Wasn't Play Boy rather progressive at all times? What's the broken clock?
I really hate peoples' misconstruing of attraction with objectification. The presence of nudity doesn't make something bad, exploitative, or wrong. The presence of someone attractive does not mean that is the entire point.
Good lord no, playboy was always super misogynistic. Hugh Hefner was MASSIVELY problematic lol.
I won't defend Hefner, but the articles genuinely were (and are) as far to the left as you'll see in any widely circulated publication. Being associated with porn gave them cover to write whatever they wanted.
Penn Jillette was a writer for playboy, and Margret Atwood, Kurt Vonnegut, Roald Dahl
Like tons of famous autrhors.
Don’t forget your favorite kids poet, Shel Silverstein
Thanks, I knew I was forgetting one, my wife actually told me most of the list and I think she said him too.
Ok, but Penn Jillette is a libertarian.
Sure, but that means on social issues (like the trans rights) he is very "progressive".
The hilarious part is that as the number and availability of nude photos has increased geometrically, buying old vintage Playboys for the articles is legitimately a thing now.
I just got the magazine for the ads I swear!
He wanted Playboy to be progressive (on abortion, weed, euthanasia, sexuality, etc), and he wanted equality for women, but he personally didn't live by those same rules. Rules for thee, not for me, etc.
That's just my opinion, though.
Dude, Maragret Atwood wrote for Playboy. Hefner was a misogynist. The magazine's porn was sexist. The articles and interviews were so incredible that it was an honor for a lot of writers to be featured in Playboy.
For sure but that doesn't mean he couldn't be progressive especially for the time. Know nothing about him tbh but many historical progressive figures are pretty problematic
There is definitely something to be said of context. Any learned feminist should know that. First and second wave feminism would be (and are) downright toxic by today's standards, but back then, that veneer of vicious independence was absolutely necessary when pitted against that very ingrained patriarchy of the time.
Not to say the patriarchy is solved by any means, just that fewer and fewer positions of power are gendered by expectation.
Yeah and it should be noted that second and third wave feminism weren’t happening separately, most of their existence was simultaneous, it was thesis and antithesis, call and response. Second did things and third called it out. Anti porn feminism came about criticizing men taking sexual advantage of women and then the third responded with shit like all women porn collectives creating porn by women for women and presenting the statement that porn isn’t inherently exploitative, men use porn to exploit women for sexual pleasure and financial gain.
Criticism of playboy from a feminist perspective is deeply rooted in the second wave. It was Steinem who led it and she was as many iconic second wave theorists were, not wrong but incomplete. (Side note, I’m mentioning her a lot and need to point out her role in the satanic panic, she’d 1000% be into Qanon today). But Steinem wouldn’t care that playboy published everything from Hunter S. Thompson to Margaret Atwood to a frank discussion about her transition with Wendy Carlos.
They absolutely exploited women’s bodies to sell good journalism, but it was damn good journalism, so in the end it’s just kinda weird
While Hefner was a bit of an enigma, he was definitely chauvinistic in his private life in my opinion, but Playboy and even Hefner himself was pretty left on social issues including being sex positive and equality for women.
It was a mix. Hefner was an absolute pig, and Steinem’s famous expose must be acknowledged here. But also it was the main magazine of counterculture. They would publish feminists. They would publish anyone interesting.
Wendy Carlos actually had an iconic interview with them talking about her transition and it was in part because their articles were willing to treat her like a person and take her seriously. Their porn on the other hand, once again, super fucking misogynistic.
Attitudes about gays and transgenders actually got worse coming from the 1960s into the 1980s. The sexual revolution actually created a generation far more open and accepting, and the culture that lead to things like the Satanic panic, war on drugs, and resurgence of patriotism and religiosity in the United States actually made things worse for gay and trans.
Indeed, and in a broader view, humanity has literally always had trans people as long as it has had a concept of gender. So "in the 80s" is emphasizing the cultural lie that acceptance is a recent phenomenon, when actually bigotry about it is the recent phenomenon. The 80s were certainly not an amazing time for LGBTQ folk, but Playboy at least would have been sex-positive and accepting.
So this isn't a "stopped clock is right twice a day" situation, because sex-positive spaces and media would have been more reliable clocks than the culture at large, when it came to this subject.
I think it’s also important to understand the real nuances there. For trans people it got worse into the 80s, like a lot worse. For cis gay people it got different. In the 60s being openly gay would probably get you fired and arrested and it was considered a mental illness. And the sexual revolution was somewhat open minded, but not particularly, better but by no means good. By the 80s it was a culture war issue. The people who’d discounted you as mentally ill were now crying for your death by aids as a sinner spreading your sin. Where before they could ignore you now they were acknowledging you.
For trans people it was just unequivocally worse. In the 60s you were a medical curiosity and possibly a cure to homosexuality. Your forebears had been so aggressively stamped out that the cultural hate had been somewhat forgotten. But by the 80s everyone had found a reason to hate you. The right considered you no different from gay people except sneakier, and second wave feminism had decided that you were antithetical to feminism and deserved to be shunned. All while if you weren’t pretty and straight you couldn’t even get access to hormones and if you couldn’t completely bury your past your job options mostly involved sex work.
Not to mention aids
Led to a big dip in the arts as well.
Look at Tony Best Musical winners/nominees from the 90s. The only truly memorable ones (and probably the only ones still touring) are Rent (surprise, AIDS!) and Miss Saigon. Then a couple of Disney shows (Lion King and Beauty and the Beast) and that’s about it.
Starts picking up in 2001 again with Full Monty and The Producers…2002, Mama Mia…2003, Hairpray…2004, Wicked…2005, Spamalot…2006, Jersey Boys and The Wedding Singer…and so on. Nearly every season has had an amazing blockbuster show that has (or will have) staying power. The late 80s and 90s were a total rut for that.
I’d even say it started falling off earlier, circa 1979. What did we get after Sweeney Todd? The entire decade, best shows were Cats, Phantom, Joseph, Into the Woods and Les Mis. That’s about it. And a lot of people aren’t Cats-people.
The joke itself does a kind of bait & switch, it makes you think it’s going to be a trans joke, but then the last line sort of subverts expectations. The trans portion is necessary for the setup, as the punchline doesn’t make much sense without it, but it’s more a gender inequality joke.
Thanks peter
It's almost like a garden path sentence.
A gender path sentence, if you will
I won't.
I actually love this
Why do people say “okay, but also….”
When not responding to anyone having said anything? Why is this a thing?
okay, but also have you tried spicing up your non sequitors with some arbitrary segues?
It's just new slang like mfw, few, fml, catfish, dm, etc It's helpful to have a sort of common language over so many cultures by all sharing internet culture. When you see something like 'okay, but also' you know that likelu even is the point, that there is something they wanna put out there that they know wouldn't have a normal opportunity to and it's being playful about it not taking themselves seriously.
Oh wait was that a rhetorical question?
Not rhetorical. Seriously asking.
Okay cool, I hope you get more answers and opinions than just mine then!
So, for anyone that’s curious, testicles are weird pain wise. They have a lot of pressure sensitive nerves on the surface of the testicles themselves. But if you, for example, were to hypothetically push a needle like object into the center of a testicle. You would feel the pressure of the needle pushing on the testicle, but once it pops through there is very little sensation at all.
Edit: Even though this is true this is NOT medical advice. Do not do this as it could have potentially serious consequences. I feel like I shouldn’t have to say this, but here we are.
Not the worst, although I'm not a fan of the continuation of the idea everyone seems to have that bottom surgery for trans women is the same as "chopping off your dick and/or balls".
Well sometimes a joke likes to be vulgar and ridiculous to distract you so the punchline hits harder
I call mine a total dickectomy, personally
Where do they put the balls, and therefore, the pee?
Pee is stored in the ovaries.
I see. One can learn new things every day while surfing the web
Facts. This is why men don't pee and women don't poop (balls actually store solid waste).
It's a necessary step of the process, how would a woman be able to transition without any parts available?
/s I'm sorry my mind went there.
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
