Buckley and the Playboy
Bill McGurn ·
Mar 15, 2011 at 8:33am
Came across this on Facebook; I gather there are four parts. In this part there is this little exchange, with Hef defending monogamy:
Hugh Hefner: We are more apt to get true monogamy, a happy monogamy, something other than the sequential polygamy that we really have, if we take a more realistic evaluation ...
WFB: How the hell do you know?
Old interviews are always fascinating, because we see what people on both sides were saying at the time, instead of remembering it through the fog of later experience.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
He sees science as a vehicle to overcoming the down side of promiscuity (out of wedlock births and V.D.), but as history shows his argument falls flat against all the other problems that arose from those "scientific breakthroughs" with new strains of STDs.
Back then he appears as a jet setter, but is now just dirty ol' man in a smoking jacket.
Jun '10
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
I really don't know why intellectuals ever gave Hefner the time of day. The essays in Playboy, from the start, were just a ploy to wrap some "redeeming social value" around the dirty pictures, and make it easier for lawyers to defend in court. Hefner's philosophical interest was in the orderly expansion of hedonism, and that's about it.
Aug '10
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
Johannes Allert: He sees science as a vehicle to overcoming the down side of promiscuity (out of wedlock births and V.D.), but as history shows his argument falls flat against all the other problems that arose from those "scientific breakthroughs" with new strains of STDs.
Back then he appears as a jet setter, but is now just dirty ol' man in a smoking jacket. · Mar 15 at 9:12am
Cocaine, viagra, and a shabby mansion populated by animals, bunnies and otherwise, who exhibit varying degrees of being housebroken. Charming. The decrepitude of lechery embodied as an icon of stereo equipment and lifestyle marketing, that's about it. I grew up in the lifecycle of that overlong ad campaign.
Looking back, there were some titillating pictures, but not much more. The interviews were vacuous, the articles by edgy writers all forgotten, and the groundbreaking all muddy.
Sort of hate seeing Bill Buckley wasting time on him. Who was the person who posted this to Youtube in 2009, named CEHitchens33 ?
Now ,That is interesting.
Thanks for reminding us what we see fit to forget. It reinforces values.
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
I adored WFB, but was always puzzled by his association with Playboy. He wrote several long pieces for the magazine, and I suspect they went unread by most subscribers.
May '10
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
Debates like these often illustrate the popularity of an agitating dichotomy: puritanism or lasciviousness. For some reason, many labour under the notion that the only alternative to "sex barely" is "sex always".
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
Pat, I remember reading Bill's explanation, something along the lines that he was not one of those turned off by the idea of a Bible in a whorehouse.
I also think he originally asked Playboy for money for the interview, on the grounds that he was selling their magazine. Don't know if he ever got it.
I could post Firing Line videos all day. They are so fresh, unedited, and raw.
Oct '10
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
When Rush was interviewed for the December 1993 issue of Playboy here's how he addressed the topic (as I quote directly from the pages that I ripped from the magazine and saved to this day...yes, they're the only pages I saved...for the most part):
Playboy: "How do your fans feel about (you) appearing in Playboy?" and "Why are you doing it?"
Rush: "I can think of no better place to have views such as mine - which are the epitome of morality and virtue - published than in a magazine such as Playboy. It is as that great man Jesus Christ said: 'You go to where the sinners are.'"
Perhaps that was WFB Jr's rationale, too.
May '10
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
I think one of Bill's lines about Playboy, was that he needed to find a way to connect with his son.
Jan '11
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
Stunning, isn't it, that there was once a time when you could confront the culture? These days we merely complain about it, but rarely do we confront it. We confront politics with gusto, but when it comes to culture, we mumble and apologize first.
Suddenly I want to write something about it. Buckley has that effect, still.
One side note: It strikes me that Ricochet is a writer's club. Ricochet sells itself on its conversation, but the conversations are predominantly written. That's worth a reflection or two later on ...
Feb '11
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
Johannes, what the Playboy approach leaves out is that unwanted pregnancies and std's are only the physical drawbacks of promiscuity. There is no acknowledgment of a moral dimension to sexual pleasure seeking. I agree with Michael that arguments on the subject tend to reduce to the dichotomy between Puritanism and Hedonism when reality is obviously somewhere in between for most of us. But that doesn't cause any agitation for me because I think it's a useful dichotomy. There is probably a continuum (where intent matters) between the vice and the virtue where normal humans live. Yes, we manage to find some way to live with our hypocrisy in the middle, but we still do acknowledge the hypocrisy - the sin. The Playboy philosophy unapologetically embraces the vice and elevates it to virtue crowding out all else until you're left with nothing more than a dirty old man in a smoking jacket.
Sep '10
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
The fascinating thing is that Hefner felt he needed "the Playboy Philosophy" and people like Buckley in order to legitimize his magazine. Today, alas, we operate under no such constraints.
Feb '11
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
KC, I agree with you wholeheartedly. We need to be able to confront the culture without having to apologize for passing "judgment", and I think the general misunderstanding of the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone...." part of the gospel is the key. Maybe I'm wrong (likely to be wrong even), but I never took that to be an injunction against recognizing bad behavior. Seems to me that the bad act was never in question; everyone agreed it was bad. Even Jesus said "go and sin no more" which acknowledges that there was a sin to begin with. No, the point there, as in most of Christianity, is for us to regulate ourselves; why are we so quick to anger and violence instead of compassion and forgiveness - especially when God promises forgiveness? Today people use this to justify anything they want to do. After all, who are we to judge?
Jul '10
Re: Buckley and the Playboy
I am old enough to remember the initial issues of Playboy and the Playboy Philosophy that Hefner wrote. Most of the stuff I am reading above speaks to a limited knowledge of Hef and his early days. He began his career with Esquire when it was a fairly avant gard magazine. Hefner was a major player in the growing sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s. Much of what he started went far over the edge, but that is often the case with revolutions. Denying his contribution to that cultural event is purely ignorant. Bill Buckley was too acute an observer of the culture to consider Hefner below his radar and unworthy of consideration. What happened to Hefner and Playboy in later years was a predictable outcome of the incredible success that his enterprise achieved. I am reminded of a quote I saw years ago under a photo of an obese and slovenly woman: I am not now that which I have been. The dissipated mess that Hef is now could easily be saying the same.