Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#112719 - 05/09/17 12:32 AM Playboy & Satanism
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
In the Playboy Philosophy (which ran from December 1962 to May 1965) it seemed like Hef had snuggled up with the Devil before Year One.

I have highlighted some quotes and the entire philosophy can be found here.

 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy page 15
The great majority will agree with what we've just stated, and yet the almost subconscious, guilty feeling persists that there is something evil in the flesh of man -- a carryover from a Puritanism of our
forefathers (that included such delights as the torturing of those who didn't abide by the strict ethical and moral code of the community and the occasional burning of witches) which we have rejected intellectually, but which still motivates us on subtler, emotional levels. Thus a men's magazine is appealing to "peep-show tastes" when it includes in its contents the photographs of sparsely clad women-- a conclusion the Newsweek writer could almost certainly never justify intellectually, but a conclusion that he managed to put to paper just the same.


[quote PB Philosophy page 19] Fortunately only a twisted few are able to fully accept such a negative view of God's handiwork, but the witch-burning Puritanism, which associated the Devil with all things of the flesh, and which formed a part of our early religious heritage in America, has left its mark on
many more. [/quote]

 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy page 45
If unauthenticated cases of "witch burning" were relatively unknown in early America (compared
to the thousands of religious executions in Europe by fire, drawing and quartering, boiling in oil,disembowelment and a great variety of other tortures too numerous to catalog here, throughout the 16th,17th and 18th centuries), our Puritan forefathers had other subtler ways of keeping the citizens in line --public floggings, the stocks, the scarlet letter, the ducking stool and an occasional hanging -- all for relatively minor infringements of the religious dicta of the time.


 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy page 86
Edwin J. Lucas, director of the Society for the Prevention of Crime, has stated: "I am unaware of
the existence of any scientifically established causal relationship between the reading of books and delinquency. It is my feeling that efforts to link the two are an extension of the archaic impulse by which,through the ages, witchcraft, evil spirits and other superstitious beliefs have in turn been blamed for antisocial behavior."


There is also an entire chapter entitled Sex and Witchcraft that begins on page 117.

 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy page 47
Most religion in America teaches that man is born with the stain of original sin upon him; a free
democracy stands on the belief that man is born innocent and remains so until changed by society. Most
organized religion in the U.S. is rooted in a tradition that links man's body with evil, physical pleasures
with sin and pits man's mind and soul against the devil of the flesh; the principles underlying our
democracy recognize no such conflict of the body, mind and soul. Religion tends to de-emphasize material things, discourage a concern over the acquisition of wealth, bless the poor and promise that they shall dwell with God in the kingdom of heaven; our free enterprise system is founded on the ideal that
striving to materially better oneself is worthwhile and benefits not only the individual, but the world around him. Most religions are based upon the importance of this one.


 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy page 89
But the world of words reveals most clearly how, even without Newspeak, we have been taught
that the spiritual, religious, Godly side of man is in opposition to sex, the body and material accomplishments and pleasures. Consider these definitions in the Second Edition of Webster's New
International Dictionary: Spiritual is defined as pertaining to, or consisting of, the spirit; not material; of, or pertaining to,
the moral feelings or states of the soul; pure, holy, divine; of or pertaining to sacred things of the church, or religious affairs; the opposite of spiritual is, according to Webster's, carnal. Carnal is defined as fleshly, bodily, sensual, sexual, animal, flesh-devouring, bloodthirsty,unregenerate, worldly, material, temporal, secular; the antonym of carnal is listed as spiritual. The opposite of intelligent is stupid; the mind of man is seen only in qualitative opposition to itself. How curious then that the opposite of spiritual should be carnal; with the spirit and body of man opposing one another.

The definitions of these words are in our dictionaries, because centuries of common usage have put them there. What strange sort of religion have we evolved that places the Godly part of man in
opposition to the whole of his physical being? In simple theological truth, are not heaven and hell opposites, rather than heaven and earth? Is it not the devil who is opposed to God, rather than man's mortal flesh? The devil can exist as easily in the mind of man as in his body; and there are times when he
takes control of the spiritual side of man, as well. How else can the religious among us explain the Inquisition and the countless horrors perpetrated by organized religion down through history?


 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy page 98
If a man has a right to find God in his own way, he has a right to go to the devil in his own way,
also. It sometimes happens that the man most other men would agree is surely "going to the devil" has, instead, discovered a new truth that is leading him away from established thought and tradition to a better way that, in time, other men will understand and follow. The Bible singles out the meek and the poor in spirit for special blessings. We'd like to add one of our own: Blessed is the rebel -- without him there
would be no progress.


 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy pages 116-117
In his article, The Sabbats of Satan, in last month's Playboy, E.V. Griffith described some of the rituals purportedly practiced by witches of the time and it is undoubtedly true that in a period of such extreme sexual repression some devil worship really did exist. It was during the 14th century that the
Black Mass was born, in which the holy sacrament of the Church was turned into a ritual honoring Lucifer, and the nude body of a young woman was used as an altar, from which were read the Devil's Commandments, with the "Thou shalts nots" of the Ten Commandments changed to "Thou shalts." But it is doubtful that these practices were as common as it is generally assumed. The actual number of devil worshipers will never be known, but it is certain that only a small percentage of those executed for
witchcraft were actually guilty of any crime whatever.


 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy page 118
In early Christianity, the devil had played a relatively minor role. But early in the 14th century,Satan became a very definite and prominent figure in religious dogma, with detailed appearance, habits and intentions. He was viewed as the immortal enemy of God, exclusively occupied in trying to mislead men into denying or perverting Christian morals and practices. Various lesser demons were described as the members of the devil's staff of subordinates, all organized in a hierarchy very similar to that of the Church. Not only were Satan's chief lieutenants given names, the exact number of his army of demons was calculated: 7,405,926. The devil frequently engaged in those forbidden sexual acts that were prohibited to man and in some accounts he is described as having a forked penis, so that he could commit fornication and sodomy at the same time. The Devil was both insatiable and sadistic, sometimes demanding intercourse 50 and 60 times a night. Though he lives in the bowels of the earth, mid fire and brimstone, he was often described as icy cold to the touch -- especially his sexual parts. The clergy had an explanation for this iciness that was, if nothing else, ingenious: "Having no semen of his own, he gathers up that of mortal men wasted in their night dreams or masturbations, storing it up in his own abhorred body for later usage." The devil's demons were either male (incubus) or female (succubus), and could change from one to the other at will. Griffith writes, "Practicing this quick-change artistry was, in fact, a favorite trick of the hellish visitors: Often a man would be locked in amorous embrace with a succubus...when the devil would transform [herself] to a male incubus, with attendant complications which the demon found hilarious. The reverse also took place, when the female witch, at the height of her abominable ravishment, found her hellish gallant had gone aglimmering, leaving her in the arms of a succubus." The subconscious fears of homosexuality in such imaginings is obvious. The devil, who was "Prince of the Air" as well as of the Darkness, could also make himself invisible and thus have intercourse with his converts in the very presence of the godly.


 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy page 123
The new Church concept of the Fall also suited its antifemale attitude, since it was Eve who tempted Adam into tasting the "forbidden fruit." Tertullian proclaimed to all of womanhood: "Do you not know that each one of you is an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: The guilt
must of necessity live, too. You are the devil's gateway...you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack...."


I feel that these are a healthy sampling of quotes, though indeed there are more.

Worth noting also is these neat little facts: Hefner and LaVey were both born in Chicago. They both created total environments. They both also shared associations with Marilyn Monroe, Sammy Davis Jr. and Jayne Mansfield.

*The pages cited are according to my pfd reader, though the actual page numbers are different.

Top
#112753 - 05/11/17 06:10 AM Re: Playboy & Satanism [Re: LoneWolf78]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
That was an interesting read. Some nice quotes. I wonder where they got all their information about 14 century Satanism. Witch studies perhaps?

Seems to me the only time women and men get along is when a man has created such a total environment where hordes of women live casually under the his domain. I sometimes wonder if this is the true model of human sexuality. We note this in many other animal species, where the male has several of the females exclusive to himself. Women seem attracted to men who are sexually active with many other women, material acquisitions aside.

Of course those who indulge in sex and other luxuries entirely uncommitted are often labelled Satanic, this is of course produced by one of the more prevalent sins:

Envy...
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#112759 - 05/11/17 05:43 PM Re: Playboy & Satanism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 416
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
I wonder where they got all their information about 14 century Satanism. Witch studies perhaps?


I am honestly not sure. What you must remember is that the Playboy Philosophy was written solely by Hugh Hefner. It was it his way of letting his critics know exactly where he stood on various issues. So the topics of Witchcraft and Satanism must have been on his mind. What is really worth noting is that the philosophy came out shortly before The Satanic Bible.

He then branched the philosophy out into the Playboy Foundation and then opened up communication with the Playboy Forum.

Granted, Playboy is a brand, however, you can certainly see parallels with Satanism if you cast aside the brand names and official organizations. If you look more in the various orders of some organizations where a specific focus is the study.

Think of it this way:

There is Satanism (not a brand or organization).

Then there are atheistic groups such as the CoS. As far as a heretical stance regarding the two terms, I would note that
 Quote:
The term Satanist, curiously enough, was first used
to denote those who believed nothing at all. John
Aylmer, Bishop of London under Queen Elizabeth I,
described the atheists of his day as Satanists in his
pamphlet *An Harbour for Faithful and Truth Subjects*
published in 1559.
source

There are also theistic groups such as Luciferianism dedicated to the Devil.


There are even Satanic activist groups such as The Satanic Temple that advocate things that a Christian society would not accept on a political level.

While all of these things differ greatly in some areas, the common ground is that they are all adversarial by nature and have decided to adopt some variation of Satan to promote their philosophy.

 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
Of course those who indulge in sex and other luxuries entirely uncommitted are often labelled Satanic, this is of course produced by one of the more prevalent sins:

Envy...


Hahahahaha. Agreed.

Top
#112778 - 05/12/17 10:15 PM Re: Playboy & Satanism [Re: LoneWolf78]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1641
Loc: Orlando, FL
LaVey certainly enjoyed cultivating a playboy reputation and was himself the subject of a few photoshoots for vintage softcore rags (along with several conspicuously-attractive 'disciples').

 Originally Posted By: PB Philosophy
In his article, The Sabbats of Satan, in last month's Playboy, E.V. Griffith described some of the rituals purportedly practiced by witches of the time and it is undoubtedly true that in a period of such extreme sexual repression some devil worship really did exist. It was during the 14th century that the Black Mass was born, in which the holy sacrament of the Church was turned into a ritual honoring Lucifer, and the nude body of a young woman was used as an altar, from which were read the Devil's Commandments, with the "Thou shalts nots" of the Ten Commandments changed to "Thou shalts." But it is doubtful that these practices were as common as it is generally assumed. The actual number of devil worshipers will never be known, but it is certain that only a small percentage of those executed for
witchcraft were actually guilty of any crime whatever.


The pseudo-academic pedant in me is urged to point out that this conception of Satanism and the Black Mass is based on a few disparate historical accounts from wildly different times and places that were conflated and over-dramatized by in the 1800s by Jules Michelet, and thereafter given a false veneer of historicity through brute force repetition by Huysmans, Montague Summers, H.T.F. Rhodes, et al. It is interesting to note that the element of the nude woman on the altar originated not in an imagined 14th century of sexual repression, but during the 17th century in royal high society positively bursting at the seams with scarcely-bridled carnal excesses (and, I might add, as part of a magical/heretical Catholic worldview that perverted rather than inverted the mystery of the Mass).

The last remark, however, is rather accurate regarding the very small scope of actual witchcraft--to say nothing of explicit Diabolism.

 Originally Posted By: The Playboy Philosophy
Dr. Wendell Sherman of the University of Chicago has stated: "I have never seen one instance of a child whose behavior disturbance originated in the reading of books, nor even a case of a delinquent
whose behavior was exaggerated by such reading. A child may ascribe his behavior to a book he has read or a movie he has seen. But such explanations cannot be considered scientific evidence of
causation."


 Quote:
It sometimes happens that the man most other men would agree is surely "going to the devil" has, instead, discovered a new truth that is leading him away from established thought and tradition to a better way that, in time, other men will understand and follow. The Bible singles out the meek and the poor in spirit for special blessings. We'd like to add one of our own: Blessed is the rebel -- without him there would be no progress.


There was, interestingly, an old medieval Catholic proverb that ran something along the lines of "Learn Greek today, become a heretic tomorrow". Not because there was anything especially sinister about Greek or any particular language, but simply the reality that when a person is raised in a rigid society with limited cultural exposure--then the penetration of any outside influence, any alternate perspective, becomes an existential threat that the whole system. The destabilizing and entropic nature of knowledge is a recurring theme in studies of the Satanic--atheistic and otherwise.

 Originally Posted By: Satan, "Paradise Lost"
One fatal tree there stands of Knowledge called,
Forbidden them to taste: Knowledge forbidden?
Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord
Envy them that? Can it be sin to know?
Can it be death? And do they only stand
By ignorance, is that their happy state,
The proof of their obedience and their faith?

 Originally Posted By: Paradise Lost
Innocence, once lost, can never be regained. Darkness, once gazed upon, can never be lost.


Overall, the similarities are very interesting, and this book does dovetail with the themes of TSB at many points. Reading Hefner's writings, there is a sense that both his and LaVey's pragmatic hedonism (with a few nods to its biblical patron) were cut from similar cloth.
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#112795 - 05/13/17 02:53 PM Re: Playboy & Satanism [Re: The Zebu]
fiendish Offline
member


Registered: 02/27/16
Posts: 253
I don't think there's any entropic or destabilizing nature in knowledge. What matters is not always knowledgeable.
_________________________
The truth cannot be deleted.

Top
#112797 - 05/14/17 10:32 PM Re: Playboy & Satanism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
ShadowLover Offline
member


Registered: 05/26/16
Posts: 261
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
 Originally Posted By: Creatura Noptii
Seems to me the only time women and men get along is when a man has created such a total environment where hordes of women live casually under the his domain. I sometimes wonder if this is the true model of human sexuality. We note this in many other animal species, where the male has several of the females exclusive to himself. Women seem attracted to men who are sexually active with many other women, material acquisitions aside.


Yes and no... As a model for relationships I don't discard it as it certainly follows nature.

Yes women are attracted to men which other women are attracted to. But that is only a small part of it. It would more accurately be described simply as women individually being attracted to the same man. (and we are back to women being like water and naturally flowing in a certain direction).

As for it being a female fantasy to have a relationship like this... No. Certainly not in modern times. And I say this because of the Mills and Boone and chick flicks and 50 Shades phenomenon. If you go by all of the entertainment that women spend millions indulging in it is a womens' fantasy to have the best man in the entire world, that every other woman wants, has been a mad player in the past but now has fallen so deeply in love that he only want her. Bahahahaha! That's womens' fantasy. (Now let me go barf).

In real life, as a committed relationship I have rarely seen poly work and I am one of the once that would quite happily vote it into legislation.

It is also not the "model" most men imagine it to be. In nature, the reign of the king is fleeting. He only has his reign while he is the absolute alpha - once he ages or gets sick, becomes complacent or whatever, another male will step in to fight him off his throne and the females won't give a toss - they only want the best.

In human committed relationships we are hopefully more tolerant and don't kick our partner to the curb for a single infraction. We don't abandon them if they get sick, or have a bad run. We step up and do our bit to compensate and support the union. We allow our emotion to have a say in our decisions.

Of course, humans still have their animal instincts and such is often the cause for bust ups.

Another problem with every man having six women is that it is mathematically impossible. The global human population of men accounts for 50.1%. In reality, the more men that have six women, the more men that don't have any - just like in nature. Those that want 6 would have to fight harder and provide more because these are the ones that the women would flow towards. The rest would just be drones, building the infrastructure which makes the life of the polygamous family unit more comfortable.

Most men should want to avoid this scenario as a social model because most men wouldn't be one getting to copulate with six females. They wouldn't be getting sex at all unless they encounter one the few girls who liked to wander in the fringes. It is in a mans make-up to imagine himself as the alpha, but put to the polyamory test - mathematically, most don't make the cut. There are a lot of great, everyday blokes out there that do really well with one woman and it would be a shame if there were none left for them to do well with.

And then there is the fact that most men find one woman problematic enough, financially and environmentally - imagine having to put up with six women! ...And all their kids! Lol.

As a counterculture... The men who do like this model and who would fare well in it... are already doing it! I've got one in my phone, and I know that anytime I want a bit of super alpha company I can ring him and go hang out. These guys love the company of women. I am one of many that have visited him because he has awesome masculine energy and is intelligent and a great conversationalist (and good in the sack, of course). But you have to take it for what it is - a hit, or an indulgence in palpable energy. And that's all...


Edited by ShadowLover (05/14/17 10:35 PM)
_________________________
Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.

Top
#112798 - 05/15/17 01:37 AM Re: Playboy & Satanism [Re: ShadowLover]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
You mention men having a hard time with just one woman. In these scenarios, the men are mega-rich, but that doesn't negate human nature. Most monogamous relationships go sour, it isn't the desired model.

Biologically, women are men's personal aid, not bodyguards. In my opinion/observation women are mostly body fat to have the babies. Most notable is the man's superior capability to endure physical hardship. This is necessary for the survival of the man and a woman in a relationship. If there is one good provider to several women, it is beneficial to have several individual animals tending to the homestead, as numbers are usually good to scare off intruding animals, other than humans of course. This is good for a short time while men are out hunting and gathering.

Note the biology of a woman, often being simple minded compared to a man. Nature prefers that men and women are split up in two units for survival: The man is strong, so he can endure and fight to gather resources and protect what's his.

Since women have babies and need a good deal of food, it wouldn't be a logical move by nature to give women the same muscle mass as men. Being mostly body fat, women eat enough when pregnant. Having all the muscle would burn away a lot of fat and demand several times the regular daily protein intake. Women would get pregnant and quickly die off without some other biological countermeasure in place. Women are also quite restricted to their going-abouts when pregnant and are often vulnerable to accidents and even predatory animals. They certainly cannot hunt and fend for themselves.

Giving women a greater amount of body fat for pregnancy, while giving men the upper hand in physical and intellectual durability creates a more preferable biological balance between the two in terms of survival. The man provides, the woman nurtures. This allows more opportunity for the man to hunt and gather, while at the same time, the woman can remain stagnant in order to take care of herself.

So you see, it begets men to be dominant and superior to women, and for women to be submissive and inferior to men. This is the dynamic, whether people's morality and ideology match up is irrelevant. Until we have technological and biological augmentation, this current state of being will remain as is.

As per the troop dynamic, yes there are pros and cons to every set up. You get old and taken over, someone will take your females, but as you stated, humans have more psychology in their behavioural complex, and if a troop ages together, the females may also become undesireable as time goes on. However, most of the time women show age more drastically than men, and in our social climate women lose their marketplace value with age, while for men its usually the opposite. A man could switch out his females over time for more desirable mates. Men of lesser value might inherit these women as they seek a new alpha. This is already observable in society as we see the growing population of single mothers chasing men out of their league who reject them for more preferable women of younger age and sexual attraction, who have not lost their physical capabilities to things like alcohol and sugar addiction, which makes for masses of women who are unattractive due to features such as facial sagging, wrinkles, belly fat, and other offensive signs of age. Note, these women are even worse off since many young women are often flimsy, or obese. This condition narrows the choices of desirable women even more for men of value.

A new phenomenon is the 20/80 rule, wherein most young women only find 20% or less of available men attractive, meaning women only advertise themselves to alpha men for the most part. After 'hitting the wall,' or rather, when a woman's reproductive value has deteriorated, these dead-end-moms have no choice but to accept anything they can get, since young men simply will have none of it.

The fact is men are forced to either live up to outrageous expectations and settle into the common cost-heavy monogamous relationship and risk things like no-fault divorce, or casual sex, which can also be risky with STDs and irrational desperate, often mentally-ill women who plot and act upon the destruction of your well-being. As this phenomenon of female mental illusion and insecure behaviour grows, men have no choice but to better calculate their options and personal value.

If you are very rich, the troop will work because women won't demand from you, since you have more than enough to take care of a good lot of them. If you are not mega rich, and you do not fall into the bracket of the top 10-20%, women will demand more, and often become irrational expecting more money and resource with an accompanying decrease of affection and appreciation over time, which is often replaced with a very harsh and cruel attitude. The only other choice is to opt out entirely, since there are other things in life a man can find to make him happy, as men are developed to survive on their own.

Hugh Hefner's total environment of the Playboy mansion is the monument to the sexual living dynamic of human beings. Another to look at is Dan Bilzarian. Note the implications of how men are perceived to be using women, even though they gladly volunteer to accompany him. No one likes to admit it due to moral and ideological conditioning, but the natural dynamic remains.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#112800 - 05/15/17 06:00 AM Re: Playboy & Satanism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
ShadowLover Offline
member


Registered: 05/26/16
Posts: 261
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
You've missed my point, Creature...

I'm not saying this model you talk of doesn't exist (or doesn't work). I'm saying that it works better for women. This model you talk of leaves most men out in the cold.

And some of the men it does work for are already doing it - like Hugh Hefner! They don't need the validation of having the model recognised and commonplace so they can do it... They just do it!
_________________________
Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.

Top
#112801 - 05/15/17 08:30 AM Re: Playboy & Satanism [Re: ShadowLover]
Creatura Noptii Offline
active member


Registered: 01/02/16
Posts: 751
Loc: Oregon
 Originally Posted By: ShadowLover
This model you talk of leaves most men out in the cold.


This is true. I don't know exactly how it would work unless a man were extremely wealthy. There is no one solve-all system to level the playing field. Human sexuality is highly subjective from person to person as it is, I only mention the model as a base drive. My elaboration above was to provide a few examples of observation, but ultimately the world will turn as it does.

As a Satanist you must engage what suits you. As the environment changes, one must find ways to adapt. This can mean going with the flow or sometimes against it. Usually a manipulation of both in varying degrees of quantity and quality.
_________________________
Creatură Nopții

Top
#112848 - 05/20/17 05:18 PM Re: Playboy & Satanism [Re: Creatura Noptii]
fiendish Offline
member


Registered: 02/27/16
Posts: 253
A chameleon? Camouflage is a way of presenting yourself. The actual reaction refers to the inaction of safety. Going with the flow or against it will be the same. Generally, reptiles can detect heat.
Now, about Hugh Hefner. My T-Rex of reptiles. He must have a great reserve of carrots to feed all that bunnies.
_________________________
The truth cannot be deleted.

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.027 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 23 queries. Zlib compression disabled.