The first copy of Playboy I ever saw belonged to my grandfather, Hyman Drubner, who kept a stack of them not so well hidden behind the awful yellow couch he used to spend his Sunday's on watching golf.
I had seen him at parties and weddings drinking and smoking, and he was a very good dancer. I thought he was pretty cool, and that to be a man meant to have a cache of this kind of contraband. And soon enough I had my own collection of greasy girlie mags to go along with my slingshots and firecrackers, before eventually trading up to real girls, because as you get older, the clubhouse gets better.
And then I found myself actually writing for the men's mags -- including Screw and Hustler, which were ground zero for relentless freedom of speech in the form of tasteless comedy, brutal political satire, and of course, naked ladies.
My new book, Dirty! Dirty! Dirty! -- Of Playboys, Pigs, and Penthouse Paupers, An American Tale of Sex and Wonder ($15.95, Soft Skull Press) is a pop-culture history as seen from the dark side of the newsstand, rocking and rolling through sixty years of American history for adults only, from Eisenhower to Clinton, and focusing on the Four Horsemen of Pornography and their progeny -- Hugh Hefner and Playboy, Bob Guccione and Penthouse, Larry Flynt and Hustler, and Al Goldstein and Screw -- along with a cavalcade of stars including Lenny Bruce, Jayne Mansfield, and John Lennon, who were also soldiers in the war for unfettered freedom of expression.
When I began writing Dirty! Dirty! Dirty!, Gay Talese, who hadn't yet figured out my point of view, and was oddly suspect that I was somehow anti-porn, practically screamed at me: "I profited from those magazines, every writer has... We got freedom thanks to the pornographers, not the fucking elite like Alfred Knopf and Farrar, Straus & Giraux. We need a free society, and freedom is not won by literary tea parties and well meaning, virtuous academies, it is won by disreputable people like Al Goldstein."
These days you can push a button on your Internet machine and see the most pernicious smut ever foisted on human kind, and for free. I suppose for some this rates as some sort of victory, but I am not so sure. I think when it comes to sex, there should be more of a discovery process, and pictures of naked ladies need to be held in a more sacred light. In other words, boys need to steal them from their fathers and uncles and grandfathers as I did, and as has been happening for decades before me. Gone, I am afraid, is the magic of the centerfold, the sense of anything being risqué, or naughty, or even special. Everything now seems so lurid and tawdry. As I say in Dirty! Dirty! Dirty!, with all of this technological marvel at our disposal, what happened to the wonder?
So right now I want to go back, way back, as they say, and so, for all of you freedom-of-speech-junkies, pop-culture vultures, and anyone interested in sex and policitcs in America -- because unfortunately they are hopelessly intertwined -- here's a slide show based on Dirty! Dirty! Dirty! and a time when men's magazines mattered.
Even though I know you are only here to read the articles.
Hugh Hefner Launches Playboy, 1953
1 of 14
FIRST SLIDE
PREVIOUS SLIDE
NEXT SLIDESHOW
Hefner supposedly pinched freely from Esquire and the lesser-known Man's World -- both former employers -- to come up with his own version of the modern men's mag.
Snootily aiming above the heads of the jocks who had beaten him to all the trim in high school, the first issue planted its stake as the handbook for indoor living -- no tromping through the woods and drinking beer in cans for the Playboy! -- and therein lied its genius, promoting cosmopolitan sophistication for the much-neglected urban male, and fabulizing a lifestyle that included actually talking to women about art and philosophy before luring them into your well-appointed boudoir.
Hefner not only legitimized the nudie magazine, he made it cool to be smart. Unfortunately, it was all a put-on -- Hefner's track record of dating the most negative-stereotype-reinforcing bimbos, almost all of them on the Playboy payroll, is the dead giveaway that he really has no respect for the elevation of the fairer sex. At the end of the day, despite a run of incredible writers and a puffed-up intellectual agenda that was often at the vanguard of left-wing progressivism (and the genius of art director Art Paul, who elevated magazine design to something resembling fine art), Playboy was all about boys and their toys.
As one urban bachelor later remarked to me, "Thanks to Playboy I need a Maserati to get laid, but thanks to Screw magazine I can get a hand job for twenty bucks!"
Hefner supposedly pinched freely from Esquire and the lesser-known Man's World -- both former employers -- to come up with his own version of the modern men's mag.
Snootily aiming above the heads of the jocks who had beaten him to all the trim in high school, the first issue planted its stake as the handbook for indoor living -- no tromping through the woods and drinking beer in cans for the Playboy! -- and therein lied its genius, promoting cosmopolitan sophistication for the much-neglected urban male, and fabulizing a lifestyle that included actually talking to women about art and philosophy before luring them into your well-appointed boudoir.
Hefner not only legitimized the nudie magazine, he made it cool to be smart. Unfortunately, it was all a put-on -- Hefner's track record of dating the most negative-stereotype-reinforcing bimbos, almost all of them on the Playboy payroll, is the dead giveaway that he really has no respect for the elevation of the fairer sex. At the end of the day, despite a run of incredible writers and a puffed-up intellectual agenda that was often at the vanguard of left-wing progressivism (and the genius of art director Art Paul, who elevated magazine design to something resembling fine art), Playboy was all about boys and their toys.
As one urban bachelor later remarked to me, "Thanks to Playboy I need a Maserati to get laid, but thanks to Screw magazine I can get a hand job for twenty bucks!"
Hefner supposedly pinched freely from Esquire and the lesser-known Man's World -- both former employers -- to come up with his own version of the modern men's mag.
Snootily aiming above the heads of the jocks who had beaten him to all the trim in high school, the first issue planted its stake as the handbook for indoor living -- no tromping through the woods and drinking beer in cans for the Playboy! -- and therein lied its genius, promoting cosmopolitan sophistication for the much-neglected urban male, and fabulizing a lifestyle that included actually talking to women about art and philosophy before luring them into your well-appointed boudoir.
Hefner not only legitimized the nudie magazine, he made it cool to be smart. Unfortunately, it was all a put-on -- Hefner's track record of dating the most negative-stereotype-reinforcing bimbos, almost all of them on the Playboy payroll, is the dead giveaway that he really has no respect for the elevation of the fairer sex. At the end of the day, despite a run of incredible writers and a puffed-up intellectual agenda that was often at the vanguard of left-wing progressivism (and the genius of art director Art Paul, who elevated magazine design to something resembling fine art), Playboy was all about boys and their toys.
As one urban bachelor later remarked to me, "Thanks to Playboy I need a Maserati to get laid, but thanks to Screw magazine I can get a hand job for twenty bucks!"
The first copy of Playboy I ever saw belonged to my grandfather, Hyman Drubner, who kept a stack of them not so well hidden behind the awful yellow couch he used to spend his Sunday's on watching golf...
The first copy of Playboy I ever saw belonged to my grandfather, Hyman Drubner, who kept a stack of them not so well hidden behind the awful yellow couch he used to spend his Sunday's on watching golf...
When I was just a middle schooler
I couldn’t read and write so well;
My parents thought I was a drooler
Until one day in our motel
They sent me out to do room cleaning;
And as I did I found while leaning
Under a bed a Playboy stash
And saw the model’s naked gash.
So after ogling her pictures
I tried to read her interview
But didn’t have the slightest clue.
Till I remembered teacher’s strictures
“That’s what the dictionary’s for”
So kept them in my bedside drawer.
yes i totally agree with the statement that sex magazines has made this world a better place,according to me these are much better than watching porn, seriously!!. these give you the exact knowledge, what is sex,precaution's,right age and everything. well in old time's there were no television or computer's but there were magazine's!
ajay_lobo: yes i totally agree with the statement that sex magazines
I am glad that I did not have the access today's kids have. I saw enough and learned enough and managed to read, study and have outside interests. I've no idea how I would have responded to everything on the computer.
Karl_Wilder: I am glad that I did not have the access
My friends and I were discussing how as teens we had to rummage in the dumpster behind the MP barracks for skin mags but now all a kid has to do is log onto his computer and there is all the porn in the world available to them. If we had that kind of access as kids we'd have lock our bedroom doors and never came out...and it certainly wouldn't have been video games we'd be playing with!
salesdude: My friends and I were discussing how as teens we
Playboy was the first magazine to stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians. Hefner has consistently said that the government should stay out of people's bedrooms. Playboy was also instrumental in liberating women from the stereotypes of the 20s - 50s, such as it’s not okay for women to have casual sex, women shouldn't have sexual appetites, and all that other hogwash.
I love the Playboy Forum, and especially enjoy the editorials by women on these issues. I’ll be a subscriber for life.
niko73: Playboy was the first magazine to stand up for the
I think it's a little sad that these sex magazines were just for men. I sure didn't get any thrills from seeing them as a kid -- messages were received, just not very sex-positive ones for a girl :(
way2sunny: I think it's a little sad that these sex magazines
but would it have mattered? there is porn today made specifically for women and I dont think its very popular. I have a few girl friends who readily admit they love porn but they watch the same kind guys watch.
kadellagroove: but would it have mattered? there is porn today made
Maybe it would have -- I was thinking of the experience of seeing men's sex magazines (the only kind) as a kid, and getting the message that my part was going to be providing what was depicted for the men in my future, and that's what it was all about -- it didn't look like anything to look forward to from a girl's perspective, more intimidating and I was creeped out -- definitely not fun or exciting, like men describe the experience of finding their Dad's stash as kids.
That's not the same thing as internet porn that's available now for adults. I still don't like it (I've given it plenty of chances too) perhaps because I don't have any positive feelings from those first glimpses.
way2sunny: Maybe it would have -- I was thinking of the
Ask anyone whose marriage was destroyed by pornography, who has lost their job because of their use of pornography at the workplace and see if they think the world was made a better place by sex magazines.
argenteum: Ask anyone whose marriage was destroyed by pornography, who has
There is no evidence that pornography causes people to get divorced. The fact is marriage fails or succeeds based on respect, not pornography. Anti porn Christians get divorced at the same rate as atheists.
DaveMB: There is no evidence that pornography causes people to get
I agree. I know plenty of couples (myself being included) who enjoy sharing porn. To think a man is going to give up porn is silly & naive. In my opinion, as long as it is not violent or abusive and everyone is a consenting adult, it's healthy. Lack of trust & love causes most divorce, not porn .
canadagirl76: I agree. I know plenty of couples (myself being included)
Dave Just because you deny something doesn't mean it isn't real. For you to believe that an addiction to porn can't and doesn't destroy marriages is just plain ignorant.
Justice_Goodyear: Dave Just because you deny something doesn't mean it isn't
Historical technical note: The reason VHS won out over Sony's Betamax was because JVC cut a deal with West Coast porn producers to supply them with cheap tapes, and gave them discounted duplicators. That was all she wrote... {smile}
Miles "Historical Tech Support" Long
MilesLong: Historical technical note: The reason VHS won out over Sony's
Porn was also a driving force with regards to the internet, the cam corder and digital cameras since all these added a degree of privacy with regards to sex.
DaveMB: Porn was also a driving force with regards to the
Every time I read an article supporting or rejecting porn, there are all these comments from folks who either support it sold at the checkout counter, or want it washed from existence.
Every time I read a complaint about Citizens United making a corporation a person, I have to laugh out loud, because these are generally the same people that equate porn with free speech.
I know, I know... it's not your issue, so you can't possibly make the logical leap that when you use something as sacred as the First Amendment to justify pornography, it most certainly can be used to justify just about any kind of possible speech. If a picture of a pornographic act is speech, so is a dollar bill.
Quit abusing the constitution. It allows them to abuse it against you.
Original_Intent: Every time I read an article supporting or rejecting porn,
Most people believe you should have as much speech as possible with the exception of death threats, libel, slander etc. Since porn is entertainment, akin to reading a novel or watching a movie, most want it unrestricted with the exception of violent porn or when minors are involved.
Citizens United is different for several reasons. First of all intelligent people disagree with the supreme court that money is speech. For example I have the right to talk to a cop if I believe he shouldn't write me a ticket. On the other hand, I don't have the right to offer money to convince him he should not write a ticket.
Secondly corporations are not people. Corporations are constructs that protect the owners from liability. If I cause you some kind damage or injury, I'm responsible, even if it was an accident. If my corporation causes damage or injury, I'm not responsible. For example stock holders in BP don't have to worry about plaintiffs coming for their assets.
Finally most people are aware that allowing politicians to be bought is especially toxic for democracy. There should be restrictions just like there are noise restrictions in residential areas, just like there are restrictions when it comes to broadcasting. For example, if me and all my friends were to broadcast at the same frequency as Rush Limbaugh, no one would be able to hear him. Likewise allowing Exxon to spend unlimited money would drown out all other voices.
DaveMB: Most people believe you should have as much speech as
I was an editor at Playboy for 8 debauched years. Fun fow a while, but eventually I got jaded. As for the Carter interview, Carter said the "lust in my heart" line to offset fears about his strong religious views.
hp_blogger_John Blumenthal: I was an editor at Playboy for 8 debauched years.
The current trends that seem to dismay you are all specifically related to the rise of sex magazines, so you can't really praise the rise of the latter and bemoan the former. The pornography lobby's rise to prominence in the 1980's and 90's is partially to blame for the current setbacks in women's rights today due to the normalizing of porn aesthetics that pervade and degrade our culture.
egaeus: The current trends that seem to dismay you are all
When I was just a middle schooler
I couldn’t read and write so well;
My parents thought I was a drooler
Until one day in our motel
They sent me out to do room cleaning;
And as I did I found while leaning
Under a bed a Playboy stash
And saw the model’s naked gash.
So after ogling her pictures
I tried to read her interview
But didn’t have the slightest clue.
Till I remembered teacher’s strictures
“That’s what the dictionary’s for”
So kept them in my bedside drawer.
Please see more at http://poemsonaffairsofstate.blogspot.com/
I love the Playboy Forum, and especially enjoy the editorials by women on these issues. I’ll be a subscriber for life.
That's not the same thing as internet porn that's available now for adults. I still don't like it (I've given it plenty of chances too) perhaps because I don't have any positive feelings from those first glimpses.
Miles "Historical Tech Support" Long
Every time I read a complaint about Citizens United making a corporation a person, I have to laugh out loud, because these are generally the same people that equate porn with free speech.
I know, I know... it's not your issue, so you can't possibly make the logical leap that when you use something as sacred as the First Amendment to justify pornography, it most certainly can be used to justify just about any kind of possible speech. If a picture of a pornographic act is speech, so is a dollar bill.
Quit abusing the constitution. It allows them to abuse it against you.
Citizens United is different for several reasons. First of all intelligent people disagree with the supreme court that money is speech. For example I have the right to talk to a cop if I believe he shouldn't write me a ticket. On the other hand, I don't have the right to offer money to convince him he should not write a ticket.
Secondly corporations are not people. Corporations are constructs that protect the owners from liability. If I cause you some kind damage or injury, I'm responsible, even if it was an accident. If my corporation causes damage or injury, I'm not responsible. For example stock holders in BP don't have to worry about plaintiffs coming for their assets.
Finally most people are aware that allowing politicians to be bought is especially toxic for democracy. There should be restrictions just like there are noise restrictions in residential areas, just like there are restrictions when it comes to broadcasting. For example, if me and all my friends were to broadcast at the same frequency as Rush Limbaugh, no one would be able to hear him. Likewise allowing Exxon to spend unlimited money would drown out all other voices.