Playboy Changes Its Mind About Hate F**king Conservative Women
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
news
12:00PM, Tuesday June 2nd 2009
Playboy.com posted a story yesterday called “So Right It’s Wrong,” about the conservative women writer Guy Cimbalo wanted to “hate f**k”; it’s since been removed. After the story was posted, the blogosphere, particularly female bloggers, had a complete meltdown, with some calling for a boycott. Playboy took a kick to the balls and responded in an appropriately wimpy fashion by taking down the article. So what was so offensive? Our own Susannah Breslin writes over at Double X:
“It’s a listicle that eviscerates every conservative female that crossed Cimbalo’s radar as someone who was at least in some regard physically attractive and yet whose personal politics he found to be utterly loathsome. The list includes Michelle Malkin, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Laura Ingraham, and Peggy Noonan.
On Malkin: ‘Worse than f**king Ava Braun.’ On Ingraham: ‘Vagina dentata would be an improvement.’ On Noonan: ‘Imagine f**king your grandmother. Now imagine your grandmother coined the phrase ‘a thousand points of light.’ It’s worse than that.’”
Sure, a “yikes” is in order. But why were people so shocked? First of all, this is Playboy. There are naked ladies in Playboy who are being sexually objectified, just like the women on Cimbalo’s list. Plus, there are plenty of lists like this floating around on the internet—“TV’s Most Doable Stars,” “Comedy’s Most F**kable Women,” etc.—so was it the angry, vitriolic nature of his desire to screw these conservative women that was so upsetting?
Breslin points out that one blog turned Cimbalo’s “hate f**k” into a synonym for rape, while Salon called the list “creepy,” and one blogger said it made her want to punch Cimbalo in the mouth. Conservative groups, naturally, are pissed because the list targets their supporters and representatives, and female bloggers are angry because the list is sexist and vicious. But whether you agree with the list or not, or found it offensive or hilarious, should it really have been taken down? I completely agree with Breslin when she writes, “Censoring the piece doesn’t make it any less real, any less politically incorrect, any less true. Attempting to police human nature is the real joke here.” [Double X]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
VannaMarie
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 12:15 pm: [report]
Is it just me or is anyone else surprised that this is causing such an uproar? As awful as ‘hate f*cking’ sounds, it is used commonly enough (in my generation) whereas I don’t think it would be so offensive. Perhaps it is who and how it is used? As a woman who tends to side with(dare I say it in public?) the Republicans in many (but not nearly all) situations, I liken this to after you get into an argument with your husband, sometimes one gets a hankering for a good hate f*ck! I love him, but it is a great way for love and frustration to come together.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck can be found quite attractive and also quite offensive to some. Is it so proposterous to think one might want to hate f*ck her?
As far as the removal of the piece, Playboy has oftentimes teetered on the brink of too risque and excitingly risque. This move does not surprise me as they don’t want to offend people, just offer entertainment… and good articles
Ginger
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 12:38 pm: [report]
As much as I hate Elizabeth Hasselbeck, I do have to admit that she is rather attractive. Until she opens her mouth at least.
justme
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 12:39 pm: [report]
I’m not republican and I’m not that old (31) but I find a list of women that some schmuck wants hate f*ck to be extremely offensive.
The reason why is
1. it is one man (the author) not some poll of random faceless internet. this makes it personal.
2. the term hate f*cking does not sound at all to me like VannaMarie described it above. it sounds MUCH more sinister than that.
Chebs
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 12:55 pm: [report]
I agree with justme, hate f*ck sounds like a way to say rape without actually saying rape. Perhaps it’s simply a personal difference between what f*ck and sex mean to me, because I don’t see anything wrong with hate sex. Which I think is what I would equate to VannaMarie’s version of hate f*ck. Hooray for different shades of meaning in words.
puck
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 03:51 pm: [report]
I agree here that it’s the term “hate #&@$%” that is the spark off. One more Playboy list about women that are hot but need to keep their mouth shut is nothing knew. It’s how the term sounds.
ChoJinn
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 10:19 am: [report]
“Censoring the piece doesn’t make it any less real, any less politically incorrect, any less true.”
So, anything that is real and true must not be censored? Right… The point is that people found the article to be offensive, and Playboy did what any struggling publication should do and saved face. Despite Playboy “objectifying” 22 year old communications majors from _ Community College on a monthly basis, nobody is going to argue that the nude photos, silly cartoons, and photos of Bill Mahr are actually offensive (ok, maybe not the last one).
Breslin precociousness doesn’t allow her to realize this, but government, laws, and civil liability exist to police human nature.
scooch
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 12:25 am: [report]
“Need to keep their mouths shut”, Puck? What country do you live in where women “need to keep their mouths shut” just because they have something to say? Oh yeah, the one with the rape culture that you seem to condone. You sound like a darling.