Posted on 10/09/2014 9:42:04 AM PDT by Morgana
Hugh Hefner has been idolized by millions of men of dubious morals for his “Playboy” lifestyle—his huge mansion, never-ending stream of celebrity guests, and, of course, the girls. He is considered the ultimate playboy, the silk-pajamaed icon of the Sexual Revolution, the man who brought “free love” to the free market and made a killing.
He’s also sexually dysfunctional.
In her emotionally mauling book Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, researcher Gail Dines writes how the infamous TV show "The Girls Next Door," which started in 2005, "provides a sanitized version of life at the Playboy mansion, never showing the reality of the experiences for the young women who live and sleep with eighty-three-year-old Hefner."
Perhaps most revealingly, she points out how Izabella St James, one of Hefner's 'ex-girlfriends,' has written that while Hefner would often often have unprotected sex with multiple women, he could not reach sexual completion without using pornography and stimulating himself.
That’s right. Porn, the most viral manifestation of the Sexual Revolution, is reducing millions of men to pathetic dependents desperately scrolling through thousands of pictures and videos—and causing many of them to become impotent. Even a man with a non-stop stream of beautiful women sleeping with him, one of the most easily recognizable sex icons of our time, cannot get off without porn.
But it is us, supposedly, who are “anti-sex.”
Those of us who hold to a Judeo-Christian view of sexual ethics are invariably accused of being “prudes” or “anti-sex.” Rejecting the Sexual Revolution and the host of new sexually transmitted diseases, incalculable amount of psychological physical pain, broken marriages, porn addictions, and aborted and dismembered “love” children that it brought with it, it seems, is the primary way to loudly declare yourself a cultural heretic.
Let me break it down. We, apparently, are the ones who are “anti-sex” because we elevate sex as an action of such significance that it should take place in a loving, committed context - marriage - one that is, incidentally, also the best context in which to raise children. We recognize that sex is an extraordinarily powerful human experience, one that we toy with or abuse at our peril. But the Sexual Revolutionaries insist that this is archaic and foolish. “More sex,” they say, “more sex, all the time and with whomever you’d like.”
Someone should make these people take economics. Basic rule: If you commodify something, you cheapen it. We’ve put cash prices on intimate human experiences, and we’ve created an industry that amounts to nothing more than a trade in human flesh. I’m no anti-capitalist, but some things should not be bought and sold. But now that millions have been pimped out by the Sexual Revolution, we do just that. We treat sex like a game or a toy. And, like over-enthusiastic children, we’ve broken it.
Here are just a very brief sampling of a few recent headlines:
- “Porn causing erectile dysfunction in young men”—Global News - “Internet pornography destroying men’s ability to perform with real women”—Daily Mail - “Does porn contribute to erectile dysfunction?”—Psychology Today
I often wonder why more people don’t see the sad irony in this. Like thirsty men and women guzzling salt water, we simply inflame our lusts with pornography, dehydrating ourselves of the true human intimacy we crave. Rather than recognizing it for the poison that it is, we claim that porn is a sex aid, or carefree recreation, or even a tool for helping a flagging marriage. Clinging to this cultural delusion is doing precisely the opposite of what the Sexual Revolutionaries promised us it would do: It’s killing sex.
Yet when people try to point this out—from self-described radical feminist Gail Dines to the Christian scholars who warned that this would happen before we even pried open Pandora’s Box—it is they who get called “anti-sex.”
Hugh Hefner built an empire selling the bodies of young, attractive women and men to millions, but his cash has not stopped him from becoming enslaved by his own product. When I consider that the very man who is envied by millions for the sexual lifestyle he leads can himself only find pleasure in the pale substitute for human intimacy he markets to the masses, it brings to mind something Christopher Hitchens once said, when responding to a Marxist in his audience. The quotation perfectly fits this circumstance as well.
“Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. There you have it," Hitchens said. "You see how far the termites have spread, and how long and well they’ve dined.”
And so they have.
“Playboy” on the other hand, always seemed rather pathetic,..........”
You are not imagining the change. Hefner had read Dr. Kinsey’s report, and believed all the lies. Hefner said I’m going to be Kinsey’s “pamphleteer”. That is what he’s done with Playboy.
Soooo gross!!!
Of course the guy is a million years old and had a stroke so I’d say he probably needs a little help in the libido dept. :-)
No but seeing that Hefner does not believe in RC teaching, I used something he would understand.
He tried to be the person who defined “cool.”
The problem is that people who think their are cool, are not.
I always thought he was the example that even ugly guys could get slutty chicks if you are rich.
8>)
Sounds like a great life to me - and no one else’s business.
bookmark
Then you will get diabetes. And the ED brought on by that.
No good comes of any kind of stimulation.
God obviously has no sense or humor. [Do I need to tag that?]
It this comment based in fact? If so, ick. If not, then the comment has no place here.
“Why would anyone go to the “Playboy Mansion” otherwise? “
There are a lot of men on this thread who would kill to go to that mansion. Just once. As long as their wives did not know about it.
And I just had a thought...they should open the mansion up to old geezers like us. We would be done by 6 Pm, and back home by 7. Wash the area down with some bleach, and the regulars can start stopping by for round 2 at 11 PM.
1913 Was a Very Bad Year .
Prior to 1913, there was no federal income tax. The states had rights and representation in Washington, D.C., there was no Federal Reserve Bank, and the federal government lived under the enumerated powers afforded within the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2835236/posts
“I always thought he was the example that even ugly guys could get slutty chicks if you are rich.”
so that’s the meaning of life eh? getting a slutty chick? Not love. not commitment. Just someone to use you for your money then when that’s gone, she’s gone. Yea. so lonely, fake.
“There are a lot of men on this thread who would kill to go to that mansion. Just once. As long as their wives did not know about it.”
I was speaking of the women. I had no idea he meant men.
If we are talking about Non Political people or things that killed America my vote is MTV. Started as a cool idea but then it became a haven of lefty thought.
The girl who is a perfect 10 for me would be a girl who is a 6, but she owns 4 semi-automatic rifles.
We’re in a new Babylon IMHO....and unless we do as God told us to in II Chronicles 7:14, we are headed the way of old Babylon....history does repeat itself.
II Chronicles 7:14
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Now that we learn he's been limp for nearly that long the punchline gets funnier.
Speak for yourself, Ell Tee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.