Ideological Bigotry Part XXI–Playboy Screws Itself

Playboy is crashing so fast that people may mistake it for the Jayson Blair Times.

In an act of tastelessness and hatred, and yes, Ideological Bigotry, Playboy Magazine had decided to try and destroy innocent people.

Since the beginning of time, men and women have had “hot lists” where they rated the opposite sex. I myself put out an article entitled “The Top 120 Political Yummy Bouncies.”

30 women were rated based on their bodies, or to be more specific, my perceptions of their bodies without ever seeing most of them in real life.

That may be sexist, and sophomoric, but there was no malice behind it.

Yet playboy published a list of women that they wanted to “hate-f*ck.”

The idea was that these women were pretty, but evil. The author hated their guts, and the hate-f*ck was a way of having his way and then hurting them. After all, we do not treat people we hate with kindness.

Another word in the real world for hate-f*ck is rape. There is nothing sexual about rape. Rape is a crime of violence, and I believe it should be added to the list of capital crimes. It is a form of killing. Rape destroys men and women.

It is one thing to fantasize and discuss people in a sexual manner, but to sleep with somebody while hating their guts? That is destructive for the aggressor and victim.

What made this so awful was that the author decided that he hated these women without having met them. Well I have met some of them. Amanda Carpenter and Mary Katharine Ham are lovely human beings. Mary Katharine Ham is very funny and easygoing. Amanda Carpenter is an overwhelmingly nice person. They are both dignified people that conduct themselves on television with class.

Michelle Malkin, who I have not met, is on the list. The woman is a devoted wife and mother to two children. She has had to move her house because of death threats. Why? Because she is a minority and a conservative, which triggers rage among the angry left.

I want to make it clear that all of these women were referenced in my Top 120 Political Yummy Bouncies column. Yet calling a woman “hot,” is not the same as defiling them.

Some on the left will try to claim that I spared them because I agree with them, and that I skewered the women of the left. This is also false.

Do I think Naomi Wolf, Norah O’Donnell, and other liberal women are hot? Sure. Would I have sex with them? If I were single and they were single, sure. Do I hate them? No. Of course not.

I became a blogger to combat ideological bigotry. The idea of wanting to sexually humiliate a woman out of misogyny is a sickeningly foreign concept to me.

This is a big deal to me because I do not want to get lumped in with the haters.

I know some women are offended by my discussing respected professional women in a sexual manner. I also know I will most likely keep doing it from time to time. I also know that if I ever hurt anybody’s feelings, I would be gratefully troubled by it.

There is a middle ground between raging feminism as practiced by the National Organization for Women and the raging anti- female hatred practiced by the disgusting writer behind the Playboy article.

Ironically, it is a woman destroying Playboy.

Hugh Hefner was about creating beauty and making money. His daughter Christie Hefner is a left wing ideologue that has donated money to fringe causes. Additionally, she has moved Playboy into the hard core pornography that Hugh Hefner did not want to associate with. In his mind, Playboy was high class while Hustler was low brow. Christie Hefner has made them indistinguishable.

I would condemn anybody that glorified violating Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton, yet jokes about raping Laura Bush, Sarah Palin, and Condoleeza Rice go unpunished.

I am angry that sweet human beings like Mary Katharine Ham and Amanda Carpenter would have to be spoken about in this manner.

To the author of the Playboy article who I will not dignify by name, I have just one thing to say.

Go (hate) f*ck yourself.


12 Responses to “Ideological Bigotry Part XXI–Playboy Screws Itself”

  1. I’m surprised Playboy would publish such a list. It seems more like something Al Goldstein or Larry Flint would do. I’m sure they didn’t mean “rape” when they used “hate-f@#$,” as it’s a rather common expression, meaning “angry sex” (not hateful sex) with someone you just can’t stand and want to have sex with almost because of that, or in spite of it. It’s like that ol’ “love/hate” thing you see in popular films and TV, like on “Moonlighting,” or “Frasier” when he had that torrid affair with the boss he so loathed.

    Anyone who actually “reads the articles,” as the saying goes, knows that Playboy is a pretty liberal publication. Interviews with the likes of Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal are standard fare. They do some conservatives too, but mostly liberals, or at least left-of-center sorts of people. So, aside from the rather boorish nature of the article (I assume, I didn’t read it), it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

    As for people like Michelle Malkin, they bring this on themselves. Regardless of what she’s like in person (if she’s all that different, then she’s one heck of a phony!), she one of the most vicious, hateful, nasty, shrewish people I’ve ever had the displeasure of hearing. She reaps what she sows.

    Just take this:

    Or this:

    Or this:

    Or this:

    Again, you reap what you sow.


  2. I see I’ve touched a nerve here. Perhaps I should have said, “she says some of the most vicious, hateful, nasty, shrewish things I’ve ever had the displeasure of hearing.”???


  3. Micky 2 says:

    I say let the left go. Let them perpetuate the hatred. Let the publications and media feed the pirahnas so that the school becomes so large theres no way the surface of the water can conciel the evil little pack of fish they are.
    Just about everything they’re doing is going to make this next election a slam dunk. At this rate they’re going to make Nugent/Bauer ticket a cake walk.

  4. Micky 2 says:

    Off on the side lets hear it for Charles Krauthammer !

    “Krauthammer receives Web Award
    KRAUTHAMMER | 09/10/2008
    Krauthammer has been awarded the ‘Consulting Standard of Excellence Award’ by the Web Marketing Association that once a year names the world’s best web sites in 96 industry categories!”

  5. Interesting route our good host chose with my comments… I was talking about Michelle Malkin above. Micky talks about perpetuating hate here. So does our good host. Yet the people you cite as being abused by hate are people who themselves regularly espouse hatred – for a living, no less – and so in response are treated with hatred. In life, you get what you deserve. You reap what you sow. You sleep in the bed you make. It’s karma. It’s balance. It’s a natural phenomenon. If you spew hatred, expect hatred in return. If you spread love, expect love. I know it seems corny, and there are certainly exceptions to the rule, but the Beatles said it right when they sang, “the love you take is equal to the love you make.” The same goes for hate. This is not “ideological bigotry.” It is simply “what comes around, goes around.” And I’ll tell ya’ what else “comes around” – too much editorial license. Aside from the clever writing, this blog stands out among most others in that it encourages healthy and strong debate, and with a moderator who completely stands aside, a rare thing indeed. Without these stand-apart styles, it would still be just as clever, but it would lack that strong confident idium. Our good host confers “the media” as “left wing” and “biased” and engaging in “ideological bigotry.” Well then, stand above those sins. If it is wrong to hate hate. If it is wrong to be intolerant of intolerance. Then live it. Turn the other cheeck. What have you to lose? If worse comes to worst the worst thing that can happen is you may be shown wrong about something. Big deal. you’re a big boy. You can handle it.


  6. Eagle 6 says:

    Jersey, Interesting concept…but I think the Biblical directive to turn the other cheek was merely tactical advice to put oneself into a better position for a counterpunch…

  7. Ah, Eagle, so you’re of the interpretive variety. ;) No. Obviously what is meant (ask any pastor with a serious theological background) by “turn the other cheek” was to tolerate tangibly inconsequential rhetoric. Really. Ask one. It’s the ol’ “sticks and stones” rule. Please. Go ahead and ask a Chaplain – with my exact same wording. I guarantee he/she will agree. I guarantee.

    On the other hand, your example is quite relevent – to another argument. In that argument, we probably wouldn’t disagree. The ol’ “bend but don’t break” strategy applies well in certain circumstances. In this case, I believe, it does not. No life is on the direct line here. Battlefield rules are a far cry from the rules of the normal process of a republic. No?


  8. Eagle 6 says:

    That’s one of the problems with the Bible – the pastors and their interpretations! Many Catholics subscribe to the “Father” concept based on so many people not being able to read…but I’m just joking…somewhat…we must always explore the options, and I see you playing devil’s advocate all the time – searching for different ways of looking at the problems.

    I will play diplomat with the latter question… I have to be careful in concurring that “battlefield rules are a far cry for the rules of the normal process of a republic” lest one think I also subscribe to a scorched earth mentality… :)

  9. Touche. But don’t make the mistake that I’m somehow I’m always the devil’s advocate. I’m not (though it is fun!). I’m not so much looking for a fight as I’m looking for a convert. I, just as you (I’m sure), am looking for a convert. Take on my argument, and/or accept/reject my position. Just one acceptance/rejection will be no great loss to you. I can tell. You’re not an idiot.


  10. Eagle 6 says:

    Indeed…concurrence…consensus…whatever the buzzword of the day is – but sometimes we have to look up down and sideways for common ground. Your comment about bending is appropriate – sometimes it’s tactical to give a little to take a lot…other times it’s simply prudent to understand a battle can’t be won on the given turf, so we sniff around and see what common ground there is, then move the battle to a different venue… I used to want to always “win” my arguments, or score points, but I’m getting older and not as sensitive, so I don’t mind conceding here and there to look at the strategic goal as opposed to the tactical battle at hand… I’m nervous about the direction we are heading as a nation, so I can get passionate about certain things!

  11. I’m getting nervous as well. We just seem to keep growing the empire and neglecting the republic. I’m very worried about that. We don’t don’t teach “history” anymore, we teach “social studies.” “Conservatives” are fine with “nation-building” while “liberals” are concerned with “political correctness.” I’m afraid the people are so caught up in b@llsh!t they can’t see the broken bridge from the clear road. We should worry less about the nomenclature of BS (ie: “socialist, “capitalist,” “communist,” “nationalist,” “fascist”) and more about the detailed explanations of each and every real issue we face in our real lives. No?


  12. Eagle 6 says:

    Agreed – both “sides” are attacking the peripherals…Palin’s clothes vs the size of Pelosi’s jet… we’ll figure it out, but it will get uglier…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.