The Playboy Philosophy

 

To commemorate the passing of Hugh Hefner, here’s his debate with Bill Buckley on Firing Line.

Also, check out this First Things article on Buckley’s decision to stop writing for the pornographer.

A few years ago, I read a copy of “The Playboy Philosophy,” Hefner’s manifesto. It is extremely reliant on the easily debunked Kinsey study on sexual behavior. For instance, did you know that bestiality is much more common than you’d think — Kinsey found it was tried by 17 percent of men in rural areas — but is hidden thanks to societal taboos?!

I’m guessing some of the longer obituaries may mention the oversized influence that Kinsey had on Hefner, but the “science!” crowd won’t mention that Kinsey was a total fraud.

The media will also no doubt praise the “ingenuity” and “brilliance” of a man who discovered that men like naked women. Will they see any of the luster come off Hefner in the age of Trump? I doubt they will see any connection, or they will go through mental contortions to argue Hefner was a gentleman in the true Playboy spirit. (Trump, ever the fan, once said in his radio commentary that the military should sell Playboy in stores because there’s nothing wrong with “looking at pretty girls.”)

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 9 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    I have not yet had the time to watch the full “Firing Line” episode, but it appears quite clearly in the first few minutes that the “New Morality” is really just the old immorality. Buckley’s conclusion in First Things to remove himself from the “Playboy Family” was correct and commendable.

    • #1
  2. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Thanks for the great post. If I could come back after death I would want to come back as WFB but be able to fight like  Muhamed Ali.

    • #2
  3. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    I can understand how, at the time of the interview, Playboy represented not the Playboy philosophy (which was probably just marketing even then) but the ethos of postmodernism, the sexual revolution, relativism, ultimately nihilism. After all, if one dares to ask “why” and the only answer is an axiom which isn’t necessarily accepted then the feeling of freedom and righteousness at throwing off The Man and his repressive opression is attractive.

    However, even back then WFB through his body work on Hefner in this video ably demonstrated the faults in the Playboy philosophy system even aside from the cynical marketing aspects of it. He was correct about the difference in tone and message between the magazine and the mainstream public appearances. He was correct that Playboy wasn’t merely suggesting that the moral law was being applied incorrectly or too legalistically (Christians could certainly understand that), but instead Playboy was suggesting that there was no law worth following except inclination governed only by consent because these are the only objective things. He was correct that Hefner’s opposition to prostitution and the prohibition on Bunnies from fraternizing with the customers even on off time was inconsistent and suggested that Hefner acknowledged some traditional truths after all – or it suggested that Hefner wasn’t as committed to personal consensual choice as he would have us believe.

    Most striking though is this interview in light of the decades of Playboy and Hugh Hefner since this interview. To me it’s all so obviously an attempt to justify hedonism (despite the explicit objections of 1966 Hefner). And ultimately ugly too. A 100 year old man engaging in serial monogamy with the cream of the crop of women as if such a thing is natural or good for the women. It turns out that Hefner and Playboy don’t represent freeing humanity from subjective oppression and superstition as much as they represent elevation of hedonism and urge as the only objective goods, glorifying humanity as “the most consuming of animals”.

    • #3
  4. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    I was wondering where the “Firing Line”library went after it was taken down from Amazon Prime.

    • #4
  5. Polyphemus Inactive
    Polyphemus
    @Polyphemus

    It is also interesting how he relies upon both Kinsey and Freud as authoritative pillars of his philosophy. Both of these sources have seen their credibility wane in the intervening years either because of their grounding in a fanciful “science” based on almost no true research (Freud) or based on fraudulent and discredited research (Kinsey).

    • #5
  6. Drusus Inactive
    Drusus
    @Drusus

    What I love most about this interview is how Buckley lets Hefner talk. He doesn’t jump in at every opportunity to smack him down or steal the limelight. He allows his viewpoint to be exposed to the light of day, fully and completely, and in doing so, also allows Hefner all the rope he needs to hang himself.

    • #6
  7. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Eggster,

    I have always found this confrontation between Buckley and Hefner fascinating. If you notice Buckley is defending morality itself most of the time. Of course, the subject is sexual morality but Hefner is subtly and relentlessly undermining morality itself with some of the best intellectual arguments for a nihilistic hedonism. Buckley, as brilliant as he is, swats them down with precision. However, both men seem to know that the secret weapon is for the moment on Hefner’s side. Seduction leads to corruption. Finally, the dirty photos will seduce and the mind will find the excuse.

    From my point of view, morality itself has been under attack for the entire 20th century (and till this minute). The direct frontal attack in the first half of the 20th century centered on economic ideology is now replaced by this anti-moral sexual insurgency in the second half of the century. As simple as the confrontation of Buckley v. Hefner is, the debate is like two champions in single combat. Hefner has the upper hand and the momentum of the moment but it is Buckley who will go the long haul and win unconditionally. We still haven’t got to the point where we are ready for morality to win unconditionally but we are getting much closer.

    Thanks for posting.

    Regards,

    Jim

     

    • #7
  8. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    How did we miss, all those years ago, not just the evasiveness of Hefner’s answers but the intense, crazy, cornered look of his eyes.

    • #8
  9. Polyphemus Inactive
    Polyphemus
    @Polyphemus

    Ansonia (View Comment):
    How did we miss, all those years ago, not just the evasiveness of Hefner’s answers but the intense, crazy, cornered look of his eyes.

    The First Things article mentioned in the OP has this little tidbit:

    Buckley suspects that he is getting over on Hefner in the end. He reports a story of a foreigner who saw Hefner and Buckley debate on television without the sound turned on. By the looks on their faces, the man concludes that Buckley is the free and loose libertine, while Hefner appears to be the joyless conservative. Buckley knows he is a happy man.

     

    • #9
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.