It reveals, through the accounts of Hefner’s Playboy mansion girlfriends, that in spite of him representing the idea of “free love” and the sexual revolution, the girls’ lives are anything but free.
The picture painted of the Playboy mansion by St. James [one of Hugh’s former girlfriends] and other playmates is one of joyless, obligatory orgies, dog-mess littered carpets, hall-monitor snitches, and a control-freak master of the house.
The article goes on to compare Hefner to other domineering men who use ideologies in order to fit their desires and pleasures – one example was John Humphrey Noyes, founder of the Oneida community. For those who aren’t familiar, the Oneida community was formerly a religious sect who believed multiple sexual partners was permitted through the Bible. (Now they just make nice silverware.) The article says, and many historians agree, that Noyes developed his “Bible Commune” as a way for him to control who he wanted to sleep with at his discretion. Clearly, Hefner and Noyes are similar in their style. Oh, and interestingly enough, Noyes coined the phrase “free love,” too.
I highly suggest you read the rest of the article, but I think the summary point was:
One is tempted to view life at the Playboy mansion as a metaphor for the sexual revolution that its deed-holder did so much to bring about. What appears sexy on the surface is revealed underneath as unwanted pregnancy, social disease, and empty relationships — just as the veneer of the-House-That-Hef-Built hides the revolting sights (and smells) of dog-crap labyrinths and octogenarian orgies.
Hefner never liberated anyone by his industry. He merely found a way to control women, disguising it using words like “free love” and other ideas that came out of the sexual revolution.
Any thoughts on the article?