But the &quot;Playboy philosophy&quot; (which was a thing Hefner, at least, took very seriously -- see <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.brooklynrail.org&#x2F;2005&#x2F;07&#x2F;express&#x2F;the-playboy-philosophy-turns-40" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.brooklynrail.org&#x2F;2005&#x2F;07&#x2F;express&#x2F;the-playboy-phil...</a>) was always explicitly about liberating <i>men</i>: liberating them from the constraints of things like marriage and monogamy and propriety. It was interested in liberating women only insofar as it&#x27;s difficult for men to live a swinging lifestyle in a culture where all the women are either monogamously married or saving themselves for such a marriage. Swinging men can&#x27;t swing unless there are swinging women around as well. But women&#x27;s lib, for Playboy, was always about them being freer to offer themselves sexually to men.<p>Women eventually reappropriated (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Reappropriation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Reappropriation</a>) its pages to enable a kind of female liberation that was about what women wanted rather than men, but that was something organic, not something the magazine itself created.