Holly Madison, Hugh Hefner, Bridget Marquardt and Kendra Wilkinson

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

+1

Was she held against her will? I'm confused. Could she not leave?:confused1:

Of course she could have. And she did eventually.

That's what makes it so difficult about abusive relationships. She was given a lot of incentives to stay. Hefner probably knew that she wanted to marry him, and probably held it over her head. She said that he would create competition among the girls.

Then one day she woke up and realized it was never going to happen. So she left. And then according to her, he tried to buy her out by promising her money in his will if she still lived at the mansion.
 
Oh please -- she got everything she wanted, except the husband part… so then she left.

+1

Was she held against her will? I'm confused. Could she not leave?:confused1:

Agreed.

There was no abuse. They had employee rules like anyone else, the difference with them is that the reward was financially greater but the tasks were less dignified. Now they want to whinge about it when they've sucked everything out of it?
 
Agreed.

There was no abuse. They had employee rules like anyone else, the difference with them is that the reward was financially greater but the tasks were less dignified. Now they want to whinge about it when they've sucked everything out of it?

They were employees? I could have sworn they were his "girlfriends"

A boss would never give his "employees" curfews.
 
Weren't they given money in exchange for performing tasks?

Bosses do give time restrictions to their employees though. I don't see how this is any different, especially as they were living in the lap of luxury.

Essentially they were his whores. I would not call that an employee, though, because bosses are not allowed to control their employees' personal lives. We have laws for that. This crosses the line of just being an exchange for sex and money.

And from what I've read, "the lap of luxury" is kind of pushing it. For example, one of them, I forget who, said that the house was always dirty. Hefner has and probably still is having financial issues. That's why they did they show.

So while they had things bought for them, I doubt it was that luxurious. I'm sure it got old really quick.

I have no doubt in my mind that Holly was/is a calculating gold digger. I just hate how society celebrates someone like Hugh Hefner, when he is sick and perverted.
 
They were paid to be his girlfriends, so, yes, they worked for him. They did their part, followed the rules and got a nice paycheque for doing so. If they didn't do as requested, they could leave and be replaced.

And you don't see anything wrong with that?

May I ask you this. If it were a husband and wife, and the husband was controlling and emotionally abusing his wife, making her have a curfew, would that be okay, because he's paying the bills? A lot of people would say it is okay but I disagree.
 
And you don't see anything wrong with that?

May I ask you this. If it were a husband and wife, and the husband was controlling and emotionally abusing his wife, making her have a curfew, would that be okay, because he's paying the bills? A lot of people would say it is okay but I disagree.
with a husband and wife, there is usually love and one-on-one commitment. There are compromises which could include a husband or wife telling the spouse they aren't OK with them staying out late partying with friends, etc. (could be viewed as a curfew)
This situation was more like a harem.
The girls were obviously in it for the perks - probably the biggest one being fame.
She got her fame, her stint on Dancing With The Stars, etc - and she left. Now she wants to milk it with a book Doesn't bother me but I don't think many people will spend money on it.
 
And you don't see anything wrong with that?

May I ask you this. If it were a husband and wife, and the husband was controlling and emotionally abusing his wife, making her have a curfew, would that be okay, because he's paying the bills? A lot of people would say it is okay but I disagree.
But it wasn't a man and wife -- it was a woman who agreed to get paid for sex. She could leave anytime she wanted -- without a divorce lawyer!
 
From what I've read from the articles, she's implying that he was controlling and psychologically and emotionally abusive.

I have experience with a controlling man (my ex was and I stupidly put up with it for almost 2yrs, then I snapped and left. We didn't live together so it was easy breezy to bounce). You bounce if you don't like it, which I did. She wanted to be in that house (she strived for it for years), she could have saved her allowance and bounced at any time. If he was so abusive why was she trying like hell to marry him and have his children.
 
Top