Hugh heffner dead - RIP

Samaris

Edit/Delete: [nah, pretty irrelevant to the topic]

Uh..so..well, RIP anyway.

BBDBB

Samaris wrote: »

That...doesn't really impress me that much standing alone. The Daily Express does that (mostly with headlines screaming about WORLD WAR THREE - actually, add in the Sun's Page 3 and it sounds pretty similar!).

However, never read Playboy, nor had I any interest in it (or him, so long as he wasn't raping people, and by all accounts he wasn't). Were they actually factual and informative articles or just incendiary bull**** to get customers?

Also, what's the hate with mainstream? It's a mainstream belief that water is necessary for life. That'd be because it is. Just because lots of people agree on something, doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Never got the celebration of "it wasn't mainstream" just for the sake of it. But as I said, never read it, so it may well have been thoughtful, insightful and intelligent. Or it may have been the Daily Express. Both fit the description.

Not actually having a go at it since I've made it clear I missed that part of the zeitgeist, just pointing out that that is pretty double-edged if you've not read the stuff.

Uh..so..well, RIP anyway.

No hate of the mainstream, I do have an appreciation of having a variety of views to consider and digest in contrast with the mainstream. Im quite sure that I would be considered mainstream on many issues.

Out of context, you have a point, sensationalism for sensationalisms sake has become a journalistic standard which is (in my view) an appalling indictment on our society. So like any publication, sales figures matter (its why the magazine went for more nudity and less socio political commentary) as funnily enough, tits and muff sell more than soundbites and bluff.

Also from a subjective point of view there is no possible way to answer your question. Some of the views expressed by those interviews would be considered mild today, but at the time were groundbreaking. Clearly other views could be considered crackpot at best. But its important to note I think that some views were from significant people in their relative field at the time and some of their work and thoughts still resonate today. Whether you could get two people to agree on which belongs in which category is a different issue.

osarusan

BBDBB wrote: »

All at a time where these topics weren't discussed, they were attacked as dangerous and subversive. Interviewing the proponents was communistic and brought threats of legal challenge and physical threat. The views of Malcolm X, Fidel Castro, Timothy Leary, Lech Walesa, Sergio Ramirez, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross being discussed was unheard of.

You are exaggerating this.

Malcolm X was on US and even UK television prior to his Playboy interview.
Walesa was in Time Magazine the month before he was in Playboy.
Kubler-Ross was on Oprah 7 years before her Playboy interview.

It is fair to say that Playboy was more than just a skin mag at that time and that it didn't shy away from controversial topics or people, but it's going too far to say that these people or their views were unheard of, or not being discussed elsewhere, or that nobody else was taking similar risks.

Samaris

BBDBB wrote: »

No hate of the mainstream, I do have an appreciation of having a variety of views to consider and digest in contrast with the mainstream. Im quite sure that I would be considered mainstream on many issues.

Out of context, you have a point, sensationalism for sensationalisms sake has become a journalistic standard which is (in my view) an appalling indictment on our society. So like any publication, sales figures matter (its why the magazine went for more nudity and less socio political commentary) as funnily enough, tits and muff sell more than soundbites and bluff.

Also from a subjective point of view there is no possible way to answer your question. Some of the views expressed by those interviews would be considered mild today, but at the time were groundbreaking. Clearly other views could be considered crackpot at best. But its important to note I think that some views were from significant people in their relative field at the time and some of their work and thoughts still resonate today. Whether you could get two people to agree on which belongs in which category is a different issue.

Fair answer, and thanks for saying it - I had deleted my comment as I figured actually it was probably going to be derailing, but your response was worth it being there.

I don't actually have an issue, it was mostly just that point I wanted to make. As I said, I know little enough about Playboy. And it is important that they were significant in their various areas, rather than..well...the bilge that often gets held up today as being "counter-mainstream" and important just for the sake of being counter-mainstream.

Overall, furrynough! I'll leave it there though, should probably keep the thread to yer man being dead.

BBDBB

osarusan wrote: »

You are exaggerating this.

Malcolm X was on US and even UK television prior to his Playboy interview.
Walesa was in Time Magazine the month before he was in Playboy.
Kubler-Ross was on Oprah 7 years before her Playboy interview.

It is fair to say that Playboy was more than just a skin mag at that time and that it didn't shy away from controversial topics or people, but it's going too far to say that these people or their views were unheard of, or not being discussed elsewhere, or that nobody else was taking similar risks.

Ok, thats not what I was trying to do, I was trying to get people who were dismissing him solely as a dirty old man to consider that he actually achieved a great deal more in his early career as a publisher. If Ive over egged it in your view, fair enough. Thats my mistake, not Hefners.

I suppose the point that I was trying to make was that not that these people were unheard of, but that they certainly weren't part of a conventional line up of celebrities that we get these days only seeking to promote their latest book/film/make up/clothing line. They were significant people (albeit a hastily selected selection from dozens available) and playboy put them under the spotlight on a wealth of issues. Which was indeed risky, and part of what Im trying to spotlight here is that Hefner took those risks and it wasn't always about sensationalism.


Just out of pure pedantry and smart arsery, sorry, Kubler Ross interview 1981 - 5 years before Oprah had a TV show although Google could be wrong.

RIP

Fair to say he lived a life most men would only dream of

McMurphy

He's in a better place now.











Is what no-one will be saying.

Boom_Bap

Threads Merged.

Chester Copperpot

SuperSean11 wrote: »

There was writing in those magazines

There were actually great articles in them. Robert anton Wilson was an editor at one stage. To have an intellect like that as an editor was a terrific move

branie2

A James Bond short story was published in the magazine.

osarusan

BBDBB wrote: »

Just out of pure pedantry and smart arsery, sorry, Kubler Ross interview 1981 - 5 years before Oprah had a TV show although Google could be wrong.

Sorry, it was on a show Oprah was hosting, not on a show called Oprah.

Otherwise I generally agree with you that there was a time when it was more than a smutty magazine, but want to point out that while such people were not conventional guests or topics, Playboy wasn't the only one that would go near them, and lets not forgot the others that played a part in making those people or topics more mainstream.

Hande hoche!

branie2 wrote: »

He also made a cameo appearance in the Mel Brooks film History of the World Part 1

He made an appearance in the awful Miss March too.

James Brown

We'll see the tell all books and interviews come out shortly.
Nice to see former amateur porn actress Kim Kardashian give her condolences.

As a single man my father regularly used to buy Playboy. He arrived home one evening to find the lady who used to clean for him storming out of his flat "Its obscene! Pictures of women in their nude. I won't be cleaning for you any more Mr!". He thought "Oh she must have found the playboys". He went into the sitting room and open on the coffee table was the Sunday Times Magazine open to an article on Amazonian tribes, and there was a picture of a couple of the tribes women bare breasted. This was the obscene pictures your one had discovered. :rolleyes:

Both my parents have told me I wouldn't be able to comprehend how conservative Ireland(and the western world) was in the 60s and 70s and even 80s. I just looked it up, Playboy was unbanned in Ireland in 1995. By todays standards its pretty tame stuff.

So here's my question, if it hadn't been for Hugh Heffner and his ilk trying to normalise pornography, might we still be back in those conservative days? I'm afraid the answer is yes.

_Dara_

As a straight female, I quite like the pre-80s Playmate of the Month photographs. Often were nice compositions, quite arty. The girls looked much more natural too and, whilst all slim, varied a good bit from each other. It all got a bit fake titty, bad hair, fake tanny, clone-y after that.

BBDBB

osarusan wrote: »

Sorry, it was on a show Oprah was hosting, not on a show called Oprah.

Otherwise I generally agree with you that there was a time when it was more than a smutty magazine, but want to point out that while such people were not conventional guests or topics, Playboy wasn't the only one that would go near them, and lets not forgot the others that played a part in making those people or topics more mainstream.

post 50

"The freedoms we enjoy today, the choices we have available as to the type of jobs we do and the lives we lead the extent of our progress and even who we have as friends and neighbours is in a small way thanks to the doors that Hefner pushed through. "

I never claimed he was the only one, but accept that I didn't make that clear. That said, he was a pioneer of bringing unusual and non mainstream commentary to an audience who may not have considered longer works or more highbrow publications.

JP Liz V1

It wasn't just ladies in the nude

RIP

I wonder who will play him in a biopic

exaisle

I heard it was myxomatosis...:cool:

bnt

Thanks for the mammaries, Hugh!

Hazys

That would be some funeral to crash

up for anything

paconnors wrote: »

Death
Hefner died while having sex with twins at his home in Beverly Hills, California on September 27, 2017 at the age of 91

And well remunerated for it they were too. One of the many benefits of wealth. You can get as much ass as you want and pay them to pretend that they actually want you.

jonon9

He went out stiffer than a prick on a wedding night.

Sam Kade

Will Kerri Ann be going to the funeral?

branie2

If wonder if other Playboy girls started off as second-level teachers

Shurimgreat

He was a bit sleazy.

But then again so were a lot of the women hanging off of him. Most knew the rules of the game, he got what he wanted and they got what they wanted.

A lot of women owe their fame and wealth to him so they can hardly complain.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The thought of a 91 year old man having sex with women 70 years his junior.

I don't know whether to be impressed or creeped out.

ohnonotgmail

He must have been taking some amount of viagra to keep up with a woman 60 years younger than him. no wonder he died so young.

mikeymouse

I hide my copy of The Daily Mail inside his mag on the way home from newsagents.

whisky_galore

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The thought of a 91 year old man having sex with women 70 years his junior.

I don't know whether to be impressed or creeped out.

If it was an elderly Western sex tourist in Thailand we would be repulsed, but the worthy articles and the air of respectability so yeah.

B.A._Baracus

RIP.
Since he is deceased I wonder if the rumors will be true.

That being the empty grave allotment above Marilyn Monroe has been reserved for years. Long rumored to be for Hugh. Never confirmed or denied.

DJIMI TRARORE

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

RIP.
Since he is deceased I wonder if the rumors will be true.

That being the empty grave allotment above Marilyn Monroe has been reserved for years. Long rumored to be for Hugh. Never confirmed or denied.

Probably wont be the 1st time she was under him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

branie2

And she was the first pinup model for Playboy

B.A._Baracus

DJIMI TRARORE wrote: »

Probably wont be the 1st time she was under him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

Ba-da-dish :pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MonkieSocks

Urgent help required to re-home some bunnies.

The elderly owner has passed away and due to the property deal the house is sold without the bunnies putting them all at risk.

Just £100,000 a month will help the bunnies live the life they deserve.

If you can help and re home a bunny call 1-800-PLAYBOY now!

fryup

Not me tbh, It might make a nice fantasy but living a real life like that would just be a bit odd

not to mention going to the VD clinic every fortnight, no thanks

suicide_circus

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Obviously the passing of someone is sad, but I don’t get the love-in for him. He was a pornographer, and a classic dirty old man. The much vaunted mansion was/is meant to a squalid kip, and the whole image around the man seems like a carefully crafted marketing exercise to normalise his trade.

Oh piss off.

The joyless and the sanctimonious come out at times like this

_Kaiser_

suicide_circus wrote: »

Oh piss off.

The joyless and the sanctimonious come out at times like this

Have to agree.. the amount of "superior" holier-than-thou sermonising on this thread is mad.

For a minute I thought I'd opened a page back to the 50s or something!

job seeker

R.I.P

Hugh Hefner

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hugh-hefner-dead-founder-playboy-magazine-mansion-dies-death-age-91-models-latest-a7971171.html

Barry Badrinath

Fcuk off!!!!!

Did he really????

When!!!!!

AllGunsBlazing

Any time I got my hands on a copy of his magazine for some reason the pages were always stuck together....

Xaracatz

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Fcuk off!!!!!

Did he really????

When!!!!!

Somewhere between his 91st and 92nd birthday

Barry Badrinath

Xaracatz wrote: »

Somewhere between his 91st and 92nd birthday

Ah feck.

I had the bet at 93

StringerBell

The one guy you know for sure it can't be said, "well at least hes in a better place now" about.

mad muffin

The greatest smut peddler of all.

The_Valeyard

Twice in one day?

Ah im sure he was used to that.

punisher5112

Come off it op you can only die once....

He died very early I mean nearly yesterday now at this stage.

threeball

Hande hoche! wrote: »

He made an appearance in the awful Miss March too.

I heard he was in Miss February, May, June, July and December too.

job seeker

punisher5112 wrote: »

Come off it op you can only die once....

He died very early I mean nearly yesterday now at this stage.

Oh did see it posted already. apologies.

mods can lock this or merge it or what ever they do when this happens?

Xaracatz

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Ah feck.

I had the bet at 93

I'm sure he's out there somewhere saluting you for your confidence in his longevity. Saluting you, in his own special way. What a lovely thought to picture vividly.