Irreverence to Hef

It is due time to read something about Hugh Hefner that is not a vociferant rant from the LGBT community.  Most of the people who have used Mr. Hefner's death as an opportunity to complain about their own sexual insecurities do not even know about what they write.  Millennials don't understand the 1980's or the l990's much less a publishing empire that emerged in America's post war era centered around liberated teens having fun.  Mr. Hefner was an opportunist, a hippie, and an American rebel.  Without him probably the sexual revolution never would have taken place.  We all would be living the Amish life quaking shaking in our barns, shoveling chicken poop, and denying our own reproductive capabilities.  What would the Rat Pack have said about Mr. Hefner?  We cannot know, because they are dead.  Most of the people that know something about Hugh Hefner are dead.  Those writing disparagingly about him today upon his death are selfish, misguided, frustrated souls unable to grasp the true nature of American freedom.  "The rubble of Mr. Hefner's work is all around us?"  What the fuck?  With three clicks of a mouse the most suggestive sexual acts are at our disposal for free.  How could a publisher with his start in the 1950's be responsible?  He isn't, but also it shows how America has changed, culture has changed, and how millennials have no clue how different they are from older Americans.  They are sheltered, clueless, and whine because the artificial dream created by an iPhone is not real.  Welcome to America during the l950's, when porn readily was not available on your wireless telephone.  Sitting in our attic for the majority of my life are bundles of Playboy magazines dating back to the l950's.  Just as many pubescent boys did, we learned about sex from Hugh Hefner's publication Playboy.  What was our alternative?  Sex education learned in health class?  Spying on our parents?  Watching married couples sleep in separate single beds on "I Love Lucy?"  Freedom granted by America's Constitution includes freedom of sexuality and our need to express it however that may be.  Whether you disagree with it or not, Hugh Hefner, as guaranteed by America's Constitution could publish what he did.  If you disagreed, you could choose not to view it.  The same is true today.  Instead of blaming America's social problems on one lone man, which is the tone of most of the articles recently I have seen, we should be trying to understand America.  As I grew up and the Playboy empire progressed, most of us became disinterested in Playboy.  When Hugh gave others the responsibility of overseeing Playboy, it floundered.  It would seem Mr. Hefner alone held the vision championed by the Playboy empire.  Not everyone agreed with it, and thus you choose not to pay attention.  Upon his passing it is startling to me to hear LGBT rants blaming Hugh Hefner for everything conceivable.  I am not going to commit the time and energy necessary to explain it right now.  I am too tired from axing magnolia roots out of the ground.  I will say that stout-heartedly I am a proponent of heterosexuality, only because it is more interesting.  Most couples I have observed marry a mirror image of themselves.  That is because they are most comfortable waking up and viewing themselves in the mirror.  What challenge is that?  If all you need is comfort and security in your life, okay.  Some of us welcome a differing opinion, a foreign spice, or a twist of plot.  Certainly men could say at one point women provided this.  Still they do, but in my experience that stimulation no longer is productive, imaginative, loving, or spiritual.  Instead it is sexist, separatist, and all of the other things the LGBT community seems to be championing.  We all are the same?  I think not, and that is for a reason.  I do not like a lot of what Mr. Hefner stood for, especially in his later years.  It widely was discovered that his three young wives became prisoners in his mansion unable to leave or experience life without his consent.  In addition he did not engage in sexual activity with them, a common complaint.  It was hypocritical as were many of the things represented by the Playboy lifestyle.  What the writers today are missing is that Hugh did not exploit anyone.  The women that posed for him were paid, treated well, and agreed to their contracts.  It was not indentured servitude.  His employees agreed to their roles and actively participated with their own consent.  If you disagree with the Playboy lifestyle, like anything in America you are free to ignore it.