight back to get some air in your lungs.  I don't know how you think anyone can fully "control" that instinct and just give in to letting themselves drown.   

There are hundreds of religions in the world, and their teachings vary quite a bit.    Standing back and looking at a comparison, I do find it a bit amusing that every religion professes to have some special "in" with God ... probably to maintain membership.  They can't all be right, since their teachings are often contradictory.  Surely you can understand that point. 

You are entitled to your opinions, and to select the teachings of any religion you want.   However, not everyone thinks what you believe is "right" ....  it's just what you choose to believe.  No argument from me on that, so don't put words in my mouth.   Have a nice day.  

---

@Iluvhandbags wrote:

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

 

---

@LinaL@Plaid Pants_2

Honestly, I find some of the rather narrow views here quite surprising.   We're aware (I hope) that animals engage in sexual activity when fertilization is imminent.  "In heat" is the term that comes to mind, and they do it without benefit of marriage, LOL.  (I hope that doesn't mean they are subject to eternal damnation, ha ha ha)

I remember a well known anthropologist commenting on the differences between sex for animals and for humans.   The gist of it was that Mother Nature (my reference) saw to the next generation differently with different species.  For animals, after impregnation, the father was rarely necessary.  Mom could have and nurture the babies on her own in most cases, and the kids were adults in less than a year.   Job accomplished!

For humans, continued loving bonding reinforcement was really necessary because the job of bringing babies to adulthood took almost 2 decades, and Mom continued to need Dad's help.   The sexual bonding had to continue without impregnation every single time, so it was likely Dad would stick around while his young were being raised.

Another interesting fact was that, going way back to the cave man days, human children that resemble Dad were more likely to survive because it was much more difficult for a man to abandon children that he could see himself in.     

Nevertheless, this was for the survival of the human species, and they didn't need to sign up and follow any of the hundreds of religions to know what to do.   Human nature overrode anyone's religious rule book.

---

Calling someone narrow minded because they follow religous beliefs different from your own is in fact as narrow minded as you claim them to be!

We are NOT animals! We do in fact have complete control over our instincts. That's what sets us apart from the animals. Unlike animals, we have a soul whether you chose to believe it or not.

Your scorn of the idea of a family unit and the absolute need for a father in a child's life is actually quite sad. The effects of fatherless children in our society today is disheartening and troubling. If this is survival of the fitness,  ???   no thanks! I'm not interested.

---

[Plaid Pants2]

I think that a lot of women would faint if they had to take an art class where the assignment was to draw the nude human form.

Drawing/taking pictures same thing.

Both are posed, both use fabric strategically placed, a hand carefully placed.

The human body can be, and is  beautiful.

Even Marylin Monroe posed for Hef.

Anybody ever seen the statue of Venus (Mazarin Venus)?

It's the one where Venus is standing holding a cloth around her front, nude, with a dolphin at her feet.

Fact is, women have been painted, sculpted, drawn, and yes photographed nude for eons.

The female body is nothing be ashamed of, or thought of as "dirty", because it isn't.

One can be both sensual, sexy and a brainiac all at the same time.

One does not take away from the other.

They are not mutually exclusive.