Last week the news broke that Hugh Hefner had passed away at the age of 91. And now, we’re told that the life of the billionaire builder of the Playboy empire will be made into a movie starring Jared Leto.
In the reporting of Hefner’s passing, the response from the public, and the quick announcement that his life would be celebrated in a movie that already has an A-list star attached, society reveals what a lot of us already know to be true: you can get away with almost anything, if you are a rich, white, cis man.
“Would Hefner’s ‘good’ points have been so widely celebrated to the point of justifying his atrocious behaviour if he hadn’t been a white cis male?”
As the headlines rolled the past week, I questioned how, in a 21st century developed country, something like the Playboy Mansion was not only allowed to exist, but was revered as aspirational? I was astounded to learn that some people not only herald him as a hero, but there are those who also considered him a feminist. Reasons cited for this mind-boggling mindset include Hugh Hefner’s role in the sexual revolution, and his funding of the first rape kit.
But would Hefner’s ‘good’ points have been so widely celebrated to the point of justifying his atrocious behaviour towards the women he profited from, if he hadn’t been a white cis male? Yes, some of the many things he did in his life were positive, because human beings are not comic book villains, made up solely of good or bad characteristics. That doesn’t mean it excuses a plethora of other sins - especially when the good he chose to do could well be argued to be within his own selfish interests.
“Hugh Hefner built an empire on women’s sexuality, profiting from their supposed ‘liberation’ in his magazine.”
Hefner’s support of women’s sexual health and liberation is well within his own interests. He built an empire on women’s sexuality, profiting from their supposed ‘liberation’ in his magazine. This strange dichotomy of exploiting women whilst supporting their liberation is less strange when you consider the modern male ‘feminist’ – eagerly encouraging sex positivity to women without really allowing them any of their own agency. Hefner’s former ‘Playmates’ describe being poorly paid and poorly treated, despite being framed as ‘liberated’ by the billionaire. It served his interest to support this one element of women’s rights, because it meant more women would clamour for the lifestyle he supposedly offered (a lifestyle which fed his own billionaire bank account).
You don’t have to look particularly hard to find stories from multiple former ‘Playmates’, about the restrictive and degrading lifestyle they were made to live within the house. From a strict 9pm curfew, to the sexist standard of appearance, to Hefner’s sexual ‘bedtime routine’, these women appear to have been kept more like pets than companions, right down to being paraded around for others to admire. Have any woman you know read the accounts from formed ‘Playmates’ and ask her – is this what liberation looks like to you?
“In a society that consistently tells women their only value is in their looks, being chosen as a Playmate would seem like the ultimate validation.”
Many argue that the women consented to be there, which is true. But this ‘choice’ is not so black and white within the context of a patriarchal society, where the rich have power and the poor have to do what they feel they need to get by. Many of the women invited to live with Hefner in his supposed paradise were from low-income backgrounds, so what he offered them was more than they could ever imagine having access to. Not only that, but in a society that consistently tells women their only value is in their looks, being chosen as a Playmate would seem like the ultimate validation.
How consenting is a woman’s choice when it is framed by so much sexism and control? If someone with as much power, influence and, bizarrely, respect as Hefner had targets vulnerable women, offering them what might appear like a lifeline, at what point does this become classed as manipulation? Far from being liberated, from where I’m standing it appears that these women were more conned by a glitzy advertisement of a luxury lifestyle, only to be consumed by a darker underworld.
“We should focus on the lives and rights of sex workers, and celebrate the real bringers of women’s sexual revolution – women.”
If I’m honest, I think that there should be a film made about the life of Hugh Hefner – but not a glamourised Hollywood biopic with a hot-right-now star playing the titular role. Rather, it should be a documentary-style film analysing just how the Playboy empire was allowed to exist, and insight into life within the mansion from former residents. It should focus on the lives and rights of sex workers, and celebrate the real bringers of women’s sexual revolution – women.
Misogyny and making money off women’s bodies is not a concept that died with Hugh Hefner – far from it. We need to keep addressing the issues that the Playboy empire highlights, and the fact that Hefner could live the lifestyle that he did until the ripe old age of 91 years… and then have his life celebrated on the silver screen for future generations to ‘admire’.
