Duke coed's sexual history "senior thesis" goes viral

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[AlphaFrog]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

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.

Its like someone hiding a camera in the closet then releasing the video of you having sex. You didn't ever consent to that.

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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

It's not a matter of libel...I'm sure they would have come forward by now to deny it if they didn't have sex with her...and I'm not even talking in criminal terms. I'm talking morally, ethically, etc. Not ok, period.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

It's not a matter of libel...

I mean, obviously.

I'm sure they would have come forward by now to deny it if they didn't have sex with her...

This is absolutely not true. In fact, it's probably best if they don't comment at all either way.

and I'm not even talking in criminal terms. I'm talking morally, ethically, etc. Not ok, period.

Right, and so am I (my whole point was that it isn't libel, that it was just stupid). I think you missed my whole point here. Who said it was "OK"?