Posted by 9eagle9
(here)
Women were objectified in Victorian times all covered up and then objectified by underdressing them.
What's the difference?
Visual stimulation isn't sexuality. Sexuality is an energy. One should be able to be sexy with a doo rag and sweats on.
He didn't empower sexuality he perverted it and turned into something to turn on to instead something someone tunes into .
He's not to blame. Any who bought into 'a girl in a magazine' is sexuality expression is repressed not empowered, and likely hasn't had enough experience with true sexual intimacy and energy themselves to know the difference. That sort of energy when its authentic always starts outside the bedroom, but its physical expression may end up there.
Posted by Arrowwind
(here)
Posted by loveandgratitude
(here)
Heffner and the Fem's in the 1960's have led to make our Aryan woman portrayed as sexual meat he still deserves the rope for how his company has degraded our woman.
Before Hefner the calendar in a college room was a wholesome Nordic looking girl in a letter sweater. Women were put on a pedestal. After Hefner, we saw women as sex toys.
.
Before Hefner woman were regularly beat by their husbands, there were laws on state books to determine the size of a switch a husband could use to whip them with. Women were not permitted to work, except in very select jobs, education was not promoted, women were condenmed as simple minded, incapable, and of little intellect. They could not vote, they did not have control of their children or any rights pertaining to them. They were ignored medically, told they were hysterical, and little to no sicientific research revolved around the female anatomy. All property belonged to the husband, and if she decided she really needed to leave she left with nothing.
They could not leave abusive husbands becasue they were not taught how to survive in the world. Women frequently were not permitted to speak on politics or any subject pertaining to the culture at large. They were forced to have sex when they didnt want to and the feared abandonment or beating if they refused. They were not suppose to have orgasim and most women didnt even know it was possible. They felt shame for their bodies, and suffered under false modesty.. They generally were thankful when their old husbands were dead so they could be free from the chore.
now tell me again how Heftner disrespected women? was it in how they ran his business for him? was it in how poorly he paid them? Was it in how he denied them education? was it in how he beat them? was it in how he forced them to have children? was it in how he kept them locked in the house? was it in how he didn't permit them to speak? was it in how he chained them to the kitchen? was it in how he frequently saw to it that they had good financial advice? just what was it now? .... oh yes, I remember. He allowed them to enjoy their sexuality and to explore their humanness and profit from it at the same time. He helped them to use their sexuality to empower themselves.... must be a sin its so good.
If a man degrades a woman it has nothing to do with Hefner. He learned it at home.
¤=[Post Update]=¤
If a man degrades a woman it has nothing to do with Hefner. He learned it at home.
Probably. But he has a choice to unlearn it by not following suit.
Re: Has Hugh Hefner been good for society .. or has he been a bane of modern society?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks