F-off Heff: on Playboy, sex, psychosocial stress and the jilted generation
I like sex. OK, that’s a pretty banal statement. Most people do. So, let me put it another way. I have no problem with people having sex as much as they want to, with as many other people as they want to. I’m happy for consenting adults to do together whatever they please.
And, it’s not just that I like sex. It’s not just that I think people should be allowed to do whatever they please in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I also think we don’t talk in public about sex enough. Our sex education fails to equip people for the lives they are likely to lead. We turn it into a forbidden topic, and in doing so, we endanger our children and each other. There are many reasons the Netherlands has a fifth of our teenage pregnancy rate, and that the average person loses their virginity a year later than the average British person. But proper, informative sex education – including ‘cartoon masturbation on video, condom demos for 11 year olds and youth-club sex quizzes’ as well as in depth discussion of emotions and desires must surely have something to do with it?
I should specify: I like sex with women.
So, why would a 25 year old bloke who likes sex with women and who thinks we should be much less prudish object to the opening of a new Playboy ‘mansion’ in London?
Well, the obvious reason is that I object to the way that Playboy promotes the idea that men like me should see women as objects – not as people, but as bums, or as legs or as pairs of breasts. I don’t know what it’s like to walk down a street and feel as though half the people that you pass are assessing you based on how a particular part of your body looks. I’ve never felt like I’m being judged in that way. I don’t imagine it’s much fun. Playboy promotes an idea that women exist for the titillation of men, that women are sexual beings first, human beings second.
I object to this. It’s offensive and it’s degrading and men should stand in solidarity with women who stand up to it.
But there is another impact of the Playboy culture too. Playboy is the exact opposite of the Dutch sex education system. Both are, in a sense, explicit. But in the Netherlands, they teach an explicit truth. What Playboy teaches is a blatant lie. Playboy tells teenage boys (who are surely one of the main audiences for their magazines) that sex is something that happens in far away mansions with women who look little like most who they know – women who have undergone huge amounts of plastic surgery. It teaches that sex sits in a realm of millionaires and money. And by teaching boys that sex is something so alien, it alienates them from their real sexuality, and it ties desire for sex to a desire for wealth and a desire to have power over women. Just as Hugh Heffner’s empire creates the culture of the bunny girl, it helps create the culture of the playboy. And what that tells boys is that they ought to aspire to be rich and to treat women like objects. And because we as a society don’t properly help them to confront and understand their sexual desires, teenage boys are drawn to the lies of the Playboy culture, and all that is tied in with that.
And those teenage boys become young men. At that point, many join one of the two audiences for Playboy. The first is the audience for the clubs where, according to Reuters, a ‘single “Sazerac*” cocktail will set a member back a cool 2,000 pounds’. The second is the audience for the magazine, websites, and the various porn channels Heffner now apparently owns (and similar porn mags/websites).
That Playboy are opening a new ‘mansion’ in London for the first time in years should come as no surprise. The growing size of each of these audiences is, surely, a product of our times. We now have the most unequal society since Victoria was on the throne. The first group – men who can afford to spend £2000 on a cocktail – simply didn’t used to exist to this extent. There have always been richer people and poorer people, but not on this scale. And, as well documented in the now famous book ‘the Spirit Level’, this inequality makes us all more stressed. If you work as a banker, you will earn millions. But you will also know that you have a huge way to fall down the wealth ladder if you make only one or two mistakes. This is hugely stressful. If you go home and try to relax after work, your mind is likely to be left back at the office. And so to banish these worries people drink heavily, and take drugs. And, it seems, they go to escapist night clubs where they enact the fantasies created for them when they were teenage boys. What a sad, lonely life in a land of make believe.
The second audience too is very much a product of our times. As Shiv Malik and Ed Howker document in the excellent ‘Jilted Generation’, 29% of men under the age of 34 now live at home – they can’t afford to leave. Many more can’t settle down – they have to move regularly around the country in search of work in our increasingly ‘flexible’ labour market. The reason young people don’t ‘settle down’ in the way our parents did is pretty simple – we can’t.
More broadly, as the New Economics Foundation have studied in detail, happiness in Britain peaked in 1976. Since then, things have gone downhill for most people. We’ve become much less economically equal. The number and membership of community clubs or groups has dropped dramatically as we’ve worked longer hours and been increasingly severed from those around us: Mrs Thatcher smashed society. And now, a generation who were told we could do anything we put our minds to are being thrown onto the scrapheap of mass youth unemployment.
And one result of all of this seems to be that the dominant emotions in the lives of huge numbers of young men** are feelings of failure, and feelings of loneliness. And so they too – or many of them – revert to the escapist fantasies of wealth and sex created for them in their teenage years.
Our economic strategy as a nation is the same as it has been since Thatcher: rely on a small number of bankers to make fictitious millions, and hope that the wealth trickles down. This leaves huge amounts of pressure on the shoulders of both the bankers, and the unemployed/underemployed. Whilst increased ‘pornification’ is partly a product of the rise of the internet, surely it is also in part a response to the stress generated by this segregation of and loneliness in our communities?
And for both of these groups of men, it is ultimately damaging. Because the sexuality and the masculinity that Playboy tell us we ought to have are not the masculinities and the sexualities that I see in my friends. And the implicit message is that this is why our lives are not what they were cracked up to be – young men are unemployed and single not because of an economy that has left a generation lonely and jobless, but because they aren’t playboys – they aren’t ‘real’ men.
The most grotesque and the most offensive thing that Playboy does is objectify and oppress women. But it also oppresses men. It tells us that we ought to be Playboys. It exploits the failure of our parents and our teachers to encourage us to understand our sexuality, and ties this sexuality into the false dreams and false desires of our age. It ties an abstract desire to be rich to the much more sensual desire for sex. And then it tells men who have achieved neither that this is not because of an economic system which has failed us all. It is because of our failure to be Playboys. We all dream about sex. But Playboy takes those dreams, and makes them about power and money. And when we complain, they tell us that we are prudish. Well, I’m not prudish. I love sex. But I’m not a Playboy. So Hugh Heffner can fuck off, and take his mansion with him.
*Nope, I have no idea what that is either
** women clearly suffer from these problems too, but they don’t seem as likely to play out their frustrations and stress in the same set of ways
PS- in reply to Gavin above:
It’s not that men should have their sexual desires repressed to the point where they are not permitted to admire a woman’s legs or whatever- as a girl, I’m just as likely to admire a guy’s chest while he’s on the beach. But the difference comes in how you exercise that admiration and sexual desire. I’m unlikely for instance, to start hurling comments and cat-calls at him as he walks past or shout at him offers of performing sexual acts on me!
Here’s the difference, illustrated perfectly by a night I had recently in a bar with a girl mate; ‘Guy A’ spotted us and came over, and politely introduced himself before engaging us in conversation. After a good while of chatting, he then asked for a number, on which point I declined and he politely said ‘no worries, nice to meet you’. ‘Guy B’ on the other hand, sees us as we walk past, admires us, and takes his arm all the way back before slapping my friend’s arse as hard as he possibly can. I turn to him and say in so many words ‘what the f**k do you think you’re doing?!’- this somehow angers him, so he takes his arm back and slaps me as hard as he can too. It’s that banal, cave-man style behaviour, that Hefner and the playboy bunny bring out- that women are there as sexual objects and should therefore be grateful for any such attention and ‘compliments’ that they get. I’m not saying that I want to walk in to a pub and have no guys look at me, but I don’t want to feel so blatantly assessed and then have to try to ignore catcalls or comments about my legs/ boobs/ bum.
No one is disputing that both sexes can be attracted to looks first- of course we are, like you say it makes sense evolutionary. But- the point is how men (and women) approach things from there on. What Hefner and the playboy model teach guys is that there is nothing other than sex after that point- the human being behind the breasts/bum doesn’t exist, so there’s no point trying to get to know her. It also teached that she only exists for that purpose- to please you, which means you have no obligation to do anything other than what will fulfill your own desires and that she should be grateful for this attention. In essense, it teaches both men and women, that women feel fulfilled by having lots of sex with men that see them as nothing else.
So yes, please please, any guys out there who don’t believe this, stand in solidarity with women and girls. And next time your girlfriend comes home froma night out and complains about having had her arse grabbed more times than she’s had cocktails, don’t say ‘well you were wearing a very short skirt, what do you expect’.
Rant over.
Great article Adam! You cleverly expanded to the bigger picture and then brought it back again to the specific in question- masterly!
Particularly like where you acknowledged that as a guy, you don’t get judged on a part of your anatomy as you walk down the street- I always think this when guys are going on about a girl’s breasts, it seems so totally unfair and I always want to say to them- ‘good job you can’t see down your trousers when you walk in the pub’- maybe I will next time.
Very much enjoyed your last line- ‘So Hugh Heffner can fuck off, and take his mansion with him.’!!
Jez xxx
I aggree with most of what is said here, but I would suggest that there is a benevolent underlying evolutionary factor at work here in my opinion.
Men are more visually sexually stimulated than women. This is probably what leads to a lot of the outcomes described here. Gay men look at other men because they are also men and as such sexually stimulated in a visual manner.
For women looks tend to matter less but not completely, most women are attracted visually at some point in a relationship. However, it is generally accepted that it is more for how a man makes her feel than how he looks. If there could be the emotive equivalent of playboy for women I am sure it would be just as popular.
Incidentally it has been shown that as women gain more equal rights in society they tend to choose men based more on their looks rather than their potential as a provider. Perhaps this is why male stripping is becoming more common, a feat that most men are not degraded by as far as I know.
I am not suggesting that this makes objectification of women a good thing at all. But rather much of this may be a product of our evolutionary distinctions and while it may be good to remove this emphasis from our society it seems that denial of this distinction is to say that a female perspective of sexual arousal should be what we all seek and that is somehow more intrinsically correct.
This dichotomy in perspective can be seen in Anne Summers. A shop that is open about sexuality it often hosts Anne Summers nights for groups of women. Most people don’t have any objections to this, but I am sure most people would be repulsed by the idea of men sitting around talking about sexy underwear and masturbation devises.
I am not really creating a point of right and wrong here, but questioning the roots of the moral high ground that says men should not be stimulated by visual elements of women.
We absolutely should see that women are a full epitome of their appearance and thoughts but perhaps we should be aware of the roots of these clubs and start to address how we might fulfil desires in a different way.
Ultimately liberalisation should allow a sexual experiences that let people to do as they like without exploitation or degradation of others.
Having had several female friends who strip and enjoy the experience and money (and no I don’t actually go to strip clubs, they are friends I have met through friends) I wonder if we are really questioning the correct element here. Or if we are projecting ourselves onto that stage and assuming that: “it would make me feel bad so it must make the women involved feel bad”.
However the 3 friends I spoke thought they were, if anything, taking advantage of dumb guys who would pay huge sums of money for her to do nothing other than take her clothes off…
It has been reported than many women feel that they use their liberty and choice to make money in this way and to suggest they are exploited when they are not is to belittle their choices.
I am not saying that exploitation does not happen, it does and too much! That should be addressed, but if there are women who want to do this and make a lot of money taking advantage of guys then our projection is reducing their options.
Anyway, I know controversial but an alternative perspective for thought as I don’t really enjoy one sided arguments.
I agree with some of this but not all. I think that proper sex education is a good idea and could have an effect on teenage pregnancy statistics (although it is hard to prove that it is the critical factor). I don’t agree that having your body parts admired by men is particularly problematic – young women should enjoy this while it lasts – it doesn’t happen much after the age of 50! Just because a man likes your legs doesn’t mean that he rules out the possibility that you might have a brain as well – and/or a personality. And while young men might aspire to being rich so that they can get more sex, lots won’t think like this whether or not the Playboy club exists. I think most young men don’t take long to work out that you can get sex with or without money. Some men want money, some want sex, and some want both. I don’t think this is avoidable. But where I do agree is that a big gap between rich and poor is a bad thing – and that expensive clubs where drinks cost £2000 is a pretty disgusting symptom of a very corrupt and unjust society. So, yes, no, yes.
Thanks, Liz! Not that I’ve read any Playboy issues recently *looks around awkwardly* but, from what I’ve seen, the quality of journalism has declined dramatically. Playboy is more about promoting its brand now than making a good magazine. That’s why it’s worth making a distinction between the Playboy of today and the Playboy of the ’60s/’70s. Then: smart and revolutionary. Now: intellectually bankrupt and just kind of offensive.
Mint – thanks. Yes, I think I agree with your good points – so don’t take these as disagreements so much as ‘yes ands’:
On the Netherlands, I kind of agree – there is no one inherrent age at which people should start having sex – that basically depends on them. However, I do think it’s interesting that a) when people are better educated they tend to have sex slightly later and b) most people in Britain who have sex for the first time at an age lower than the average go on to regret it. Of course these responses are enculutred, probably to a significant extent. But that doesn’t meant that they aren’t genuine feelings.
Given a) and b) I think it probably is on average a good thing if most people wait a little bit longer than many in the UK do. However, this is not to say that they are, in individual cases, wrong to have sex earlier.
on 2 – yes, I agree, sort of. What I say is ‘masculinities’ and ‘sexualitites’. These aren’t genetic or inate. But they do exist – while we may not wish to perpetuate them at all, Playboy makes them worse.
Jacob Bloomfield: you just made the point I wanted to make about 1960s counterculture, better than I could make it: thank you!
But so, then: Playboy no longer publishes any serious articles, and it reads like it’s for 14-yr-olds? Yuk then: it’s gone all lads-maggy: now those things really SHOULD be burned/banned!! (Is this US or UK Playboy or both?)
Good article.
A couple of quick criticisms (that don’t detract from me thinking it’s a good article):
“There are many reasons the Netherlands has a fifth of our teenage pregnancy rate, and that the average person loses their virginity a year later than the average British person. ” I don’t think there’s anything innately wrong with having sex young (don’t know what the average is, but I imagine about 16 which seems reasonable).
“Because the sexuality and the masculinity that Playboy tell us we ought to have are not the masculinities and the sexualities that I see in my friends.” suggests you think there are innate masculine characteristics. I think we should reject all gender essentialism and not identify any particular ways of behaving with one gender or the other.
Looking at Hugh Hefner now, it’s easy to call him a “weirdo” or “disturbed” as Matt said, but let’s not forget that Playboy actually played an important part in the 1960s sexual revolution and was even a magazine in which one could find good journalism.
I’m not arguing that it did not/does not objectify women and men in an unhealthy way, but I think we should give Hugh Hefner more credit. With every issue of Cosmo offering 20, 40, or 100 new ways to “please your man” it’s easy to forget that a magazine that spoke openly about sex which wasn’t hidden in the darkest corner of the rack was a huge deal back then.
Not only that, but they published intelligent interviews with some of the most important figures of the time. It’s pretty wild to think that the same magazine that seems like it was written for fourteen year old boys today once published an interview between Alex Haley and Malcolm X which eventually lead to Haley ghost-writing Malcolm X’s autobiography.
Does Hefner deserve a place in today’s culture? Maybe not. But to totally dismiss him is to overlook his important place in the fabric of the 1960s counterculture.
“I don’t know what it’s like to walk down a street and feel as though half the people that you pass are assessing you based on how a particular part of your body looks. I’ve never felt like I’m being judged in that way. I don’t imagine it’s much fun. Playboy promotes an idea that women exist for the titillation of men, that women are sexual beings first, human beings second.”
Go to a male gay bar Adam. It’s exactly how gay men view other men. And it makes you feel very weird as a straight man… I only occasionally struck lucky (so to speak) in a hetero environment but when I wasn’t looking for it in a gay bar, I had to beat them off with sticks (sorry not the best metaphor).
Yes, the whole playboy thing is unbearably seedy and it baffles me.
Thanks Matt – now ‘throne’ 🙂
Sorry for double post…did not like the use of the word weirdo in the first reply, felt a little playground.
Matt
I agree with all of this…though i am constantly bemused that, these days, anyone can view hefner as a role model rather than as a palpably disturbed and sad man
Matt.
p.s. What is a thrown? 🙂
I agree with all of this…though i am constantly bemused that, these days, anyone can view hefner as a role model rather than a palpably disturbed and strange weirdo.
Matt
p.s. What is a thrown? 🙂
I really enjoyed this, thank you. Lots of tricky subjects negotiated with sensitivity.
Also worth noting that young men are the social group most prone to suicide, and I wonder if this is because they’re plagued with such an overpowering image of what they should be.