It’s official: Playboy is a hate site; Update: Playboy pulled it

posted at 1:05 pm on June 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Playboy likes to claim that it prints pictures of naked women as a means to empower them.  Uh-huh. It seems that Playboy and Hugh Hefner only like to empower women to the extent that they’ll take off their clothes, but when they open their mouths and have an opinion … well, then it’s time to roll out the demonization.  They have a new feature on the website that features — and I’m not making this up — conservative women they’d like to “hate-f**k” (link NSFW):

Obama promised us the dream of post-partisanship—a cuckoo land where party affiliation and factional animosity were forgotten. Turn on cable news or open any newspaper, however, and you’ll quickly discover that the dream has yet to materialize. But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate [f**k]. We may despise everything these women represent, but goddammit they’re hot. Let the healing begin.

The hatred is certainly apparent on all ten of the entries on this list.  The boss hits #1 on this list, Amanda Carpenter’s on it too, but perhaps the entry on Mary Katharine Ham demonstrates their misogynism best:

The Hate F**k Rating: You get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant. Karma’s a bitch, isn’t it?

Let’s be clear about terms here.  A “hate f**k” sounds like something perhaps just short of rape, but degrading enough to entertain the perverted twerps at Playboy.  The fact that the magazine published this piece of effluvium should be enough to show that everyone in the editorial process, from the writer to Hef himself, don’t want women empowered.  They want silent sex objects, and when confronted with women whose opinions differ from theirs, want them humiliated.

This one on Megyn Kelly is too pricelessly ironic:

The Hate F**k Rating: You need to flagellate your genitals for wanting to f**k this woman.

Isn’t the entire Playboy empire based on self-flagellation of genitals?

Last I saw, Playboy’s losing so much money they have to cut back on the number of editions they print.  Hopefully, that number approaches zero soon.

Update: Tommy Christopher concurs (link fixed).

Update II: Yid with Lid notes that the list also included another friend, Pamela Geller, and adds this:

The internet is a weird place, any Idiot with a computer can start writing.  Some like myself are lucky enough to build up a following. There are times that we object to people’s ideas and make fun of them. We even make fun of their political crutches like TOTUS. But there are lines that most of us know not to cross, Guy Cimbalo leapfrogged over that line. His So Right it’s Wrong is not only an attempt to denigrate these fine writers, but all women, actually all writers everywhere. It has no other purpose, it doesn’t inform, it isn’t funny, the article’s only purpose is to be mean.

In my youth I read Playboy often, and never thought the pictures were pornography, but Guy Cimbalo attempt at writing at Playboy.com, THAT is pornography at it worst.

May I suggest a strongly worded email to the Lou Mohn, lmohn@playboy.com, Playboy’s publisher?

You may!

Update III: Playboy has pulled the article, with no explanation, Allahpundit reported on Twitter.  I think we know the reason, though.

Update IV: Caleb Howe saved it from the memory hole.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

And now, Playboy has had the good common sense to take down their article. HotAir? Not so much.

orange on June 2, 2009 at 11:50 AM

So, did you agree the playboy article?

Johan Klaus on June 2, 2009 at 3:18 PM

And now, Playboy has had the good common sense to take down their article. HotAir? Not so much.

orange on June 2, 2009 at 11:50 AM

You’re not making any sense, orange. Some of the comments here have been on the line or maybe over it, but the posting itself is an alert to and critique of a truly despicable piece of so-called writing. Or do you think the person raising the hue and cry is as guilty as the person committing the crime?

evergreen on June 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Playboy actually writes that Obama is trying to create a ‘post-racial’ world. That’s the biggest, hairiest freakin’ whopper right there. When someone does speak their mind, look what happens. Send out the dogs. The dogs with a bottle of lotion apparently.

Can’t believe GQ didn’t come up with this idea.

Vermont Neighbor on June 2, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Someone mentioned this making Red Eye and it did, complete with a picture of the loser who wrote the article…and MKH to add her own personal rebuttal (and offer a personal oppinion on what she thought of the author) and Gutt and the gang pretty much had their way with and then discarded, in a matter of speaking, the little troglodyte who wrote the “article”.

Red Eye: It won’t CURE insomnia, but it makes living with it a lot easier!

SuperCool on June 2, 2009 at 7:34 PM

Sexism is very prevalent and applauded by many in our culture.

As a woman, I just take note of it.

AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 10:49 AM

So, did you agree the playboy article?

Johan Klaus on June 2, 2009 at 3:18 PM

As I said earlier in the thread, the Playboy article was stupid. As I said in the post you just read, they showed good common sense by taking it down. So no, I dont agree with with Playboy article.

orange on June 3, 2009 at 11:55 AM

You’re not making any sense, orange. Some of the comments here have been on the line or maybe over it, but the posting itself is an alert to and critique of a truly despicable piece of so-called writing. Or do you think the person raising the hue and cry is as guilty as the person committing the crime?

evergreen on June 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM

You didnt seem to read my post very carefully. I am not objecting to this perfectly reasonable post by Ed Morrissey. I am objecting to this post by dougpowers.

If the top brass at HotAir had the decency shown by the people in charge of Playboy (a low bar to clear, surely), they would take it down. But apparently they’re better at hypocrisy than decency.

orange on June 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM

You didnt seem to read my post very carefully. I am not objecting to this perfectly reasonable post by Ed Morrissey. I am objecting to this post by dougpowers.

Ah, I missed that, sorry. The post is nowhere near the vileness level of the Playboy “article,” but I agree that it’s tasteless and sexist and conservatives should just not go there. Memories of junior high school where guys would sit around and rate the girls. One would hope that adult men could move beyond and at least act like adults, if not like actual gentlemen.

evergreen on June 3, 2009 at 12:51 PM

BTW I doubt it was decency that convinced Playboy to pull their piece. More likely the legal department called.

evergreen on June 3, 2009 at 12:52 PM

This goes out to dougpowers and anyone here too slow to get his joke.

Hit That!

Christien on June 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM

This goes out to dougpowers and anyone here too slow to get his joke.

Hit That!

Christien on June 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM

I understand the joke he was trying to make, I just find it lacking in humor and in poor taste. There is plenty enough ugly about some liberal women without having to bring their appearance into the argument.

coyoterex on June 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM

What happened to all of yesterday’s comments?

Teacher in Tejas on June 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM


It’s official: Playboy is a liberal site

FIFY

The ObamaMedia has deep roots.

DannoJyd on June 4, 2009 at 6:55 AM

I’ve never had a subscription to Playboy, but I did get GQ and Esquire. Stopped those rags when I saw how ugly and slanted left they were during the ’08 campaign. Just a bunch of whiny homosexual men, hating Bush and capitalism. I wonder who’s going to buy $900 shoes when we go full commie? Short thinkers at best and the magazines just suck.

adamsmith on June 5, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Is this all part of the new tone that 0bama lectured us we had to adopt after the Tucson shootings?

Just another one way street for totalitarian leftists.

jukin3 on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5