Men (heterosexual men, at least) like to look at tits. Big bouncy beautiful tits.

Women, who possess those tits, know that's a valuable proposition if they choose to show their tits.

As far as I know Hefner never held a gun to any woman's head and made her show her tits. Rather, he paid them to show their tits.

the side that exploits appetites for money, that feeds leech-like on our vices, that dissolves family and religion while promising that consumption will fill the void they leave behind.

I didn't realize Ross Douthat was such a Victorian lady. Fetch her a fainting couch, tout suite.

Hugh Hefner taught Gamma Males that if they made enough money, they could be Alpha Males.

And in that, he was probably right.

My problem with Hef is not that he sold what he sold, but that he sold a bait and switch. He was essentially a swindler, and never delivered what he promised. (This does not make him unique, incidentally.) But Wfjag has a point - he was selling "Alpha Malehood," and delivering nothing. Had he been explicitly selling virtual reality, that would be a different thing.

And, as it turns out, his own reality was somewhat virtual as well.

I half agree with you Grey Ghost. He was selling a fantasy. A dream. But once you get past 25 you should be old enough to tell that it was only a fantasy. Which is why I only half agree. Marketing is full of such lies. Is that really the best burger in town? Fastest internet . . . for the price. Since unicorns don't exist I'm pretty sure they don't poop ice cream but you can still find a squatty potty at Bed Bath and Beyond.

Ross Douthat was correct in all respects. No idiot feminists on the internet had the clarity speak to Hefner's passing as he did... They were all too busy trying to include elements of whimsy and style into their description of profound (and profoundly deleterious) social trends. That's the business they're in... Their social neediness and teammate pretensions blinded to them to the obviously repellent mature of their subject.

I was tremendously impressed at Douthat's sensitivity to the victims of what is so preposterously described as "the sexual revolution," and at his clear articulation of Hefner's wretchedness.

Being somewhat older, I will always think of Douthat in the New York Times as being "the new kid." Over the weekend he proved that he really deserves his chair, and that there's nothing quite as amusing as a youngster who points out that the old Emperors are naked. Given the robes of P.R. and smirking, arched-eyebriw cant attending these most adult of topics, his youth may have been essential.

How ironic is that?

Hef coarsened our society. He wasn't the first, and doesn't deserve much blame for the results of social welfare and the loosening of societal norms, but he none-the-less did help loosen the societal norms.

And because of the welfare state, we're all paying for the irresponsible behaviour of others. At least those of us who pay taxes, that is.

Seriously, I was fuckin' proud of that kid. That he was slaying a dragon closer to my generation than to his made it even sweeter.

Kevin: As far as I know Hefner never held a gun to any woman's head and made her show her tits. Rather, he paid them to show their tits.

Not always true. In his now legendary issue featuring Marilyn Monroe, he didn't pay her a penny and didn't even have her permission to use those photos.

Technically, he didn't need her permission or to compensate her. Marilyn Monroe was paid 50 dollars to the photographer and signed a release. Which means the photographer can use them however he wants. You could even argue that this fueled Monroe's then-rising star.

Which doesn't change the fact that it was a dick move, and that Hefner did not always compensate women to "show her tits" as you so eloquently and graciously put it.

Another take:

https://www.fivefeetoffury.com/2017/09/29/hugh-hefners-playboy-pitch-was-for-the-gamma-male-who-fancies-himself-an-alpha/

"Little by little, the look of the country changes because of the men we admire.” ~ Hud

"He will be attractive! He'll be nice and helpful. He'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing! He'll never deliberately hurt a living thing... he will just bit by little bit lower our standards where they are important. Just a tiny little bit. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny little bit. And he'll talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women." ~ Broadcast News

"but he none-the-less did help loosen the societal norms."

Thank Gaia for small favors!

Amy Alkon: "...those who claim to be fiscally conservative but get a little confused when it conflicts with their moralizing."

What are you talking about? All I see in the Douthat piece is the moralizing, which I don't see anything wrong with. I didn't see anything about fiscal stuff, or any suggestion that someone should not be free to disagree, or should be forced to be financially involved in any policies, programs or activities that conflict with their values - like subsidized abortions, or government schools, or mandatory medical insurance, or subsidized jihadist immigration, or same-sex weddings. I couldn't find the part that conflicted with fiscal conservatism.

You're usually pretty smart (convinced me about lo-carb diet, resulting in my 60 lbs weight loss) so I thought maybe I didn't know what fiscal meant. So I googled it:

fis·cal - ˈfisk(ə)l
adjective
1. of or relating to government revenue, especially taxes. "monetary and fiscal policy"
2. of or relating to financial matters in general

Yep, that's what I thought it meant. I couldn't find the part in Douthat's column that conflicted with fiscal conservatism, so I googled "fiscal conservatism", just in case I didn't know what that means:

Fiscal conservatism is a political position (primarily in the United States) that calls for lower levels of public spending, lower taxes and lower government debt. It is a variety of conservatism concerned with economic rather than social issues.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Still no conflict with Douthat's moralizing.

Here is something that I did learn that I didn't know before: My spell checker didn't highlight the word "googled". So I googled google:

goo·gle - ˈɡo͞oɡ(ə)l
verb
search for information about (someone or something) on the Internet using the search engine Google.

So google is a legitimate verb.

Wow.

Not only are many in denial that everyone who ever bought a copy of Playboy did so of their own free will, they've made that fantastic stretch that Playboy is responsible for the irresponsibility of others.

Do be sure to note this anytime you might advocate for making drugs more accessible.

Oh, yeah - if Playboy hadn't ever existed, nobody would be on welfare. No single motherhood.

Hef's death has chiefly served to illustrate the immensity of public denial about everything there is to sex.

...those who claim to be fiscally conservative but get a little confused when it conflicts with their moralizing.

Not every fiscal conservative is a social conservative; and vice-versa.

For example, Barry Goldwater was famous for his fiscally conservative views, but he was not a social conservative. He railed against the influence that the religious right was gaining in the Republican Party. He ran for president in '64 promising not to make government more efficient, but to make it smaller. He advocated allowing gays to serve in the military ("you don't have to be straight ... you only have to shoot straight") and demanded, when asked to head the Arizona Air National Guard that the Arizona government desegregate it first.

Rick Santorum is noted for his social conservative viewpoint. But he's a big government Republican, not a fiscal conservative, His Congressional voting record favors big-government programs to solve social issues, despite his past presidential campaign promises to cut taxes and government spending.

Paglia weighs in.

"Hefner re-imagined the American male as a connoisseur in the continental manner, a man who enjoyed all the fine pleasures of life, including sex. Hefner brilliantly put sex into a continuum of appreciative response to jazz, to art, to ideas, to fine food. This was something brand new. Enjoying fine cuisine had always been considered unmanly in America. Hefner updated and revitalized the image of the British gentleman, a man of leisure who is deft at conversation — in which American men have never distinguished themselves — and with the art of seduction, which was a sport refined by the French."

By definition, if someone makes choices you don't approve of, it is because they are too dumb/sex slaves/a victim of the patriarchy/greedy, because everyone certainly would make the same choices as the writer otherwise. The idea that people make the best choices available to them (in the context of their self-control, education, goals, risk tolerance) simply escapes scolds like this, and leads to heavy taxes on sugary drinks as well to force people to behave.
The sexual revolution would have happened virtually unchanged with or without Hef because it resulted from the mobility a car gave and from the pill (among other trends). It is like blaming the sixties on Jimmy Hendrix. One man is never that powerful. In reality, the changing times enabled Hef. Remember that Playboy was only one of the girlie magazines, and was the highbrow one of the bunch. A few people even read the articles!
I also object to blaming people like Hef for pandering to our baser natures ("the rotten side of capitalism -- the side that exploits appetites for money, that feeds leech-like on our vices, that dissolves family and religion")--those natures exist and are not the fault of those who pander to them. Does the writer imagine that there is some other system besides capitalism that does not "pander"? hahahahah. Under communism the pandering is done by party insiders getting all the forbidden fruit, with the proletariat left bereft of any pleasure except drinking too much and the black market. Spare us the "capitalism made me do it" speech.

There are conservatives, and there are NY Times "conservative" columnists. Never the twain shall meet.

> There are conservatives, and there are NY Times
> "conservative" columnists. Never the twain shall
> meet.

+1