A Blind Eye

In the staunchly monitored news broadcasting of the 1950s, Hugh Hefner, and Playboy magazine as a whole, were sources of turgid debate. This debate provided a platform for Playboy to, directly in the face of its opposition, portray itself not as a “dirty magazine,” but as a “freedom fighter” pushing for American liberty. In doing so, Playboy garnered acceptance not only in the eye of the public, but in that of major media publications such as the New York Times. This active, purposeful portrayals effectiveness on the Playboy image can be seen not only through direct interviews with Hefner from the period, but by looking at articles referencing Playboy in general, and noting the stance they take on the magazine.

Perhaps one of the most volatile interviews conducted with Playboy founder Hugh Hefner was that of future 60 Minutes founder Mike Wallace. Wallace gives a brief overview of Hefner, then launches into a tirade, asking him if “a kind of high-class, dirty book… was really what he was selling.” He goes on to state that Playboy represents “a sniggering kind of sex, a lascivious kind of sex, certainly not a healthy approach to sex, as you would like to suggest that it is.” Hefner, who has been silent for the duration of the “interview,” responds to this simply, stating that “we most certainly would suggest that it is healthy. In fact we strongly say that it is.” (Wallace 1956)

In allowing Wallace to make his interview a soliloquy, and in allowing Playboy to be attacked freely, Hefner displays the magazine as being “above” such intervention. The only point in which Hefner intervenes is when Wallace suggests that the sexual expression represented in Playboy is unhealthy, turning a blind eye to other claims. This carefully presents Playboy as fighting for “healthy sex” in the face of repression. Hefner’s focus on “healthy sex” is of particular importance. Playboy was not displaying deviance from heterosexual norms of the 1950’s, it was simply displaying women, topless. In allowing only fighting the idea that what Playboy displayed was “unhealthy,” Hefner is placing the magazine as fighting for the idea of “normal” sexuality pushed for in 1950’s culture.

This interview is in stark contrast to a piece by the New York Times summarizing the Hugh Hefner’s purchase of a larger mansion, and of Playboy’s new TV Series, the Playhouse. (New York Times 1959) One might expect that, considering the recent scandal wherein it was discovered that one of the Playboy models was 16, not 18 as she had led Hefner to believe, the article would follow a similar style as Wallace’s interview. This is not the case, Hefner is described as “Chicago’s top socialite” and Playboy as “gracious, low-key entertainment.” In the lawsuit over the girl’s photos attempted to pin Hefner for “contributing to the delinquency of a minor,” Hefner argued that although the girl had falsified her age unbeknownst to him, society as a whole had the right to the “freedom of dress and press,” the freedom to both wear and publish whatever one individual wanted. (Chicago Daily Tribune 1958)

This vast difference in the mindset by the two reports can perhaps be explained by Hugh Hefner himself, in an interview conducted much later. Hefner states that “during the magazine’s early years… the Playboy philosophy was really personal freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. With the emphasis on personal.” (George Washington University Hatchet 1999) Focusing on personal freedom over sexual exhibition allowed Playboy to become immune to media attack, as any attack on Playboy was an attack on the sexual norms inherent to American society. Playboy did not simply state that it was for these norms, it acted on it. Playboy filed numerous lawsuits throughout the 1950,s 60s, and 70s, always fighting oppression of freedom be it with censorship of the post, or with biased media representation of sexuality.