Hugh Hefner Dies at 91

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sickening.

Sick stuff.

[Anonymous]

I'm so creeped out that he bought the grave next to Marilyn Monroe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm so creeped out that he bought the grave next to Marilyn Monroe.

Me too. Poor Marilyn. As if she hasn't had to deal with enough creepy, predatory men in her life. Horrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so creeped out that he bought the grave next to Marilyn Monroe.

Me too. Poor Marilyn. As if she hasn't had to deal with enough creepy, predatory men in her life. Horrifying.

Exactly. Just leave her alone. Objectified even after her tragic death. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so creeped out that he bought the grave next to Marilyn Monroe.

Me too. Poor Marilyn. As if she hasn't had to deal with enough creepy, predatory men in her life. Horrifying.

Exactly. Just leave her alone. Objectified even after her tragic death. Disgusting.

Isn't that like a horror story for all women? What's to prevent some creepy coworker from buying the plot next to yours or something? Even after death, we're subject to it.

[Anonymous]

Those of you clinging to the notion that Hugh Hefner was a force for good, consider this:

Brooke Shields was 10 years old, and Eva Ionescu was 11, when naked photos of them appeared in Playboy.

That's right, Good 'ole Hef published nude photos of children in sexualised positions. Even if you don't give a rat's behind about adult women, perhaps you may care about children?

[Anonymous]

So the blame goes on the publisher if the parents gave authorization?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the blame goes on the publisher if the parents gave authorization?

You have to be a troll. Only a troll could be so stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you clinging to the notion that Hugh Hefner was a force for good, consider this:

Brooke Shields was 10 years old, and Eva Ionescu was 11, when naked photos of them appeared in Playboy.

That's right, Good 'ole Hef published nude photos of children in sexualised positions. Even if you don't give a rat's behind about adult women, perhaps you may care about children?

They have to believe this is true so they don't feel badly about buying the magazines etc. If they admit he was scum then they'd have to admit they supported someone who is guilty of exloting women and children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the blame goes on the publisher if the parents gave authorization?

Hey dude, your NAMBLA membership is about to lapse. Don't forget to renew it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you clinging to the notion that Hugh Hefner was a force for good, consider this:

Brooke Shields was 10 years old, and Eva Ionescu was 11, when naked photos of them appeared in Playboy.

That's right, Good 'ole Hef published nude photos of children in sexualised positions. Even if you don't give a rat's behind about adult women, perhaps you may care about children?

The pics were not in Playboy and it wasn't Hef publishing them. It was his Gross and they were first published in Photo Magazine and later in Sugar and Spice (both were publications owned by Playboy Press). Brooke's mother gave full rights to Gross for the pictures.

"The picture comes from a series taken by Garry Gross, an advertising photographer from New York who was regularly employed by Brooke’s mother to photograph her daughter, then a model with the Ford agency. At the time, Gross was working on a project for publication entitled The Woman in the Child, in which he wanted to reveal the femininity of prepubescent girls by comparing them to adult women. Large prints were also exhibited by Charles Jourdan on 5th Avenue in New York."

Shields used to have the rights of her images returned to her, however the court decided “these photographs are not sexually suggestive, provocative or pornographic, nor do they imply sexual promiscuity. They are pictures of a prepubescent girl posing innocently in her bath”. The court rejected all Brooke Shields’ claims and decided in Gross’s favour.

"Gross later sold the rights for the 10 prints to Richard Prince in 1992. In his artistic work, Prince appropriates pictures by rephotographing them, recontextualizing them and giving them a title. The picture of Brooke Shields, for example, is entitled Spiritual America. Gross was willing to retrocede his rights to Prince for a series of ten prints. Prince became a star of the contemporary art scene and his picture was sold at Christies in 1999 for $151,000."

– From “Controversies: A Legal and Ethical History of Photography” in the Bibliothèque Nationale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ladies, let's not start calling the women he used ho's/bimbos/sluts/whatever. Remember Mean Girls- if we call each other that, it just makes it okay for men to call us that, too.

No, it doesn't. I generally don't refer to women as "sluts" or "hos", but there is a flaw in this assertion's logic here.

And interestingly, not only do I hear my teen students occasionally referring to a male as a "slut", their language has actually evolved to include pejorative terms of a sexual nature for men (like "fuckboy", which they use as the male equivalent of "slut": this term used to mean something less negative when I was a teen, so it is interesting to see the evolution here). So teens today are becoming equal-opportunity/gender slut shamers. For better or worse.

[Anonymous]

Hugh was a great man. He was the leader of the sexually revolution. Too bad the feminists turn on their own but it is typical behavior for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you clinging to the notion that Hugh Hefner was a force for good, consider this:

Brooke Shields was 10 years old, and Eva Ionescu was 11, when naked photos of them appeared in Playboy.

That's right, Good 'ole Hef published nude photos of children in sexualised positions. Even if you don't give a rat's behind about adult women, perhaps you may care about children?

The pics were not in Playboy and it wasn't Hef publishing them. It was his Gross and they were first published in Photo Magazine and later in Sugar and Spice (both were publications owned by Playboy Press). Brooke's mother gave full rights to Gross for the pictures.

"The picture comes from a series taken by Garry Gross, an advertising photographer from New York who was regularly employed by Brooke’s mother to photograph her daughter, then a model with the Ford agency. At the time, Gross was working on a project for publication entitled The Woman in the Child, in which he wanted to reveal the femininity of prepubescent girls by comparing them to adult women. Large prints were also exhibited by Charles Jourdan on 5th Avenue in New York."

Shields used to have the rights of her images returned to her, however the court decided “these photographs are not sexually suggestive, provocative or pornographic, nor do they imply sexual promiscuity. They are pictures of a prepubescent girl posing innocently in her bath”. The court rejected all Brooke Shields’ claims and decided in Gross’s favour.

"Gross later sold the rights for the 10 prints to Richard Prince in 1992. In his artistic work, Prince appropriates pictures by rephotographing them, recontextualizing them and giving them a title. The picture of Brooke Shields, for example, is entitled Spiritual America. Gross was willing to retrocede his rights to Prince for a series of ten prints. Prince became a star of the contemporary art scene and his picture was sold at Christies in 1999 for $151,000."

– From “Controversies: A Legal and Ethical History of Photography” in the Bibliothèque Nationale

"The Woman in the Child, in which he wanted to reveal the femininity of prepubescent girls by comparing them to adult women"

"published by Playboy Press"

Yep, that's called pedophilia. We aren't dumb, creep.

[Anonymous]

I feel so bad for Brooke she's been through a lot.