You are here

More on Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy magazine

This is a follow-up on Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy magazine.  Recently, I came across additional information that sheds light on why too many Playboy centerfolds in recent years have been masculinized women.

Hefner has admitted to “experimenting with bisexuality.”  This lends credibility to Jill Spaulding’s claim that Hefner likes to watch gay pornography while having sex with this girfriends.

Here are some pictures of the woman Hefner married in 1989, Kimberley Conrad:

Kimberley Conrad Hefner Kimberley Conrad Hefner Kimberley Conrad Hefner

Note the masculine face of Kimberley Conrad.  Someone in Hefner’s position surely was not restricted to masculinized women for a potential wife.  

Playboy magazine currently pays $25,000 to centerfold models (Playmates) and over $100,000 (not sure of the exact amount) to Playmate of the Year.  These amounts are massive compared to what the typical nude model gets, which would at best be a few hundred dollars per hour.  Photographers of nude women for men’s publications disproportionately recruit women from Eastern Europe because it is the only region where attractive nude models with international appeal can be recruited for cheap, thanks to the poverty there.  For instance, Domai, a website featuring artistic nudity, typically pays photographers $400 for a photo shoot of a nude model comprising of 70-150 pictures, and the [most likely Eastern European] nude model obviously earns only a part of this money.

Playboy Enterprises Inc. obviously has a lot of funds and enough of a high profile to pay $25,000 to a nude centerfold, and given the magazine’s potential to bring mainstream fame to a woman who appears nude in Playboy, Playboy magazine is in a position to attract the best-looking women that are willing to pose nude.  Yet, we get women like the following centerfolds in the magazine:

Krista Kelly Christina Marie Leardini Natalia Sokolova

Krista Kelly, Christina Marie Leardini, Natalia Sokolova

Anna Nicole Smith Elke Jeinsen Shae Marks

Anna Nicole Smith, Elke Jeinsen, Shae Marks

Shauna Sand Stephanie Glasson Jacqueline Sheen

Shauna Sand, Stephanie Glasson, Jacqueline Sheen

Colleen Marie Dalene Kurtis Vanessa Hoelsher

Colleen Marie, Dalene Kurtis, Vanessa Hoelsher

Kerri Kendall Cara Michelle Victoria Alynette Fuller

Kerri Kendall, Cara Michelle, Victoria Alynette Fuller

Victoria Silvstedt Divini Rae Deborah Driggs

Victoria Silvstedt, Divini Rae, Deborah Driggs

All the centerfolds shown immediately above are taken from the 1990s to present, and constitute only a few illustrative examples.  There are plenty of other masculinized Playmates, whose level of masculinization will surprise numerous people if Playboy magazine showed clear pictures of them, i.e., no airbrushing or blurring.  There has been a trend of increasing masculinization among Playmates since the inception of the magazine (1953).

Just contrast the Playmates shown above with the following women, all taken from the attractive women section of this site.

Lindsey Marshal

Now we can figure out the most likely reason behind the masculinization trend among Playboy centerfolds.  Hugh Hefner, the ultimate decision maker regarding who gets to be a Playmate, appears to be a bisexual and likes masculinized women.  When he founded the magazine, the feminine female form was in the limelight, and Hefner could not have gone against it while he was trying to establish the magazine.  In addition, the silicon gel breast implant was not available then, which would be required to add pseudo-femininity to the often naturally small breasts of insufficiently feminine nude centerfolds.  Indeed, breast implants have been common among Playmates in recent years. 

When Playboy magazine was established, it had no competitors, and was quickly able to attain widespread recognition.  When the competition came, it was in the form of magazines such as Penthouse and Hustler, both focusing on genitals, which they probably had to in order to compete with Playboy by offering something that Playboy didn’t, which in turn made these magazines less respectable in mainstream society and limited the number of attractive women willing to pose nude in them.  With the advent of the internet, a huge number of websites featuring nudity came into existence, and this has made it very difficult for a particular website to attain the recognition of Playboy magazine.  Therefore, resting on Playboy’s widespread recognition -- as well as resorting to posing tricks, women with breast implants and airbrushing -- Hefner has been able to get away with recruiting a greater proportion of masculinized nude models over the years.  Whereas the magazine has lost circulation to the tune of millions, it still sells millions of copies, and Christie Hefner, Hugh Hefner’s daughter, who happens to be the CEO of Playboy Enterprises Inc., has saved Playboy from further decline by expanding Playboy Enterprises to include a TV network, video productions, etc.

Interestingly, Hefner has been responsible for both establishing a notorious/famous publication and then ruining it by increasingly bringing the centerfolds in line with his preference for masculinized women and also because in numerous cases he has undoubtedly been obliged to feature some women as centerfolds in exchange for having sex with him, and few of these women are expected to be attractive because attractive women would be the least likely to have sex with an old man in exchange for being made a Playmate.  This is unfortunate from the perspective of seeing feminine beauty in the limelight.  Whereas this website is not particularly interested in bringing the feminine nude form into the limelight -- the choice of mostly nude models for various illustrative purposes, including showcasing attracting women, has to do with few reasonable alternatives at present -- if there is one high-profile group/organization/publication capable of bringing the attractive nude female form, i.e., a feminine form as far as most people are concerned, to the limelight, then Playboy magazine is the most capable, but Hefner has ruined it.

Christie Hefner would be best advised to ensure that after Hugh Hefner passes away, the person who makes the final decision about who gets to be a Playmate happens to be a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual, preferably with some artistic skills and an eye for women.  This person could easily increase the magazine’s circulation by the hundreds of thousands if not millions while doing an excellent job at bringing feminine beauty to the limelight.




What is your opinion on Hugh's three current girlfriends and their relative masculinity/feminity? These women are featured in a program on the E! Entertainment Network called "The Girls Next Door" which I have been unfortunate to watch a couple of times...a guilty diversion I'll admit.

I looked up their measurements on Wikepedia which may or may not have accurate information but here goes:

Holly 36-23-36
Kendra 34-24-32
Bridget 34-25-36

Naturally, they are all at least C cups and probably all have implants. The point is, Hugh's sleeping mates are undoubtedly a good source of information on how his preferences in women run and whether he does prefer a more masculine partner and whether the increasing masculinization of women in Playboy is related.

If you can obtain good photos of these women, I would appreciate your opinion.

What you are trying to say through this site, with atypical coyness, is that you don't like gays. Why be so indirect?

Sandy: The reported measurements of Hefner’s girlfriends are not useful since one cannot be sure whether they are accurate and it is also the case that both Holly and Kendra have large breast implants (not sure about Bridget WHERE cid= '; his wife Kimberley also had large breast implants when he married her. None of these women are feminine; some pictures: Bridget Marquardt, Kendra Wilkinson and Holly Madison. Holly may be the most feminine of the bunch, but in an interview she said that she wasn’t exactly Hefner’s physical type when she came across him.

John: Why would someone who dislikes gays express his dislike in a time consuming and very indirect manner?


I agree that Holly is the most feminine, based on her physique at least. Kendra appears to have small hips and a boyish build, minus the large implants.

I would hope that if people could not agree on anything else on this site, that they would at least acknowledge that large breast implants coupled with a small frame, which seems to be "someone's" idea of beauty and sexiness, is completely NOT attractive, as it is unnatural and not proportional. I am not completely against breast implants, but I think that they should fit with someone's body and not be large breasts just for the sake of large breasts. Most men that I know look at the whole person/body and are not necessarily into big for the sake of big...HA...although some undoubtedly are.

By the way, I am trying to have my own pseudonym on here and Sandy seems a popular name to pick, so for now am Sandy-one.

John: This is about non-heterosexual men using their power—like brand recognition or designer status—to impose ridiculous standards of feminine beauty.

If you didn't find at least some of the above Playboy models to be inappropriately butch, then you'll never understand this site.

Okay, I revise my opinion slightly. Erik Holland isn't just a raving homophobe- in fact I was wrong, while he plainly dislikes and doesn't understand gays, that's not his only purpose. I even concede that he is trying to promote his own idea of feminine beauty. Normally, I would say that someone who thinks that Rebecca Romijn looks like a "male transvestite" was living in wilful self-deception, but I now see exactly what Erik is on about. This site completely misunderstands the fact that perceptions of beauty evolve with time and is trying to promote the kind of beauty that was fashionable in 1930.

Erik, by the way, what do you think of the fact that women like Adriana Lima, Veronica Varekova, Alessandra Ambrosio, Marisa Miller, Rebecca Romijn are frequently featured at or near the top of "sexiest" and "most desirable" women lists published by the likes of FHM, Maxim and, all strongly heterosexual-male dominated publications? Also what do you think of the "feminine beauty" of the likes of Jessica Alba, Scarlett Johansson and Petra Nemcova?

John, Erik isn't promoting his own idea of beauty. Though you try to deny it, the contents of this site are BACKED UP BY SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, and Erik's idea of feminine beauty is what most people find attractive. Those celebrities you mentioned get the titles "The Sexiest" or "The Most Desirable" not mainly because of how they look but because of their personality, popularity, talent perhaps, and also because they have photos wherein they wear skimpy clothes and do sexy poses. Besides, those photos are already edited by computer softwares. They also employ posing tricks to look more feminine. You really should go through all the pages of this site before leaving your comments.

John: Quit joking. Ad hominems do not refute arguments. Your comment does not belong in this entry. You have made assertions without backing them up. Examples: something about gays within this site is a misunderstanding, the perception of beauty has evolved with time, etc. There is plenty of data within this site relating above average femininity in women to good fertility and fecundity, i.e., a preference for above average femininity in women is expected to be a long-term stable central tendency in the heterosexual male population. 20th century model trends have already been explained elsewhere, which you have not even attempted to refute. And no, the most feminine models were not found in the 1930s, but more around the mid-twentieth century.

The high ranking of masculinized models in magazines or websites catering to the general heterosexual male population has also been explained earlier. For instance, selects about 200 or so famous young women -- which, thanks to the gay domination of the fashion business, comprise of models that are typically masculinized and other celebrities that are rarely examples of feminine beauty -- and then asks its readers to vote on them. Hence, the top-ranked ones would often be masculinized women. Many of the voting men are also unaware of posing tricks, airbrushing or how these women compare to feminine and attractive women.

If you wish to understand what it is that most people prefer, you need to look at controlled laboratory studies, where it is clear that the general public strongly and overwhelmingly prefers above average femininity in the looks of women. In these studies, the participants are shown pictures of women ranging from feminine to masculine and asked to pick what they like. There is no such analog in the real world, where the highest ranking models are typically masculinized and few examples of feminine beauty occupy the limelight.

I addressed Jessica Alba in a comment elsewhere and don’t wish to repeat it. I neither like nor dislike the looks of Scarlett Johansson, but Petra Nemcova looks good to me.

What people fail to understand is how profoundly socialized ideals can alter their entire perceptual process. Do you think maimed, disabled, tortured, disfigured women are sexy? You would have if you lived in China not too long ago. The misogynistic ideal back then was for women's feet to be bound (read: broken and crushed, over and over again, for years, beginning in childhood). The new misogynistic ideal is for women to look like men.

Women are afraid to say anything about this (if they even notice it at all!), because they're rightly aware of the overall problem of how defining what is acceptable for women to look like is inherently misogynistic. The problem is that they then overlook this horrific culturally sanctioned debasement of femininity to their own detriment (but to the gain of perhaps 2% of women--virilized ones).

Part of the origin of the problem is the emphasis on thinness, which is better approximated by tall people on TV (as television illusively adds weight). Tall women tend to be virilized, as height is mediated by androgens (Erik has disagreed with me on this, but it's true), so the masculinity-skewed dimorphisms other than height tend to come hand-in-hand--all due to the original desire to merely approximate the average proportion that is distorted on television. How this disgusting trend in misogyny then began to subtley take over as the ideal is subject for debate.

I like what Erik is doing, although I have a problem with some of the misogyny he himself promotes on the site. Promoting pornography in any context is disturbing and degrading to women. Ironically, they themselves are generally more masculinized on average, and also use previously discussed feminizing camera/aesthetic modifications as models do to compensate for this deficit. However, they still provide a striking contrast to the exceptionally masculinized amazonian beasts.

I don't think Erik hates gay men, I think gay men hate women.

If Erik suffers from any ism, it's probably a little bit of sexism but a whole lot of racism. Even as a white woman, I am disturbed by the obvious exclusion of darker-skinned women in the creepy "attractive women" collection.

Kimberly: If there is one thing you learn from this site, you need to revise your notion of profoundly socialized ideals altering entire perceptual processes. For instance, notwithstanding the heavy promotion of masculinized women by the fashion industry, controlled laboratory studies have shown people to strongly and overwhelmingly prefer above average femininity in the looks of women. Similarly, it is unlikely that the situation in China was as drastic as you describe it. Many people would have found foot binding unpalatable, but were not able to do anything about this. Almost certainly analogously, for a long time many people have been railing against the skinniness of high-fashion models and a few voices also pointing out their masculinization, but what have these individuals achieved? Hardly anything.

The masculinization of models or women in the limelight does not represent misogyny but the direct or indirect aesthetic preferences of male homosexual fashion designers, and in the case of Playboy magazine the aesthetic preferences of a bisexual man with a preference for masculinized women. Quit using the term “culturally sanctioned debasement of femininity.” Most humans have not sanctioned it.

Most people prefer slimness, not skinniness, and the emphasis on the latter among high-fashion models is explained by the necessity of making them approximate the looks of boys in their early adolescence, not the issue of the camera adding weight, which would be a viable possibility if high-fashion models looked skinny in real life but normal on camera, but these models look skinny or camera.

Once again, controlling for ancestry, whereas taller women will be less feminine on average, it is an easy matter to come across tall and feminine women, and I have shown plenty within this site. Within an ethnic group, most of the variation in height is within the sexes and only a minority between them. Therefore, a woman could be tall without it resulting from masculinization. The circumstances leading to the increased prevalence of masculinized women among models have been extensively addressed, and this entry is part of this discussion; start here for a summary.

I am not promoting pornography. Please read the reason for the heavy reliance on nude models, the vast majority of whom in the attractive women section are not porn stars. Speaking of female porn stars catering to heterosexual men, there is no irony in their being disproportionately masculinized since women inclined toward promiscuity tend to be more masculine, on average.

I have not espoused any male supremacist viewpoints here and hence do not accuse me of even a little bit of sexism. You accuse me of misogyny yet use the term “masculinized amazonian beasts” to describe masculinized women models! The absence of non-white women in the attractive women section has nothing to do with racism, but with reasons explained on the FAQ page.

hello eric i was just looking at the playboy playmates from the yesteryears. is it possible to put in eleanor bradley from 1959? she seems to have a very curvy body as do many of the other playmates fo that era. her (and some others) although have somewhat masculine faces. however it would be interesting to see what an ideal feminine physique would be. i am a female and im not using you to post up pictures for any gratification (as being able to view those pictures on playboy require one to be a member). im just curious to see what really makes a feminine body.


Please use a pseudonym other than “anon.” Eleanor Bradley isn’t the best feminine example from the 1950s, but others like Sally Todd and Ellen Stratton had looks that were good examples of femininity. Go through this site and you will find numerous illustrations of feminine looks.

does eleanor's body not look feminine to you? disregarding the face of course. im merely asking about physique rather than overall looks.


It is very interesting to see photos of Playboy Playmates from the 50's and 60's. One comment I have that is more positive for our era is that while playmates have become more masculinized, less curvaceous, etc. etc., they have overall become more fit and toned looking -- a deparature from their counterparts of old. To me at least, a toned, fit body is part of the beauty package in today's world.

Even my 80+ year old mother noted recently that glamour girls of the 40's and 50's had great legs but often soft and even flabby arms and abdominal areas. Now, the emphasis has switched to sleek toned muscles, and while I realize overly built muscles are not necessarily attractive and masculine even, certainly an out-of-shape appearance is similarly unattractive. Perhaps "some" of the trend towards increased thinness was as a result on this emphasis on physical fitness...although obviously not all.

On another note, I was very intrigued with your blog entry regarding curvaceousness, especially in terms of how important height is to the equation. My own stats put me at about 4.4 because I am short, while a 5'10" model with my hip/bust measurements and a waist size 1" smaller even comes out at 4.1 -- quite a distinct difference. I had more thought of curvaceous in terms of waist and hip ratios, not factoring in the visual impact of height.

Nicole: Eleanor’s body is in the normal to feminine range.

Sandy: Regular exercise was uncommon in the 1950s, and a number of glamour models in Playboy magazine and elsewhere had poor muscle tone, but some of them had good muscle tone even though they were not slender -- e.g., Audrey Daston (Playmate, March 1959).

So, I said something derogatory about the looks of androgynous women who get paid more money than I'll ever hope to make for merely looking that way. That sexist statement doesn't absolve you of YOUR sexism/racism. FAQ me all you want, baby, you add masculinized women to the attractive women section every day--so long as they're white, and it's not a good enough reason to entirely exclude so many superbly feminine African American women that I see daily--anthropometric skull differences or no.

I don't think promiscuity has anything to do with why women in porn are masculinized! Most women find pornography degrading, but those virilized women probably identify with men more and care less about women's rights. Also, abused women are more likely to have an increase of testosterone and decrease of estrogen, although I cant find the study for it. They appear more masculine. Women with abusive/neglectful upbringings often end up in pornography. So that's a potential confounding factor.

Feminine women aren't "allowed" to be promiscuous. I, an exceptionally feminine woman with the exception of "robust cheekbones" due to some of my awesome residual Native American heritage, would love to have as many attractive mens' cocks in me as often as I could gather them, but diseases and cultural indoctrination have prevented me from doing so. If I can find a way around the diseases part, I am shedding the cultural bullshit ASAP, all 32DD-22-35 of me, bissshhh.

And another thing, height is hereditary and can be altered depending on pathogenic interference/lack of nutrition during development, but what one is fundamentally inheriting is a propensity toward estrogen or testosterone production. Tall women ARE masculinized, although you can find ones with both high testosterone and indicators of higher than average estrogen. However, if the ratio of estrogen to testosterone were extremely feminine, she would be shorter than average, and also more fertile. There are studies, and whatnot.

Admit it, you like this one aspect of the current beauty ideal that denigrates sexual dimorphism. So you can pick and choose which extremes are ideal based on your own preferences?

Look at any message board about VS models. Most people HAVE sanctioned it. Tyra Banks, who I dislike primarily for her idiocy and horrendous pseudo-personality, is even on the cover of my fucking Shape magazine this month. Cancelling it. Soon.

Kimberly: You have not explained what is sexist in my arguments; just made an empty accusation. I have clearly explained that this site is targeting people of European ancestry; all problems it is addressing are of Western origin. Therefore, the absence of non-European women in the attractive women section has nothing to do with racism. I do not have the time to address non-European women in a manner similar to European women nor is it relevant to this site.

What do you mean that I am adding masculinized women to the attractive women section everyday? This section is updated infrequently and has very few slightly masculinized women, none describable as manly, and their addition is to show that some masculinization is not aesthetically deleterious.

The great majority of women participating in pornography do not have an abusive background, and many of them could have made a decent living doing other things. Most of these women enjoy what they do and are happy/eager to do it on camera. I have cited evidence that women inclined toward promiscuity tend to have above average masculinization, and the underlying explanation involves the organizational and activational effects of androgens. People who favor a restrictive sociosexuality for women are not more inclined toward allowing masculinized women to be promiscuous compared to feminine women. So fear of venereal diseases and cultural indoctrination is holding you back? The typical promiscuous woman with a similar education as yours is also aware of the risk of venereal diseases and has likely encountered similar cultural conditioning, but is not holding back. Why? Stronger libido, that is why. And, don’t tell me that this is culturally conditioned when there is a simpler and more parsimonious explanation, namely that greater exposure to androgens is increasing the likelihood of both physical masculinization and stronger libido and thereby increased likelihood of promiscuity.

With a 32DD-22-35 physique, you should not have a problem attracting plenty of male attention, and I could help you attract even more men if you send me your pictures. You should be well-aware of the utility of condoms in diminishing venereal diseases/HIV risk and should also be aware of ethnic variation in the likelihood of being an HIV/STD carrier. Therefore, if you had a strong libido, chances are that you would act on your desires after taking the necessary precautions, but if you are a typical feminine woman, then your libido will not be strong enough to translate fantasy to behavior.

Give up your ridiculous belief regarding height and testosterone. Apparently, you have an insufficient background in the biological sciences. The genes behind body size, including height, primarily comprise of [many] quantitative trait loci, i.e., genes that individually make a small contribution to the organism. Androgens account for a minority of the variance in height. Therefore, it is certainly possible for a more feminine woman (specifically having lower androgen levels) to be taller than a more masculine woman, though women with above average femininity will be more likely to be below average height than above average height. The correlation between sex hormone profile and height is not perfect or even close.

Most people have not sanctioned the use of masculinized female models. Controlled laboratory studies show that most people harbor a preference for above average femininity in women, i.e., people’s preferences, properly evaluated, haven’t been affected. Most people having a high opinion of Victoria’s Secret models are either nonheterosexual, haven’t seen enough feminine and attractive women or are fooled by posing tricks, implants and airbrushing.

Feminine women go against the cultural slut-shaming all the time; how many feminine let loose in college? A lot, but of course, for her it's still the "walk of shame" when she leaves in the morning. It's bullshit Erik.

I also stumbled upon that little gem of a book you wrote containing more bullshit about how "feminists are usually lesbians," insinuations that homosexuality is a disease, and that feminine women naturally kowtow to a sexist culture because it's what they want and how they are, vs. those bad masculine women who act that way because only men are capable of such feats as libidinousness, assertiveness, etc. And I'm sure you'd even agree with that modern-day-phrenology movement that wants to use evolutionary psychology to justify women's insubordination in the sciences.

You have taken one good observation about the nature of cultural beauty ideals and used it to promote your own disgusting agendas.

Anyone who doubts me on that ought to check out your other site:

And I urge people to read the scary snippets of the ode to your own insanity:

To the guy commenting that you hate homosexuals, I apologize that my defense was that you don't hate homosexuals, but homosexuals hate women. Your biases and circular reasoning are beyond obvious in your book preview.

I also love how in the book, you do point out that models are between 5'8'' and 6'0''--masculine heights. I have been saying this all along but you have been argumentative about identifying it as a masculinized trait for whatever reason.

Clearly you're the one without a background in science, as you have abandoned scientific reasoning or any semblance of logic, which is best illustrated by your insane book preview.

Really, I hope all site visitors take the time to read how crazy it is.

Kimberly: So I have no background in science and have abandoned scientific reasoning or any semblance of logic? Let us see just how “scientific” your response is.

You have brought in off-topic issues because of your inability to criticize my reply. You have judged a book by reading a few excerpts and not seeing how the cited evidence supports the arguments, which can be inferred by the absence of any reasoning as to why the arguments in it are crazy and insane. Your portrayal of its arguments