Hugh Hefner: Hero or Villain?

The first time I heard about Playboy was probably in middle school. I do not recall exactly when. In retrospection, it is a true testament to the enterprise’s ingenious marketing strategies that like Mickey Mouse and Disney Princess, the tuxedoed bunny belongs to a pantheon of characters that a kid in Saigon, Vietnam would subconsciously associate with American culture, without having set foot in this country itself. Elusively it hangs, the double-eared silhouette, symbol of some nefarious power that degrades and corrupts. From the perspective of a ten-year-old Catholic-raised Asian, the values championed by this magazine were nothing short of pure devilry. I marvelled at how responsible adults, some the age of my parents,  could pick up such a conglomeration of racy prose, nude shots and cheap entertainment - in short, utter trash.

Flash forward a few years. I first heard of Hugh Hefner, the founder of bunny enterprise, while reading Gloria Steinem’s “A Bunny’s Tale.” A seven-page journalistic brainchild of the assertive, talented, would-be-iconic writer reporting undercover for three days in the Mansion, it moved me almost to tears with descriptions of young women forced to wear corsets so tight-fitting they could not breathe, heels so high their feet became swollen, and bunny tails. For the men to yank. I was thirteen, and a staunch feminist; it was disturbing to even think of a man making billions of dollars off of creating fantastical nymphs - big boobs, long legs and all - that existed for the sole purpose of serving men. Steinem wrote of being examined, dissected and criticized like an object, of feeling incompetent for not being able to perfect the  “bunny dip,” of being nickled and dimed for straying an inch out of the boundaries. Bunnies had to wear false lashes and stuff their cleavage. They were encouraged to date “number-one keyholders” but expressly barred from becoming intimate with anyone else. As a girl acutely conscious of her developing body and sexuality, I marvelled at the amount of stress these women could tolerate, going to work everyday knowing that everyone expected them to look nothing short of perfect. And, by the way, how did they always look so perfect again?

When I scanned the news for interesting occurrences this past week, the image of Hugh Hefner, pyjama-clad, Playmate-hugging popped up along with headlines announcing his recent passing away. My immediate reaction -- thank God we don’t have to see any more of this. By the time I started high school Playboy had thankfully become something of an obsolete artifact, belonging to a past era when women did not have much of a voice when it comes to their depiction in mainstream media. Things are different now. But then a host of other articles caught my eye: “Hugh Hefner - a force for good,” “The literary legacy of Playboy,” “Hugh Hefner and Feminism: Playboy brought progress.” For a moment, I was stunned. How could any sane person claim that this exploitative, hedonistic profligate even cared, much less championed for, anything other than the fulfillment of his raucous desires?

The mission of this op-ed, as I originally envisioned, was simple - with jarring commentary and detailed analysis I would rebut all the arguments, one by one. Hefner a liberal advocate for diversity? Sure, he did publish works by James Baldwin, declare himself a supporter of LGBTQ rights in the face of backlash from 1950s readers against a radical short story championing homosexuality as the new norm, and feature an African American model on the magazine’s front cover. But even if any of these symbolic actions are sincere, this does not change the fact that Hefner built an enterprise centered around oppressing women. Being an anti-segregationist, gay rights activist, humanist and any other liberal -ist in the world does not mean one is also automatically a champion for gender equality. Playboy the culture-changing pioneer that started a sexual revolution to liberate women? If Playboy did anything revolutionary at all, it was probably transforming porn into mainstream media material and a Wall Street-calibre business that, while catering to a predominantly male audience, victimized and objectified women.

Or did it?

I started seriously questioning my convictions while reading the words of bunnies who worked in one of Hefner’s clubs or lived in the Mansion itself. While some compared their days with Playboy as living in prison, with no privacy or freedom and the fear of not being attractive enough, some displayed deep sadness at the lost of a man whom they accredited as a radical, non-judgemental person who launched their career. “Thank you for being a revolutionary and changing so many people's lives, especially mine,” said Jenny McCarthy, Playboy Playmate of 1993 who parlayed her success with the magazine into a personal enterprise that included acting, modelling and screenwriting. Model Lauren Hutton also had fond memories of her days shooting for the magazine, seeing them as a stepping stone for her future success.

It is easy to discredit the opinions of these women as weak-willed females trying to gain personal advancement by performing their role in the patriarchal game; despite what they may say, there will be people who find the whole situation, where an attractive woman displays her sexuality in the media to “launch a career,” revolting. However, as we fling out our judgements of the individuals and the system, it is important to keep in mind one question -- why are we judging? Are women who pose nude in magazines, music videos, porn victims of an exploitative culture that objectifies them for male sexual pleasure?  Or is it because we ourselves are affected by a patriarchal mindset that we say so?

The classic pro-sex versus anti-sex dogma in second-wave feminism, still relevant today. There is a fine line between an individual being liberated by being able to display their sexuality and being oppressed because doing so and pleasing other people is their only way to get ahead in society. It is true, though, that the liberal sexual attitudes that originally arose due to media creators like Hefner who only had the benefit of men in mind made it possible for more gender-inclusive doctrines, which also acknowledged the agency and desires of women. Does this make men like Hefner partriachal in intention but feminist in impact?