> Hurd settled with Fisher, who had once modeled for Playboy magazine, for undisclosed terms.
The modeling for Playboy seems like a very gratuitous detail to include and doesn't seem to serve any purpose for the story.
The modeling for Playboy seems like a very gratuitous detail to include and doesn't seem to serve any purpose for the story.
She posed for Playboy; Hurd was involved in her hiring for "events" and then immediately commences an irregular relationship with her, including her being paid for work at places where there is no HP event but Hurd happens to be.
It makes it look a lot more deliberate, than if, say, she had a career as an event presenter and then some time after hiring a sexual relationship commenced.
This seems to imply that hiring a woman who has posed for Playboy has a higher chance of being because of prurient purposes. This seems discriminatory.
It definitely has a higher chance of being for prurient purposes if she first came to his attention for her nude modeling! Let's be realistic here.
What were you expecting, exactly? And how do your expectations correspond to the reporting quality & character of said news outlet?
I aspire to conduct myself so that whenever I die I will be remembered as something more altruistic, or at least ethical than a corporate raider, or a politician who tried to sleep with his interns, etc.
> Cause it's easy to get the estimate of a person by the people they date/marry.
I think the second one is true. Not as true as some things. But if it is true then the first is true, since the second is more universal.
> Many people believe they can estimate a person by the people the person dates/marries.
It's possible Hurd believed this. Whether he thought he was moving the needle in his favor by any of his actions is probably unknowable.
I see why you read the comment the way you did, and I suggest there is a different reading.