A few thoughts:

I truly believe that the author used her real name and the subjects' real names because she trusted her friends with whom she shared the "thesis" not to share it. If you were just sharing this among your friends, why not use the real names? She obviously trusted the wrong people. She should have shared it in person with her friends to ensure it wouldn't get out. Or, if she was looking for a book deal, she should have removed the names and the faces of her subjects. If I were one of the author's friends, I would think it was funny, but it's a shame that the subjects' real names were outed.

It is pretty obvious that the author slept with these 13 athletes to "collect" them. One of the slides said something like "I was almost blacked out, but I had somehow managed to crawl into bed with a Duke athlete."

Bottom line: It sucks for the subjects to have had their privacy violated, but I don't think the author should feel ashamed for enjoying sex.

She was collecting. She wasn't just enjoying sex.

I believe that men who collect and document their sexcapades are low life and insecure people who are searching for something that sex can not give them. The same applies to women who do that.

I would feel the same way if her friends had not released this info on the Internet.

Right - I think this is fairly clear; her explanations aren't consistent with a well-adjusted woman who simply wanted regular trips to Poundtown.

That's also partially why I'm not completely aghast at any "invasion of privacy" for the guys involved - they participated as well, and as Uncle Olaf used to say, "One of the downsides of doing things is somebody might find out you did things" . . . plus it was fairly quid pro quo: she massaged her insecurities, and the dudes took advantage of her insecurities for a free one.

Clearly she's still a dipshit, and it's fairly embarrassing for everyone involved, but it's not like we found out anyone has AIDS, or anything that rises to the level of what I would consider necessary privacy. The term "private life" is a misnomer.

Omg.

well if it's someone i'm tight with/consider a part of my circle, then it shouldn't go any further. but overall, there are just some things that are better off unsaid

That was my reaction.

This is like a real life, gender reversed, technology induced "Cruel Intentions"...except there's no Sarah Michelle Gellar as a coke whore.

this story is on the today show right now.

Honestly, I thought it was an entertaining read.

The one part that I thought was really sad was that following her "research," she wouldn't offer or ask for a phone number, or even friend a guy on facebook, because that would be clingy/stalkerish.

Friending someone AFTER you have had sex is clingy/stalkerish? I think it's sad that she didn't view herself as entitled to ask for continued contact with these guys if she wanted it. She thinks she has an obligation to leave them alone. There were several guys she described as funny, clever, nice, etc., people whose company she really enjoyed. But it would be stalkerish to ask for their phone numbers?
________
Side Effects From Nexium

This. Thank you. I'd like to bold everything you wrote.

I don't think you have to expect someone to let your pictures, detailed encounter, name, etc. end up on the internet. There's always the risk they'll mention your fling to someone, yes...but this is over the line. Its like someone hiding a camera in the closet then releasing the video of you having sex. You didn't ever consent to that.

I would think that this would make a fabulous PSA-style Lifetime movie, except there's really not a good way to make the men look bad (except as man-whores) and the woman look like a victim/hero, so I can't see Lifetime taking this on. Sara Paxton would be my call for playing Karen.

I do agree it's over 'the line' - which is part of why she's a moron. The truth is an absolute defense to libel, but not to social awkwardness - and this crosses one of those 'lines' but clearly not the other.

It's absolutely not the same, for quite a few reasons (start with "plausible deniability" - she very well could be lying, embellishing, misconstruing, whatever). If she had published photos of coitus, then you'd be onto something.

I just want this thing to become a real live case and go to trial. The .5/10 guy sues based on libel... she uses truth as a defense.

On the truth issue, would the trial be about this dude's sexual prowess not measuring up? Would she call witnesses who can testify as to the objectivity of her research and the large and diverse sample size from which she derived her conclusions? Does her research pass Daubert? These are things the public needs to know.

I want that on CourtTV. I would pay PPV for that.

So many "pro bono" jokes, so little time.