Hugh Hefner has often been represented as a key player in the cultural objectification of women in the United States. Critics of his magazine have "argued that Playboy encourages men to eschew the responsibilities of adulthood by flouting the conventions of emotional commitment to and financial responsibility for women, in favor of a hedonistic focus on sexuality." (Beggan, 2003). Typically, Hefner has been perceived as being a catalyst to the perpetuation of these sort of moral standards, and that his magazine was an effort to break away from the moral standards instilled by his parents -- consequently, puritan and protestant Christianity. However, assumption makes the all too common error of too strongly associating Hugh Hefner the man with the magazine that made him rich. Importantly, Hefner's original attempts at creating a magazine were utterly ordinary and uncontroversial. "At first he hoped to produce a wholesome journal about Chicago, but when he failed to find financial backing for that idea, he considered starting a trade magazine for cartoonists, and when...

Essentially, Hefner's drive to produce a magazine with naked pictures in it was not caused by his restrictive upbringing, nor was it a result of a lowly opinion of women; it was simply seen as a way in which he could make money. After all, his wife was pregnant at the time and he needed to find a quick and reliable way to support their child. So, as Hefner's celebrity began to take-off, and his magazine promoted a free-wheeling lifestyle, he still lived a very ordinary life as a husband and father. "To Hefner, it was of no significance that his magazine did not reflect his own personal lifestyle of interests. What was important to him was that Playboy should depict a lifestyle that readers would want to emulate." (Hylton, 2000). In short, Hefner's morally questionable magazine was a calculated business decision.
If this is so, how is it that Hefner, from…