So this fantasyland of “free love” was really about emotional manipulation of women who were financially and emotionally vulnerable.
And so it begins. Hugh Hefner, the Playboy King is dead, and the battle for his legacy is on. Predator/exploiter/misogynist? Maverick/ally/visionary? Both can be true, and their intersection is complicated.
To be truly sex positive is to have a culture of enthusiastic consent, not uneasy manipulation. I believe Holly Madison’s account, and deem the Playboy mansion a fail at being sex positive. The entire Playboy brand was never an equal opportunity space of freedom, rather a space for free male sexual fantasy, and some limited intellectual edginess. I’m glad Alex Haley could do good work there. Black trans writer Janet Mock also got her first paid journalism job there, (although she had to mention her bra size in her cover letter to get an interview). If, like my old boss, you’re a guy who liked the articles, (or any other good they did) go ahead and claim that. Both can be true. But I hope you’ll acknowledge that such goodies came at a price for women. I don’t want to invalidate the positives of the institution. But please, let’s not use that good to try to sanitize the misogyny of the institution. Really. Just don’t. {read}