Hugh Hefner's Playboy Bunnies' heartbreaking confessions - from abuse to humiliating sex rituals

[marylander1940]

2 hours ago, sniper said:

It's really moving the goalposts on the definition of rape to characterize prostitutes' regretting their decision to engage in prostitution as rape. Being talked into something is not the same as being coerced into it.

Or blackmailed into having sex with powerful men but to some "they had it coming..."

Edited January 30, 2022 by marylander1940

[marylander1940]

On 1/27/2022 at 4:54 PM, pubic_assistance said:

I remember in High School....it wasn't uncommon for the girls to guilt-trip the boys the morning after for "going-all-the-way."  Although we were somewhat promiscuous given the religious community we lived, we were all gentlemen about it and we all knew better than to coerce the girls into anything more than they were willing to do. I never once pushed any girl beyond what she was leading me to get into...but multiple times, I got attitude that I had the next day. This is a real problem for men these days. When you can suffer serious consequences for a difference of opinion about who made the first move.

and rape has been a real problem for women for centuries. 

I'm not surprised about the lack of empathy shown in this thread. I hope in person folks act in a more humane way when confronting testimonies of sexual harassment, rape, etc. and they talk tough just behind the laptop. 

[xyz48B]

What stopped them from walking away?

The fear of pricey lawsuits and other nastiness that the rich and famous do to people who threaten to tarnish their name. Don’t think for a second that Hugh Hefner didn’t have cadre of lawyers at the ready. And I wouldn’t be surprised if all kinds of other unsavory means could be employed by his “friends” if he so wished.

All the more reason to stay out of such arrangements, be they whatever they are.

The very fact that some here demand proof when it can’t be physically produced is evidence enough that the deck is stacked against the women. Is it so hard to believe that Hugh Hefner was a sleaze?
 

I find it easier to believe that than that these women are lying. And I also find it easier to believe he had means to make walking away or just saying no impossible. Ever here of extortion or blackmail? 

Edited January 30, 2022 by xyz48B

[xyz48B]

So let me get this right? Unless you’re held up with a knife to your throat or a gun to your person, it’s not rape?

[xyz48B]

I don’t like gender studies much myself but it seems an abnormal antipathy here among some toward it…Talk about a broken record. 

[xyz48B]

It’s not so much the difference of opinion that bothers me, here. It’s the lack of compassion….

[xyz48B]

1 hour ago, marylander1940 said:

I'm not surprised about the lack of empathy shown in this thread. I hope in person folks act in a more humane way when confronting testimonies of sexual harassment, rape, etc. and they talk tough just behind the laptop. 

Sadly, I sometimes feel like people’s real selves come out when they’re behind a screen. They put on a good mask in the presence of others. But in the attic, their true selves are visible to be seen…a portrait hidden away from the world. 

[+ FreshFluff]

6 hours ago, BSR said:

I keep asking time & again what exactly prevented Hefner's "girlfriends" from leaving.  Coercion need not be as violent as a knife to the throat or a death threat.  Yes, Hefner had far more money & power than these women.  Yes, he legally protected himself with pricey lawyers.  While those factors put Hefner at an advantage, they fall far short of kidnapping or imprisonment.  Rape & sex slavery are serious charges.  If these women are going to make those allegations, they should back it up with something more than a vague "feeling" or a copy & paste from a gender studies reading assignment. 

Hefner was very good at pressuring the girls to stick around, and he refined his tactics over time. For example, when he figured out that the gfs were saving their clothing allowances and using them to finance rent when they moved out, he started asking for receipts to confirm that the money was used for clothing.
 

As for sex, Hef didn’t need lawsuits. He relied on the head gf to inform the new girls about sexual expectations—-after the new girl moved in. If any girls didn’t perform up to his standards, he wouldn’t give them their allowance that week. Source: Books by two of the gfs, whose stories were largely consistent. 

Also, he took photos of the gfs in compromising positions when they were drunk or high and kept them in a scrapbook. One of the gfs said she stayed longer than she might have otherwise because she feared that the photos would be released. His wife he confirmed that he kept these photos and tweeted that she burned them all after his death. 

Edited January 30, 2022 by FreshFluff

[maninsoma]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the difference between forum members who hire escorts and Hefner, apart from the scale of the operation.

Forum member hires escort.  He expects sex in exchange of money.  If he isn't satisfied, he doesn't hire that escort again.  If the escort absolutely refuses to have sex with anyone in exchange for money, he will be labeled a thief here since he advertises one thing but instead is just looking to take clients' money.

Is the difference that the women who moved in Hefner's mansion are presumed to not be sex workers?  Like they thought they were just moving in to be eye candy, but there would be no further expectations/demands placed on them?  Again, I'm simply struggling with that suggestion.  I'm not straight at all, so I hardly paid attention to Hefner's empire.  But even I assumed that the women who hung around Hefner, particularly those who lived with him, were basically his paid companions aka escorts.  I just don't see how any woman would have pursued this situation if she didn't want to do sex work.

So, again, if an escort one of us hired later says he felt pressured to have sex with us when he didn't want to, and all he was trying to do was survive, are we supposed to look in the mirror and say we were wrong to hire that guy with the expectation of physical intimacy?  He really was a victim and not a willing participant?

Or are there simply different rules because our behavior involves two (or more) men and Hefner's involve a man and a bunch of women? 

It's precisely because I believe in equality of genders that I believe women have the right to work as whores, just as men do.  Women have the right to choose not to work as whores, just as men do.  A woman or a man who previously did sex work who later regrets it is just that -- someone whose viewpoint has changed -- not someone who was necessarily a victim of anyone other than their own choices. 

To bring another public figure into this as an example: Boy George O'Dowd's hiring of male escorts -- no problem.  George's chaining an escort to a wall and then beating him -- big problem since he removed the escort's ability to refuse what George wanted to do.

[+ nycman]

@xyz48B baby, take it from someone who has been there…..

When you post 5 times in one thread without anyone else replying in between your threads….

You’re obsessed. You’re only talking to yourself like a madman and it’s time to let this one go. 

Pepperoni with mushrooms!

[xyz48B]

1 hour ago, maninsoma said:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain the difference between forum members who hire escorts and Hefner, apart from the scale of the operation.

I’m going to guess there’s paperwork signed at the Playboy mansion.

I’m not sure what “getting back on topic” or “moving on” on means here. I’m discussing the topic. If I didn’t know better, I think some members here are trying to tell me to shut up because  they just don’t like what I’m saying. Sorry I have a different opinion 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

Edited January 30, 2022 by xyz48B

[pubic_assistance]

13 hours ago, marylander1940 said:

rape has been a real problem for women for centuries. 

I don't think anyone is denying that fact.

The discussion HERE is that when you find yourself somewhere / anywhere that everyone is having sex... you're not even remotely believable when you claim to have been shocked that you were expected to have sex too.

[xyz48B]

11 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

The discussion HERE is that when you find yourself somewhere / anywhere that everyone is having sex... you're not even remotely believable when you claim to have been shocked that you were expected to have sex too.

I thought one of the so-called beautiful things about Playboy was that it sold the idea of sex without actually being sex? I was under the impression that the Playboy Mansion was a place where sex may happen, but it wasn’t the express purpose.

There’s a difference between what’s expected of you and what’s expected as far as the circumstances.

@FreshFluff– Say it again so @maninsomacan hear it.

[pubic_assistance]

1 minute ago, xyz48B said:

I thought one of the so-called beautiful things about Playboy was that it sold the idea of sex without actually being sex?

The Playboy mansion may have been marketed the same as their magazines...but it was hardly the same nuanced sensual vs. sexual environment.

Everyone was well aware of what was going on..especially the bunnies who had to sign waivers and documents that spelled it out for them.

[xyz48B]

5 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Everyone was well aware of what was going on..especially the bunnies who had to sign waivers and documents that spelled it out for them.

Actually, if anything other than what was spelled out on the waivers was expected of them and they were threatened with consequences if they didn’t comply – consequences such as those like @FreshFluffpointed to – we should be appalled. We shouldn’t just accept “That’s how it is.” Because it shouldn’t be that way.

I haven’t seen the waivers. But I doubt it says in there “You may be expected to have sex with Hugh Hefner for his favors toward you” or “You may be expected to participate in ritualistic sex acts due to living in the Playboy Mansion.”

Edited January 30, 2022 by xyz48B

[pubic_assistance]

3 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

I doubt it says in there “You may be expected to have sex with Hugh Hefner for his favors toward you” or “You may be expected to participate in ritualistic sex acts due to living in the Playboy Mansion

Herein lies the problem. You are making an assumption and not aware of the facts

That is exactly the reason the waivers were signed. Nobody entered the Playboy mansion unaware of what goes on there

 

[xyz48B]

7 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Herein lies the problem. You are making an assumption and not aware of the facts

Have you read the waivers? Do you know that they say that?

Legal experts would be all over something that said anything akin to that. Prostitution isn’t legal in California and something like that – expectation of sex in exchange for services, in this case – is prostitution.

[+ WilliamM]

On 1/21/2022 at 4:17 PM, BSR said:

Back in his stand-up days, Joe Rogan used to do a savage takedown of Hugh Hefner.  To quote the immortal wisdom of Bart Simpson, it's funny because it's true."

 

Joe Rogan, an ass

[xyz48B]

3 minutes ago, WilliamM said:

Joe Rogan, an ass

Oh goodie! Another male celebrity we can discuss why his antics are okay or not! 

[marylander1940]

56 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

I don't think anyone is denying that fact.

The discussion HERE is that when you find yourself somewhere / anywhere that everyone is having sex... you're not even remotely believable when you claim to have been shocked that you were expected to have sex too.

posing for naked pics doesn't imply consent to have sex with X, Y, and Z. 

20 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

Have you read the waivers? Do you know that they say that?

Legal experts would be all over something that said anything akin to that. Prostitution isn’t legal in California and something like that – expectation of sex in exchange for services, in this case – is prostitution.

Bingo! 

 

[+ nycman]

Ok….lemme put this another way…..

[Todd Jenkins]

6 hours ago, maninsoma said:

So, again, if an escort one of us hired later says he felt pressured to have sex with us when he didn't want to, and all he was trying to do was survive, are we supposed to look in the mirror and say we were wrong to hire that guy with the expectation of physical intimacy?  He really was a victim and not a willing participant?

 

THIS.

[BSR]

19 hours ago, FreshFluff said:

Hefner was very good at pressuring the girls to stick around, and he refined his tactics over time. For example, when he figured out that the gfs were saving their clothing allowances and using them to finance rent when they moved out, he started asking for receipts to confirm that the money was used for clothing.
 

As for sex, Hef didn’t need lawsuits. He relied on the head gf to inform the new girls about sexual expectations—-after the new girl moved in. If any girls didn’t perform up to his standards, he wouldn’t give them their allowance that week. Source: Books by two of the gfs, whose stories were largely consistent. 

Also, he took photos of the gfs in compromising positions when they were drunk or high and kept them in a scrapbook. One of the gfs said she stayed longer than she might have otherwise because she feared that the photos would be released. His wife he confirmed that he kept these photos and tweeted that she burned them all after his death. 

Hefner manipulated his "girlfriends," but manipulation, while gross, is not coercion.  It's also gross that he took pictures & video of his GFs without their knowledge.  While they might have feared he'd use the pix as revenge porn, is there any evidence that he ever did?  Or that he even threatened to do so?  It sounds like he kept the photos for his private viewing pleasure.

[xyz48B]

34 minutes ago, BSR said:

It's also gross that he took pictures & video of his GFs without their knowledge.

That in itself is likely illegal – at worth exploring in the court of law given the circumstances.

”Sounds like?” Sounds like you’re assuming, and we determined assumptions in this thread aren’t allowed.

Is there a reasons, @BSR, that you’re so invested in defending Hugh Hefner? 

Edited January 31, 2022 by xyz48B

[xyz48B]

7 hours ago, nycman said:

Ok….lemme put this another way…..

Off Topic. We don’t like off topic in this forum.