September 28, 2017

"I think the real question is why, after a sexual revolution began in the 50's, did the women's movement seize upon an anti-sexual theme."

"... A significant part of the hurtful side of feminism is failing to understand how a hurtful childhood can shape you, and instead trying to politicize all behavior. There's really no benefit to viewing sex as the enemy. The sex act is some of the best of what we are, as family, and as a civilization. The notion that sex and violence are connected like law and order is untrue. They are polar opposites. One is hurting; one is hugging."

Said Hugh Hefner back in 1992.

42 comments:

rhhardin said...

Feminism is nagging. You can't nag if you're showing you're satisfied with men, and sex does that.

David Baker said...

I believe the beginning of the "sexual revolution" can be traced to the hour and day in each geographical area, from hamlet to town to city, even more specifically, to your local pharmacy the moment "The Pill" became available.

campy said...

Because the women's movement was created by and for misandrist bigots.

Krumhorn said...

Think Catharine MacKinnon and you have a clear picture of Hef's polar opposite.

- Krumhorn

Ignorance is Bliss said...

We can't have those fish enjoying their bicycles.

Sebastian said...

Sorry, Hef: "trying to politicize all behavior" is the essence of progressivism, and feminism is just a species of progressivism.

Turning sex into politics was just a power tool, so to speak. (Not that it hadn't been.)

rehajm said...

I showed up late- was the whole womens movement anti- sexual. The fish/ bicycle was about needs...but not wants.

Darrell said...

On Sept. 30, 2016, some pranksters started a rumor that Hefner died, and many news organizations fell for it. On Sept. 27th, 2017, Hefner died for real. Make of that what you will.

Darrell said...

The Left was always pushing meaningless sex. The only time they had a problem with it was when it became meaningful. What we call feminism is just the womens' auxiliary of the Left.

Rick said...

"I think the real question is why, after a sexual revolution began in the 50's, did the women's movement seize upon an anti-sexual theme."

The answer is easily discerned by asking another question:

What do feminists get through this framing they would not get through an accurate analysis of [voluntary] sexual relationships?

The answer is power. The framing that women are powerless victims justifies using institutional power to combat the asserted mistreatment. This institutional power (academia, media, government, NGOs, and now infiltrating corporate America) allows them to them to enact their agenda illegitimately as they did by claiming a single sentence in Title IX forbidding discrimination requires a preponderance of the evidence standard, the elimination of due process, and biased investigators in adjudicating complaints of unfairness by women.

The Obama administration never let a crisis go to waste, but activists are playing a deeper game. They don't wait for the crisis but rather create the appearance of one which they then use to push their agenda.

Tarrou said...

Feminism isn't first and foremost about women. It's about weaponizing women as a "minority" (women are the majority) to fight against western civilization in all its forms. This is why feminism is allied to radical islam, radical misogynistic black power movements, and all sorts of weird cognitive dissonance.

Feminism is only instrumental to the left. They are perfectly happy to see a thousand women gang raped in a single night in Germany, so long as it happens in the service of destroying a white European nation. They are perfectly happy to use social services to deliver underage girls taken from their families to Pakistani rape gangs in Rotherham, because the rights of lower-class white girls don't compare to the literal patriarchal rape culture of Pakistan.

Feminism, ultimately, is a lie. It's just the same old Marxism, same old revolutionary bullshit as the left ever was, just dolled up and setting women against men.

CJ said...

The Puritan Left is the worst Left.

At least the Left in the 60s was about freedom - sexual, speech, etc.

Now the Left are a bunch of killjoys, complete with witch burnings and mass hysteria.

“How do you do, Goody Atwood?”
“Very well, thank you Mistress Quinn”
“Praise the Goddess!”

Robert Cook said...

Perhaps the initial critique was that, while the so-called "sexual revolution" was meant to remove guilt or the taint of sin from adults freely engaging in mutually pleasurable sexual behavior, (particularly for women),it had become just another means to exploit women for men's own sexual pleasure. It's one thing for adult women and men to have equal standing in the sexual world, but quite another for men to take license to bed as many women as possible--and to be admired for this--where equally sexually adventurous women were still seen as wanton women, sluts. It did not always result in encounters between equals, but often simply legitimized the old unequal male/female power relationship ("What's the matter, baby? Are you sexually hung-up? Up-tight?")

In other words, the sexual revolution became just another tool for men to "get some."

This is not to say that many (or even most) women did not benefit from the sexual revolution, they did. But PLAYBOY magazine (and its lesser ilk) used the language of sexual freedom to lend respectability to their actual purpose: commodify women for profit by providing pictures of naked women for men to objectify as eager sex bunnies. (Look at Hefner's own behavior with women in his Playboy mansion.) Their complex humanity was erased, as, how can one's personality be photographed? (I'm sure Hefner really believed in his "Playboy Philosophy," but one can be earnest and still be an exploiter of others.)

This said, on balance, the sexual revolution was a good thing. The feminist critiques went too far, with claims that any heterosexual sex was, by definition, "rape," and the like. But, then, there are always extremists.

Robert Cook said...

I'll note that, as with Althouse's father, my father bought every issue of PLAYBOY from the 50s until almost the time of his death, (early 2000's). I don't think he had the first several issues, but he had all them from just after the first several issues. I used to surreptitiously look at them. To my mind, it was at its best in the late 60s and early 70s.

Ficta said...

Orwell already saw the congruence of Totalitarian Leftism and Puritanism in 1949 when he wrote the "Junior Anti Sex League" into the world of 1984. Camille Paglia said a couple of years ago (I'm paraphrasing from memory), that that was one of the most surprising things to see come true over the last few decades.

Robert Cook said...

@ Ficta:

Orwell's society of 1984 was certainly totalitarian, but there was no indication (that I can recall) whether the society was left or right. Which is appropriate, as totalitarianism is less about the political ideology and more about the dogmatism and/or will to power of those heading the society. The features of a totalitarian society would be much the same whatever politics the society claimed to adhere to, left or right.

Jeff Roth said...

@Robert Cook - I see you subscribe to the Hillary Clinton Condensed Classics interpretation of 1984, AKA Fractured Fairytales.

Robert Cook said...

Jeff Roth:

No. I refer to the actual book by George Orwell, which I have read...more than once.

It's been years, so that's why I said "as I recall." If there are specific indications of the political orientation of the society depicted in 1984, please refresh my memory.

Or, are you one of those who believe any totalitarian state is, by definition, a left-oriented society, and conversely, also by definition, no right-oriented state could ever by totalitarian? Talk about Fractured Fairytales!

William said...

I read Mrs. Trollope's account of her journey to America. At that time, the preferred delivery system for nicotine was chewing tobacco. Men chewed and expectorated like crazy all over the place. They didn't always aim towards the spittoon with perfect accuracy, and some men didn't even bother to aim. As a result, there were disgusting little puddles of spit just about everywhere you went. This was a particular problem for well bred ladies like Mrs. Trollope who always wore floor length dresses like a proper lady. She had the unwelcome choice of lifting her skirt and thereby flash her ankles, or allowing spittle to congeal in the hem of her garment........That's the way life goes. Men have disgusting habits, and women wear stupid clothes........Bunny ears and a cotton tail are pretty stupid outfits to wear in the name of sexual liberation, but floor length skirts and bustle dresses are pretty stupid garments to wear in the name of feminine modesty and morality.

eLocke said...

@Robert Cook

It is true that the government was not explicitly leftist in 1984. The problem with a redistributive ideology is that it requires the restriction of freedom, which very easily leads to totalitarianism.

tcrosse said...

In 1984 it's the tyranny of Them over Us. The identity of Them depends on the identity of Us.

Ray said...

From Wikipedia:

Ingsoc (Newspeak for English Socialism or the English Socialist Party) is the political ideology of the totalitarian government of Oceania in George Orwell's Dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingsoc

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Mr. Cook~excellent comments in this thread; thanks.

Ray said...

Stacy McCain of the othermccain.com has been writing about the history of feminism. He has been actually reading and quoting their works. Its very disturbing. He wrote a book on it:

Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature K

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Trouble-Radical-Feminism-Against-ebook/dp/B00U1I0YBG/

$1.99 on kindle, 120 pages.

4 1/2 stars with 32 ratings

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

It's been years, so that's why I said "as I recall." If there are specific indications of the political orientation of the society depicted in 1984, please refresh my memory.

The government in 1984 is called "Ingsoc" and stands for English Socialism.

Robert Cook said...

"The problem with a redistributive ideology is that it requires the restriction of freedom, which very easily leads to totalitarianism."

The problem with a "law and order" ideology (beloved of the right) is that it requires the restriction of freedom, which very easily leads to totalitarianism.

In fact, the problem with maintaining any stable and functioning society is that it requires the restriction of freedom, which very easily leads to totalitarianism.

Robert Cook said...

"Ingsoc (Newspeak for English Socialism or the English Socialist Party) is the political ideology of the totalitarian government of Oceania in George Orwell's Dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four."

Ray, yes, indeed! Thank you. However, that aside, what, in the society depicted in 1984, could be called uniquely "left" in action or result? As I said, a totalitarian society of the right would be very similar to that depicted in 1984. The party names and the government rationales for their policies might differ, but the restrictions of the people's freedom and the punitive sanctions on non-compliant citizens would still be the end result.

Gahrie said...

In fact, the problem with maintaining any stable and functioning society is that it requires the restriction of freedom, which very easily leads to totalitarianism.

Which is why we should limit government and its powers to the smallest size possible.

Government is a necessary evil.

buwaya said...

IIRC, the economy of Ingsoc was one where there was no private economic activity, and everything was rationed, or issued.

eLocke said...

Pretty much what Gahrie said. You can separate the "law" and the "order" parts. Different people on the right place different values on those components.

In practice, it seems it's the leftist ideologies that end in totalitarianism.

buwaya said...

Anyway, the series by McCain (compiled, substantively, in "Sex Trouble") is very interesting.

His most important point is not of the irrationality of the extremes of feminist ideology, what one may expect of extremists, but the fact that they aren't extremists.

What he demonstrates is that this extremism is not just the academic feminist mainstream but its uniform (and viciously enforced) nature. The authoritative institutions, the professionals of the ideology are so; and any defense of it has to rest on the vagueness of the ideas of the masses of amateurs.

Bilal Shaikh said...

Bilal Shaikh SEO Expert in Hyderabad, his Search Engine Optimization (SEO) skills are astonishing. He increase traffic to a website and obtain a high rank placement in search engine with his marketing skills.

Ficta said...

@Robert Cook

Okay, I agree, "left" and "right" can be fairly nebulous, particularly when you start crossing the Atlantic, but there's certainly nothing in 1984 that precludes it being a nominally socialist society, like Orwell's immediate models in the USSR of the 1930s and England of the 1940s.

However, the message that, you, yes you the reader, could easily become Them instead of Us (excellent comment @tcrosse) if you don't watch yourself, seems to be lost on the American left to a shocking extent. The American right has the screaming din of the American media to remind them of this fact...constantly.

Krumhorn said...

Ray, yes, indeed! Thank you. However, that aside, what, in the society depicted in 1984, could be called uniquely "left" in action or result? As I said, a totalitarian society of the right would be very similar to that depicted in 1984. The party names and the government rationales for their policies might differ, but the restrictions of the people's freedom and the punitive sanctions on non-compliant citizens would still be the end result

Your comment at 8:10 was excellent, I thought. I disagree with this one, however. You characterize the right as "law and order" which is certainly a necessary feature of any safe and organized society. But the most important element of any conservative government is to have as few laws and regulations as possible which would have the salutary effect of minimizing the impact of law and order on the citizens.

The smallest and least powerful government possible is the goal. It's a virtual impossibility to have a totalitarian society under those conditions. We should all want a strong national defense, safe food, air and water, disaster relief and a small but effective safety net and the lowest possible taxes. Beyond that, we invite tyrants to exercise dominion and control over the rest of us.

That is the key problem with the modern American left. There is virtually no aspect of leftie ideology that isn't about telling the rest of us what to do and how to do it. Scratch a leftie and there is a tyrant screaming to get out. Scratch a Conservative and there is a guy who tells you to get off his lawn.

- Krumhorn

Mountain Maven said...

Hefner did more to denigrate and devalue women (and men) then anyone in his lifetime. His opinions have no merit.

n.n said...

To his credit, Hefner emphasized form over function. He did not progress the idea of barefoot, pregnant, commodity, and abortion.

Bad Lieutenant said...

It's been years, so that's why I said "as I recall." If there are specific indications of the political orientation of the society depicted in 1984, please refresh my memory.


I suppose "Ingsoc" doesn't count?

Bad Lieutenant said...

Also Right dictatorships tend to be authoritarian whereas Left dictatorships tend to be totalitarian. Nineteen Eight-four clearly epitomized, apotheosized, totalitarianism.

richard mcenroe said...

Ann Althouse said...Also, did any of those Playboy people really seriously give a fuck about jazz?
--

I worked a couple of Playboy Jazz Festivals. The audiences were definitely there for the music.

Unknown said...

The reason, to answer Hef, is that feminists adopted Marxism. With females identified as oppressed, the oppressor was men. Furthermore, the driving force in feminism became lesbians, the kind who hate men, so they took it even further. Not only were men oppressors, but marriage was slavery and piv sex was violence. The only freedom for women then was separation from men and the destruction of the family. And then this became codified as the official position.

Blue@9 said...

The problem with a "law and order" ideology (beloved of the right) is that it requires the restriction of freedom, which very easily leads to totalitarianism.

In fact, the problem with maintaining any stable and functioning society is that it requires the restriction of freedom, which very easily leads to totalitarianism.


You are confusing socialist economic philosophy with authoritarianism. Not all authoritarian govts are communist, but all communist govts are authoritarian. It's not hard to see why. Communist systems cannot stand dissent. You can't have communism if a group of dissidents decides to go capitalist instead.