HUGH HEFNER THINKS YOU'RE A SEX OBJECT, BIG SURPRISE!

Someone on my vlog informed me that a woman was behind the new Hugh Hefner documentary – “Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist, Rebel” apparently this was supposed to make me oooh and awww. I am supposed to feel challenged by the fact that a woman is making a film about a rich douchebag who painted the way for other douchebags to jack off to women and view them as mere objects. A woman made it so it must be GOOD! I mean, women can’t hurt other women right? She must be an uber-feminist who is just totally open and liberated – who else would paint such a pretty picture of a dirty chauvinist pig like ole’ Hugh.

I was reading an interview here: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/08/hugh_hefner.html on a New York news website about the upcoming documentary film. The title in itself was enough to piss me off: “Hugh Hefner on His New Documentary, and Why All of His Critics Are Wrong”

No – not all of his critics are wrong, but thanks for the blanket statement. Of course, a lot of people defend Hugh and claim he is some sort of savior of the sixties. In fact, the article went so far to paint him as some sort of pornographic martyr – “started the men’s lifestyle magazine in the early fifties with a small amount of money he had scraped together”, what a fucking trooper! The film by Bridgette Berman is titled, “Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist, Rebel”. I nearly cried from laughter when I read “activist”. I mean, are you seriously stating that this man, of all people, is an activist? Oh right! Tons of liberal dudes declare him the forerunner in the so-called sexual revolution.
That whole time period when liberal dudes decided they wanted the world to know how much they loved women by turning them into fuck toys and selling them as such to the masses. They of course turned this into something else, something other than a heterosexual jack off fest – they started lying about how it liberated women. Apparently ‘free sex’ meant sex that could be bought and sold through pornography which, during the time of the so-called sexual revolution, was somehow liberating for everyone.

This must be the activism this journalist is speaking of…I mean, what is more progressive then starting a business on exploiting and degrading women?
In the interview, Hugh was asked what criticism stung him the most, personally. Hugh answered

The criticisms that troubled me the most came from the feminists, from liberals, at the very beginning. I was blindsided by them and didn’t know what they were talking about. The notion that I had demeaned women, or slighted women — I didn’t have any clue as to how to respond to that, I didn’t know how to make any sense of it. I saw myself as being on the side of female liberation. I always felt that the sexual revolution was something Playboy played a part in — and that went hand in hand with the women’s movement. Women were the beneficiaries, clearly, of the sexual revolution — because it was they who’d been held in bondage and treated like chattel for thousands of years.

Oh my GOD! The feminists! I don’t believe you, Hugh! But clearly, women benefit from a magazine made for men, selling women as masturbatory accessories. He must have spent a lot of time in self-denial to believe he actually was on the side of the women’s movement. He must be absolutely stunned to not understand why people would think he demeans women. I mean, he didn’t just make billions of dollars off their bodies for decades or anything. He didn’t just feed the patriarchy and build an empire on it, or anything. It’s pathetic – he tries to play victim, much like Larry Flynt and anyone with half a brain knows that’s complete bullshit.

Of course, old Hugh went on and on about the women’s movement, how there was Puritanism in the movement since the beginning. I didn’t find this comment shocking since it’s always used by misogynists to try and discredit the women’s movement. It wasn’t the movement he wanted, he wanted women sucking his dick and telling him he was special – if you didn’t do this, you were a bloody feminazi puritan.

Nothing stunned me, however, like the next question and answer for Mr. Hefner. He was asked to elaborate on why he admitted to saying women were sex objects. Hefner stated. “In the film, to the accusation that you represent women as sex objects, you say that they are sex objects. Can you elaborate?

Women are sex objects, but that’s only a part of who they are. If women weren’t sex objects, then we’d never have a second generation. It’s that interaction between the two sexes that makes the world go 'round. It is the center of civilization. It’s why women wear lipstick.”

You heard it, sisters. This is a man who is apparently for female liberation – I mean; he must be if he thinks in this heterosexist bubble. Women and men go together, thus they have sex, and thus women are sex objects and wear lipstick. It’s just the way it is! It’s liberating!
We aren’t born sex objects; in fact, we are MADE into sex objects by assholes like Hugh Hefner! To believe we are born partly sex objects is to believe in our lack of humanity. To not understand that wearing lipstick and belonging exclusively to the opposite sex (unless, of course it’s pornified girl on girl heterosexist fantasy) to believe that these things are somehow liberating is to admit you are a fucking idiot who knows NOTHING about women’s liberation other than how to keep women down.

I hope you enjoy reading the rest of this trash interview with a disgusting waste of life like Hugh Hefner. I also don’t believe I’m being harsh on the old man – I mean he’s responsible for countless rape comics in this magazine for decades, assisting victim blamers and sociopaths.
Of course this film will do well – why? Because there are tons of Bill Maher enthusiasts hanging out, waiting for their privilege to be confirmed. All I can say, is fuck you Hugh, you pathetic misogynist.