Hefner's Playboy Philosophy: Korihor in Velvet

[_Buffalo]

It's not the topic, which embiggens all good men. It's the obsessive posting of thread after thread about it.

I'll probably continue to do them, periodically, until I can get an intellectually adult discussion going on the subject. Which, among other things, means without your participation.

I'm glad you've discovered a new hobby in pornography. Enjoy!

[_LDSToronto]

In another one of my recent pornography poll threads, brade mentioned, as regarding Hugh Hefner's short manifesto on what he terms that "playboy philosophy," that, regarding whether Hefner's assertions here form what I termed a "coherent understanding of the meaning of existence," from his perspective, "I'm not sure what a system of belief underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence is. I'd need to have a better understanding of what it is to be a system of belief underlying and informing a coherent understanding of the meaning of existence before I could say whether his Playboy Philosophy is that or not."

Pursuant to that, here are Hefner's statements on the matter, which I want to throw out here to everyone for some analysis vis-à-vis the original question as to wether this can be understood as the basis for a coherent view of the human condition and the teleological substance of our existence, or whether its really little more than a self serving pseudo-philosophical rationalization for Hefner's own particular psychological fixations and the lifestyle he wanted to live in pursuit of them.

http://brentdanley.com/blog/wp-content/ ... osophy.pdf

There's a great deal here for philosophical scrutiny (Hefner's dated reliance upon the long and thoroughly discredited work of Kinsey can be safely ignored as irrelevant, while what Hefner believes Kinsey's work establishes, which is quite close to what Kinsey himself wanted to establish through it, is of much more importance, as are his more general views regarding human sexuality).

Loran, this attachment is 285 pages long! Can you pick out the parts salient to both sides of the argument and maybe then we'll have a go at it?

H.

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy

What is you take on Marriott Hotels and the fact that they still offer porn. I am currently staying in one and I saw that one can block adult movies. Your threads here got me thinking so I checked the title list and it is pretty clear, if the titles are indication of content, that there is some pretty hard core offerings there.

It seems very strange to me that a hotel chain that was started by such a prominent LDS family carries such "entertainment." I understand that Marriott does not own all the hotels that bear their name and that they are contracted to manage or run them. But one would think they could have enough influence to do away with trashy movies. Other hotel chains have done so.

[_marg]

It seems very strange to me that a hotel chain that was started by such a prominent LDS family carries such "entertainment." I understand that Marriott does not own all the hotels that bear their name and that they are contracted to manage or run them. But one would think they could have enough influence to do away with trashy movies. Other hotel chains have done so.

I haven't read the rest of the thread so I'm just commenting on why a church might be against porn in some situations and not others.

I can see a church which is interested in procreation in order to increase their numbers, not having much of an issue with porn in a hotel room. I think the main reason a church would be against porn at home is if males perhaps females use it alone, and in replacement to sexual relations with their spouse..because that might lead to the couple having fewer kids. On the other hand in a hotel room either the other spouse is there in which case porn might lead to sex.. or the spouse isn't there but since they aren't around anyhow..it makes little difference as far as procreation goes.

[_LDSToronto]

I haven't read the rest of the thread so I'm just commenting on why a church might be against porn in some situations and not others.

I can see a church which is interested in procreation in order to increase their numbers, not having much of an issue with porn in a hotel room. I think the main reason a church would be against porn at home is if males perhaps females use it alone, and in replacement to sexual relations with their spouse..because that might lead to the couple having fewer kids. On the other hand in a hotel room either the other spouse is there in which case porn might lead to sex.. or the spouse isn't there but since they aren't around anyhow..it makes little difference as far as procreation goes.

Before I engage any further (I'm not really interested in the stance of other churches), I want to be clear - you aren't talking about the LDS church here, are you?

I ask, because I'm pretty sure that the LDS church has been unequivocal on the matter of staying away from pornography in all circumstances.

H.

[_marg]

I'm sure it has, however it can influence owners of the Marriott..and for the reasons I gave, I'm sure there are other reasons, I doubt the LDS church authorities have concern about porn being available at the Marriott.

[_LDSToronto]

I'm sure it has, however it can influence owners of the Marriott..and for the reasons I gave, I'm sure there are other reasons, I doubt the LDS church authorities have concern about porn being available at the Marriott.

Well, the reasons you gave may be perfectly valid in other churches. In the LDS church, a name like Marriott is synonymous with Mormonism; I stay at Marriott's quite often, and there are still copies of The Book of Mormon in desk drawers and pornography available on the television.

I think the biggest reason the church is quiet on the matter is that Marriott is a large tithe-payer. So it makes economic sense for authorities to zip-it.

H.

[_moksha]

What is you take on Marriott Hotels and the fact that they still offer porn.

I remember the in defense of the Marriotts argument furnished by the apologists at MAD: The Marriott Corporation needs to stay competitive with the rest of the industry by giving the customers the porn they want.

As Droopy would say, "Move along and quit scrutinizing my answer".

.

[_marg]

I think the biggest reason the church is quiet on the matter is that Marriott is a large tithe-payer. So it makes economic sense for authorities to zip-it.

Well you think that and I agree that is one reason, but the reason I gave I also think is part of the reasoning for them not doing much if anything to discourage porn in the Marriott. That is my opinion.

[_Droopy]

Droopy

What is you take on Marriott Hotels and the fact that they still offer porn. I am currently staying in one and I saw that one can block adult movies. Your threads here got me thinking so I checked the title list and it is pretty clear, if the titles are indication of content, that there is some pretty hard core offerings there.

What would you think would be my take on that situation?

It seems very strange to me that a hotel chain that was started by such a prominent LDS family carries such "entertainment."

"Strange" would be a rather acute understatement, from my perspective.

I understand that Marriott does not own all the hotels that bear their name and that they are contracted to manage or run them. But one would think they could have enough influence to do away with trashy movies. Other hotel chains have done so

I have no knolwedge of how much the Marriot family actually can influence what goes on as to the actual running of the hotels, as I have never been in the corporate boardrooms where those decisions are made, nor do I have any knolwedge of the family's legal standing regarding any such influence.