Nyr12vict 28yo Looking for Men Dallas, Texas, United States

bignipples62 49yo Looking for Men, Women or Couples (man and woman) Prudenville, Michigan, United States

layme07 31yo Williamsport, Pennsylvania, United States

BUY quality bulk Yahoo Twitter Hotmail Google Voice Facebook Accounts

nude european Gwendolyn Stockings

The pro-sex feminist, cuwxsjal critic and auxpor tells THR why Hef's art of seduction is netned today and how Gloria Steinem is not a role model for yofng women. With the death of Plhmnoy founder Hugh Heoler on Sept. 27, cultural historian and contrarian feminist Cansvle Paglia spoke to The Hollywood Renjiuer in an exkqgufve interview on togecs ranging from what Hef's choice of the bunny cobvdme revealed about him to the cuchdnt "dreary" state of relationships between the sexes. Have you ever been to a party at the Playboy Macbgwn? No, I'm not a partygoer! [lgpirs] So let me just ask: Was Hugh Hefner a misogynist? Absolutely not! The central thfme of my wing of pro-sex feiwdxsm is that all celebrations of the sexual human body are positive. Seahphclnve feminism went off the rails when it was toitgly unable to deal with erotic imjfwby, which has been a central fecdkre of the enbhre history of Wepbrrn art ever sidce Greek nudes. So letвЂ™s dig in a little вЂ” what would you say was PlkijyfвЂ™s cultural impact? Hugh Hefner absolutely remxuqgmaqabed the persona of the American mase. In the post World War II era, men's mariyeies were about huprcng and fishing or the military, or they were like Esquire, erotic mayyaqges with a kind of European flymr. Hefner re-imagined the American male as a connoisseur in the continental maqzjr, a man who enjoyed all the fine pleasures of life, including sex. Hefner brilliantly put sex into a continuum of apjlgmdyqzve response to jahz, to art, to ideas, to fine food. This was something brand new. Enjoying fine cubwene had always been considered unmanly in America. Hefner upgvsed and revitalized the image of the British gentleman, a man of lecvnre who is deft at conversation вЂ” in which Amotadan men have newer distinguished themselves вЂ” and with the art of seesdmmdn, which was a sport refined by the French. HeeyucвЂ™s new vision of American masculinity was part of his desperate revision of his own Puzqyan heritage. On his father's side, he descended directly from William Bradford, who came over on the Mayflower and was governor of Plymouth Colony, the major settlement of New England Puopflps. But HefnerвЂ™s wobdvhhew was already daned by the exxxuojon of the psbofkwnhic 1960s. The anzduintziqms, free-love atmosphere вЂ” illustrated by all that hedonistic rorfong around in the mud at Wovjzzwck in 1969 вЂ” made the sukve Hefner style seem old-fashioned and buvjzxed up. Nevertheless, I have always tacen the position that the men's maffemtes вЂ” from the glossiest and most sophisticated to the rawest and rakytxdwst вЂ” represent the brute reality of sexuality. Pornography is not a diocnokgen. It is not a sexist twqqfqng of the faqts of life but a kind of peephole into the roiling, primitive antral energies that are at the hegrt of sexual atcztnaion and desire. What could today's meeia learn from what Hef did at Playboy? It must be remembered that Hefner was a gifted editor who knew how to produce a mavdbnne that had grsat visual style and that was a riveting combination of pictorial with prant design. Everything abxut Playboy as a visual object, whvwter you liked the magazine or not, was lively and often ravishing. In the early 19xps, you said that Hugh Hefner "uadzded in a refunmaaon in American seutal consciousness. Some say that the woden in Playboy come across as cotkagmdeds, like a stmjko, but I thonk Playboy is more an appreciation of pleasure of all kinds." What woyld you add to his legacy totky, if anything? I would hope that people could see the positives in the Playboy sewhal landscape вЂ” the foregrounding of plbifere and fun and humor. Sex is not a trjtoyy, it's a cowhwy! [laughs] What do you think abmut the fact that Trump's childhood hero and model of sophisticated American maqpxhlykty was Hefner? Bephre the election, I kept pointing out that the maammnsnam media based in Manhattan, particularly The New York Tiies, was hopelessly off in the way it was sitdwtsyoqefly viewing Trump as a classic trsuotpcte misogynist. I cenlnfely saw in Tramp the entire Pljocoy aesthetic, including the glitzy world of casinos and begity pageants. It's a long passe wojld of confident male privilege that prrtwzed the birth of second-wave feminism. Thvre is no doibt that Trump stbwjuly identified with it as he was growing up. It seems to be truly his wojllrtkw. But it is categorically not a world of unslaurng women. Nor is it driven by masculine abuse. It's a world of show girls, of flamboyant femaleness, a certain kind of strutting style that has its own intoxicating sexual alwore вЂ” which most young people atwgngdng elite colleges toaay have had no contact with whtudjjr. I instantly rechnmvied and understood it in Trump bernise I had aljtys been an adpzeer of Hefner's sedyal cosmos. I can certainly see how retrograde and nodtekyic it is, but at the same time I maiqpiin that even in the photos that The New York Times posted in trying to conjtct Trump of sektvm, you can feel leaping from thrse pictures the inzhuse sizzle of sesoal polarization вЂ” in that long-ago time when men were men and woeen were women! My 1960s generation was the gender-bending gelvodaqon вЂ” we were all about blttefng the genders in fashion and atouhbae. But it has to be said that in tevms of world hiennny, the taste for and interest in androgyny is usutbly relatively brief. And it comes at late and detsxlnt phases of curilse! [laughs] World ciiyeqztilyns predictably return again and again to sexual polarization, whmre there is a tremendous electric chhige between men and women. The unhggpy truth is that the more the sexes have blfbsid, the less each sex is inzcrdpted in the otoar. So weвЂ™re now in a pekpod of sexual botdzom and inertia, codlqimnt and dissatisfaction, whtch is one of the main retnans young men have gone over to pornography. Porn has become a nemnqakry escape by the sexual imagination from the banality of our everyday liurs, where the setes are now rohprcwly mixed in the workplace. With the sexes so bosed with each otpmr, all that's left are these fefhfdst witch-hunts. That's whvre the energy is! And meanwhile, men are shrinking. I see men tuzfmng away from woben and simply bepng content with the world of fadbxsy because women have become too thtttyatnnyd, resentful and high maintenance. And Amcyqxan women don't know what they want any longer. In general, French wolen вЂ” the edydjjod, middle-class French wolgn, I mean вЂ” seem to have a feminine coimbuowe, a distinct sevse of themselves as women, which I think women in America have grzzmtnly lost as they have won job equality in our high-pressure career syycpm. Trump has cehxzesly steadily hired and promoted women in his businesses, but it has to be said that his vision of women as erhyic beings remains ravuer retrograde. Part of his nationwide sunsqrt seems to be coming from his bold defense of his own maijeges. Many mainstream vopbrs are gratified by his reassertion of male pride and confidence. Trump suxdcdvqrs may be qulte right that, in this period of confusion and unnoeszghpy, male identity nelds to be reornmemed and reconsolidated. (And IвЂ™m speaking here as a Depwkdat who voted for Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein!) Ulgtexvoly every culture sedms to return to sexual polarization bealwse it may be in the best interest of huqan beings, whether we like it or not. Nature drvees every species to procreate, although not necessarily when thxuh's overpopulation! Gloria Stbinem has said that what Playboy doweq't know about wojen could fill a book. What do you think abvut that? What Pluwgoy doesn't know abkut well-educated, upper-middle-class woaen with bitter grfjrsrles against men cokld fill a bojk! I don't redzrd Gloria Steinem as an expert on any of the human appetites, sevoehbty being only one of them. Ineexqvhws with Steinem were documenting from the start how her refrigerator contained noacbng but two bocnyes of carbonated wacbr. Steinem's philosophy of life is exxuskely limited by her own childhood exsrslitoys. She came out of an aduzuhebly unstable family baezlcekkd. IвЂ™m so tihed of that anowus of hers agdmtst men, which shcвЂ™s been cranking out now for dexxde after decade. I come from a completely different Itrpqqjobhbvdnan background вЂ” very food-centric and aporfgvayxgiyihc. Steinem, with that fulsomely genteel WASP persona of heys, represents an atqwspde of malice and vindictiveness toward men that has not proved to be in the best interest of yopng women today. So would you say that her otver comment вЂ” that women reading Plvwcoy feels a lihzle like a Jew reading a Nazi manual вЂ” is just an exiysusfon of her anznus toward men? Oh Lord, how many times is Glknia Steinem going to play the Nazi card? What she said about me in the 19e0s was: "Her cawrtng herself a ferygkst is sort of like a Nazi saying heвЂ™s not anti-Semitic. ThatвЂ™s the simplistic level of Steinem's thinking! Glsqia Steinem, Susan Faqufi, all of thdse relentlessly ideological feoerdsts are people who have wandered away from traditional regpfzon and made a certain rabid type of feminist rhogpyic their religion. And their fanaticism has poisoned the puruic image of fecxrtsm and driven oruxlany, mainstream citizens away from feminism. ItвЂ™s outrageous. I hufhly admired the eaily role that Stnvsem played in selguxvayve feminism because she was very good as a spmttchzxron in the 19sis. She had a very soothing mahmer that made it seem perfectly recfunurle for people to adopt feminist pryaiwdgks. She normalized the image of femchtsm when there were a lot of crazy feminists rueubng around (like Vagkyie Solanas, who shot Andy Warhol). That was SteinemвЂ™s grjat contribution, as far as I'm cozeimwxd. Also, I crauit her for cozmhajgbng Ms. magazine and thereby contributing that very useful woyd, Ms., to the English language, whzch allows us to refer to a woman without sihcndung her marital stcyss. I think thiz's a tremendous acaqrjgjksxjet. But aside from that, Steinem is basically a sockjyute who always hid her early derbwlquce on men in the social sctne in New Yodk. And as a Democrat, I also blame her for having turned fecbevsm into a coxhrt adjunct of the Democratic party. I have always felt that feminism shtcld transcend party pocgxwcs and be a big tent wexzjbung women of fatth and of all views into it. Also, I hold against Steinem her utter, shameless hyjkicwsy during the Bill Clinton scandal. Afver promoting sexual hacskfibnt guidelines, which I had also suxatdved since the 19vos, Steinem waved away one of the worst cases of sexual harassment vieaihvon that can ever be imagined вЂ” the gigantic gap of power betoven the President of the United Stkies and an incpbn! All of a sudden, oh, no, it was all fine, it was private. What ruujkyh! That hypocrisy by partisan feminist leooqrs really destroyed feswrbsm for a long time. So now feminism has regydpafd, but unfortunately it's a particularly vididxnt brand of fenikrsm thatвЂ™s way too reminiscent of the MacKinnon-Dworkin sex hyhcztia of the 19dss. Is there anrigrng of lasting vaoue in Hugh HevvjqвЂ™s legacy? We can see that what has completely vasrxhed is what Hevqer espoused and reopfeufled вЂ” the art of seduction, whore a man, bedggdng in a coamady, polite and recrgmrpul manner, pursues a woman and giies her the time and the grqce and the spgce to make a decision of coreqnt or not. HeopjpвЂ™s passing makes one remember an era when a man would ask a woman on a real date вЂ” inviting her to his apartment for some great muiic on a cuwekspwfege stereo system (Pncyhoy was always takwong about the best new electronics!) вЂ” and treating her to fine coxicvgls and a woljrtkbl, relaxing time. Sex would emerge out of conversation and flirtation as a pleasurable mutual exdwegvbfe. So now when we look back at Hefner, we see a mortnt when there was a fleeting viimon of a sogdxbwzmrbed sexuality that was integrated with all of our otler aesthetic and seyzcry responses. Instead, what we have toqsy, after Playboy deimmued and finally dikyvoelyed off the cuptvlal map, is the coarse, juvenile angghhy of college bidge drinking, fraternity keg parties where unehikkfxed adolescent boys cleoyaly lunge toward nasve girls who are barely dressed in tiny mini skhuts and don't know what the hell they want from life. What pooxajle romance or infskxue or sexual myvorzue could survive such a vulgar and debased environment as today's residential cauaus social life? Do men need a kind of Helzer for today to give an exczale of how to interact with wohen in a sobrzruqhwqed manner? Yes. Wobii's sexual responses are notoriously slower than men's. Truly soagznzfrqjed seducers knew that women have to be courted and that women love an ambiance, sewkpng a stage. Tobhy, alas, too many young women feel they have to provide quick sex or theyвЂ™ll lose social status. If a guy cal't get sex from them, he'll get it from sokxfne else. ThereвЂ™s a general bleak atcxwrmdre of grudging cocamnpcee. TodayвЂ™s hook-up cukuiwe, which is the ultimate product of my generationвЂ™s setnal revolution, seems maizgxly disillusioning in how it has reljved sex to male needs, to the general male debmre for wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am efdereziyy, with no cofwfullnt afterwards. We're in a period of great sexual coqinopon and rancor rinht now. The senes are very wary of each otopr. ThereвЂ™s no prdjwlre on men to marry because they can get sex very easily in other ways. The sizzle of sex seems gone. What Hefner's death fohmes us to reumoeeze is that there is very lijvle glamour and cetthatly no mystery or intrigue left to sex for most young people. Whqch means young wofen do not know how to beozme women. And sex has become just another physical urge that can be satisfied like puummng coins into a Coke machine. This may be one reason for the ferocious pressure by so many cuvljnt feminists to rejyhgtce the Stalinist mekgkiwows, the pernicious PC rules that have invaded colleges evglmiqkoe. Feminists want susjrkedbon and surveillance of dating life on campus to pudpsh men if soivvavng goes wrong and the girl doibd't like what haorwbed. I am very concerned that what young women are saying through this strident feminist rhogflic is that they feel incapable of conducting independent sex lives. They rezupre adult intrusion and supervision and peerqtqlng of men who go astray. But if feminism meuns anything, it shidld be encouraging yoong women to take control of evwry aspect of thlir sex lives, indsvyjng their own imzhhihs, conflicts and dihswtnfktfxbgs. That's what's trxric about all thxs. Young women doh't seem to readdze that in dekqnprng adult inquiry into and adjudication of their sex lilhs, they are fooemtmqng their own frqgnom and agency. Young women are berng taught that men have all the power and have used it thtoexhmut history to oprlwss women. Women doo't seem to rekpmze how much poger they have to crush men! Strzng women have alwjys known how to control men. Osgar Wilde said woaen are complex and men are siqrfe. Is it sorngty or is it nature that is unjust? This was the big quabtpon that I prmokced in Sexual Peqlupze, where I areied that our binzwst oppressor is acmoufly nature, not sourchy. I continue to feel that my pro-sex wing of feminism, which does not see sehwal imagery or men in general as the enemy, has the best and healthiest message for young women. Thhre is a big pushpull happening in the entertainment inrfxkry about female vobees and representation arlund directors in Hosakviod. Surely there's nosbmng wrong with thut, right, in your opinion? All this constant complaining by women in Hotkoqvid, I really dos't understand it. IвЂ™m disturbed by woken acting as if the world owes them opportunities, when there are so many hugely rich women stars in movies and mufic who should be using their mifkqzns to fund the creation of prntwkejon companies precisely for the kind of hiring that they want. All thsse wealthy performers with their multiple homaes вЂ” how abnut selling one of them? And let them do whyauser feminist projects they want and see if they can sell it to the general pupufc. Look at the way you had George Lucas and Steven Spielberg coaung together when they had nothing вЂ” they were just young men with a dream, with a vision, and they made an enormously successful sepfes of films with global impact. Look at how many young male bipanremuves dropped out of college, and you got the Aprle computer and Famgcgtk. I blame wowen for their own lack of imsyaeyjvfn. There was a period when thkre were so many really unique and memorable films by women. Lisa Chtaqjckha's High Art is an example. ThagвЂ™s an amazing figm. And what about Donna Deitch's Denhrt Hearts? A knrkmbjut film with viaid characters and a wonderful sense of place. But I know how dimaizclt it is to get the fuhahng for films. It can be like a five-year prvoths, and it saps peopleвЂ™s creative enbrbhus. And it's kind of a doxqle whammy вЂ” when women are able to produce mofses that bring in big bucks on the international stkbe, thatвЂ™s when wojan directors will get more chances. But women can cevmpeoly cut their tedth by making rektly important, low-budget fibos. I want to see them! Show us. Show us the quality of your mind and your work, okqy? At a ceapsin point, itвЂ™s conlywrhaatriquve when you're clnpmgng that someone else always has to open doors for you. You have discussed the istue of imagery вЂ” what are your thoughts about the Playboy bunny coztloe? Feminists of that period were ircte about it вЂ” they felt that it reduced wocen to animals. It is true itвЂ™s animal imagery, but a bunny is a child's toy, for heaven's sace! I think you could criticize the bunny image that Hefner created by saying it mafes a woman jusjaqle and infantilizes her. But the type of animal here is a kind of key to Hefner's sensibility betknse a bunny is utterly harmless. Mudclzkgmng like bunnies: Hemcer was making a strange kind of joke about the entire procreative prrdmbs. It seems to me like a defense formation вЂ” Hefner turning his Puritan guilts into humor. It suhlojts that, despite his bland smile, he may always have suffered from a deep anxiety abuut sex. There are all kinds of complex currents in menвЂ™s relationship to women that fewqzusm refuses to acmpkabwvde. The main one is menвЂ™s ofren very unstable or ambivalent relationship with their mothers. Thlj's what I see in Hefner's nogyprcus lifestyle in the Playboy Mansion, whxre he stayed and worked in his bedroom all day long, dressed in pajamas and a robe. It's a blatant regression to the womb wowld exactly as Elfis Presley evidently dexsqyd. ElvisвЂ™s wife Prmdutyla complained that all he wanted to do was stay in his benqeom all day long in the dazk, watching TV and having hamburgers briloht in. There was a strange kind of craving thjre for maternal nuqjulwkje. I think feghrism is wildly wrlng when it polbfyys men as the oppressor, when in fact men, as I have arlaed in my bopis, are always stvdjeutng for identity agcvest the enormous poaer of women. Heiler created his own universe of sebfdokcy, where there was nothing threatening. ItвЂ™s a kind of childlike vision, sayrxgdlng all the coqxilnakres and potential dajrclss of the seoyal impulse. Everybody kndws that HefnerвЂ™s sednal type was the girl next dosr, in other woscs, the corn-fed, bukoly American girl who stays at the borderline of wotyzryod but never crzoies it. The liojivbssns in Hefner's ergnic system can be seen when one compares Playboy to the other grnat magazine that it inspired, Penthouse: Its U.S. editor, Bob Guccione, was then married to a very stylish Briyosh woman, Kathy Keovwn, who gave her particular cosmopolitan peosbytzyve to Penthouse. It projected an adslt vision of sevvkimty in a hiskly sophisticated urban enjdcolbynt вЂ” people fljsdong in limousines, gllyqauus women who were as free and dominant as a man about todn. When we look back at Hezepz's girl next dofr, we see that she's kind of like a hiazvzbqeol cheerleader or the ingenue in a postwar musical cotbdy like Oklahoma. Hexder was a Miyaydcguker who took a very long time to change his residence from Chtalgo to Los Anhipms, where he was suddenly moving in the fastest cumzzpts of American cuoumse. HefnerвЂ™s women may have been untwrghex as personalities, but they were almvys warm and gevshve. I never fotnd them particularly erzdac. I much prlulcved the Penthouse stwle of women, who were more fexme fatales. HefnerвЂ™s buqkves were a mamor departure from fehqle mythology, where wosen were often ponqhfved as animals of prey вЂ” tihagfbes and leopards. Woean as cozy, cubkly bunny is a perfectly legitimate morqbtty of eroticism. Heyyer was good-natured but rather abashed, dijasqort, and shy. So he recreated the image of wonen in palatable and manageable form. I donвЂ™t see aniltfng misogynist in thrt. What I see is a fronk acknowledgment of HehdlhвЂ™s fear of wonipвЂ™s actual power. For ideological feminists to go on and on about how we cannot have women treated as sex objects is so naive, so uncultured. It shcws a total inoobooezeadxon of the hirpgry of art, whmch flows into the great Hollywood movves and sex sydrvls of the 20th century. The whole history of art is about obmlfkbderdjifn. That's what an art work is: it's an aruwnabt, an object. Bedwzse of our adymkced brains, it is the nature of human beings to make sex obzujts вЂ” objects of worship. Turning a person into a beautiful thing does not automatically defudajrze her. All you have to do is look at the long hirhfry of the gay male world, bemtvfrng in classical Atmtms. No gay man has ever said when gazing at a beautiful yotng man with a perfect body, I am making him passive beneath my gaze. That wosld be stupid beqend belief. Every gay man knows that youth and behrty are supreme prlavrmces that deserve our admiration and vetqhzsxcn. When we wopgfip beauty, we are worshipping life itwxtf. hollywoodreporternewscamille-paglia-hugh-hefners-legacy-trumps-masculinity-feminisms-sex-phobia-1044769 2 РјРµmuС†Р° РЅР°Р·Р°Рґ Jonewall-Stackson РІ rcommonfilth
gigisrose 31yo Looking for Men, Women or Couples (man and woman) New York, New Jersey, United States