Comments on: Why waste time with all that silly getting-to-know-someone?

Why waste time with all that silly getting-to-know-someone?

ferociouskitty — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:20:40 -0800

The Internet's Little Black Book. HowWasShe.com "[provides] a fun way for you to get information about the sexual tendencies of your potential partners, comment on your own experiences, and other future services rendered." Areas of rating include hotness, easiness, and quality of blowjobs. (Probably NSFW)

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:34:12 -0800

This is an exploitation site. It is not exploiting women, it is exploiting the stupid men who believe it's real. Then send the guy who runs it money ($40 suggested). This is far from "the best of the web".

By: crazy finger

crazy finger — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:34:19 -0800

Finally, the potential of the internet is utilized!

By: evac

evac — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:37:12 -0800

Wow. That's vile.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:41:05 -0800

My first shot! I check out a babe. She likes threesomes. How many guys has she fucked? one...Is my math off or what? O, ok. perhaps the third dick was really a pussy.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 10:58:12 -0800

What, the mens room wall at the Texaco isn't good enough for you people? Some people are never satisfied.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:08:47 -0800

postroad: I think it only counts how many gentlemen (right...) on the site that have claimed to have had sex with her. And yeah. Shitty site.

By: Slagman

Slagman — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:17:19 -0800

This site needs some Perverted Justice!

By: Zosia Blue

Zosia Blue — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:48:43 -0800

By: zygoticmynci

zygoticmynci — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:06:17 -0800

I can't believe this site is still up. This was posted to another community I belong to a few months ago, and enough outraged people wrote the provider, and it was taken down. If everything that was stupid and/or tasteless on the web was taken down, there wouldn't be much left. Anything left. I think it's more tragic than offensive, but at least it keeps all those people posting "lol shez HOTT" messages locked up in their bedrooms, instead of out in public pestering women who actually exist. In that sense it's something of a public service.

By: Ljubljana

Ljubljana — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:27:15 -0800

From the legal disclaimer: All claims made by users on this site, or by this site are fictional and are unrelated to any real people or events. People depicted by photograph on this site are there for the purposes of entertainment, not for identification. The comments on any one woman's sexual history are not presented as fact, but as hypothetical concepts.

By: ferociouskitty

ferociouskitty — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:32:37 -0800

Ljubljana - I thought that was probably the most interesting part of the site - I'm reading it as CYA bull, because I'm thinking it would be hard to fake the idiocy of the user commentary. Either way, I find it hard to believe the site hasn't received a cease and desist from every woman pictured.

By: fatbobsmith

fatbobsmith — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:44:06 -0800

Dang, the only woman in my state has chlamydia and herpes. So much for getting a date this weekend.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:20:36 -0800

I'm not trying to start a massive flame war, but if you visit this site more than once you are super duper dumb!

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:20:52 -0800

There is a whole lot of folks with a whole lot of free time dedicating their efforts to eradicating this website. The amazing thing is the sheer hated and anger they are working up about it. For every extremist on the religeous right who thinks God wants them to control what you see and read, there is some politcally correct zealot on the left who wants to do the same thing. http://www.livejournal.com/community/anti_howwasshe/ The angry thread at Ms. Magazine A typical quote.... "Job, it looks like we're going to have to do some independent research on this. I really want to get the bastards shut down. I've replaced the entire first page of the sexual diary with my own versions of the sexual pranks guys have described (some of the most heinous, offensive crap you've ever seen) and I've sent e-mails to everyone I can think of for now, but I'll have to look into the law and other places I can report this to when i have time."

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:23:04 -0800

I can't believe this site is still up. This was posted to another community I belong to a few months ago, and enough outraged people wrote the provider, and it was taken down. Ugh. Even if this is supposed to be "satire," it's from funny from the site: HowWasShe.com is back up and running! Our previous webhosts, who were really cool, but prefer not to be named, had to shut us down because we were bad for their business. Our new webhosts don't care, we don't think. Please be patient with us, as this was not a planned transfer, so everything isn't exactly in order. If you notice any errors, or problems with the site, please email us at errors@howwasshe.com. This includes things like profiles being rejected that you know were legit, site failures, error messages. Unfortunately, with new hosting comes new costs. We had a deal with our old providers, where we advertised for them and they gave us space, and the new ones aren't willing to let us host for free. That means that our expenses are going to go up, and, to that end, we'd like to ask our users to consider donating money to us to allow us to keep the site up. While we enjoy hosting the site, and are happy to do so, we aren't rich. Anyhoo. Quite a few of you are pretty damn elitest, it seems. Lighten up.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:27:48 -0800

You know, all a couple of ladies out there have to do is look up the guys who participate on this site, register the domain name www.HowBigIsHisPenisReally.com, and let them know that they'll be doing a joint venture. Site'll be gone by Monday.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:55:52 -0800

a joint venture heh. XQUZYPHYR I was just going to post the same idea but you beat me to it and with a better pun than I had thought up.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:57:40 -0800

also from anti-howwasshe, The two most alarming aspects of this site are that women's personal contact information is given out so that other men may contact them anonymously via the site - and that MINORS are pictured and described in pornographic ways, with their names, ages, and high schools listed. if that's true, then the site, or at least the offending entries are bad news. go, lefty zealots, go.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:30:34 -0800

Wow, my ex in on their frontpage! Oh wait, that's Denise Richards.

By: Shane

Shane — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:31:32 -0800

WTF?: The boys say: What a worthless pile of flesh. Shes hot but what a worhtless fuck. I m jesus make some fucking noise. felt like punching her during the act just to get a reaction or a noise of some kind. Took five minutes to weasel it in the snatchbox and then crap. Not to mention shes total pillhead and does lots of coke. Yup, pretty vile.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:50:38 -0800

Well at least he used proper capitalization and punctuation. Come to think of it, it must be fake, then.

By: transona5

transona5 — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:05:20 -0800

if that's true, then the site, or at least the offending entries are bad news. go, lefty zealots, go. The claims that some of these women have STDs present a lawsuit waiting to happen as well. I think some news program got sued once for doing a voiceover that said something like "1 out of 5 people have herpes" while showing some unwitting people walking down the street, and they didn't even directly say that any of those people had herpes. I can't imagine what hosting provider would want to be involved with this.

By: maggie

maggie — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:10:03 -0800

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:07:07 -0800

Do regular publishing laws cover this type of thing? yes. and virtually every high school has such "laws".

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:41:03 -0800

"The difference being, of course, that the women featured on that site actually, um, exist." I have no problem with someone who is hurt by the site taking any and all action there is to take legally to get compensated. Sue away. I have no problem with anyone who wants to protest by writing letters do so. If the site is putting people in danger then those people should certainly take action. But it would be totally false to say that the real issue for many of those on the more extreme edges is contact information. That are just the levers they will use to achieve their goal. Even if it was moderated so that the entries were anonymous and the images all pixellated they don't like the concept so strongly they would go to any lengths to get it or anything like it taken down. Just a thought, draw your own conclusions.

By: hattifattener

hattifattener — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:48:37 -0800

Eh. Perhaps I'm just not enough of a zealot in my leftiness, but I think that one of the things about freedom of speech is that sometimes people will say things you don't like and you have to let them. This site falls squarely in that category. It's sleazy and distasteful, but there's far, far worse stuff all over the internet. (Even assuming the site is real: it claims not to be and a brief browse suggests that it's fake. FWIW, the LJ community has posted some links to entries for underage girls, but the ones I followed have been changed; they now refer to adult women. If they'd actually been deleted they would probably not re-use the ID number... Also the URLs of the images look suspiciously non-autogenerated...) I'm curious why people find this site worse than, say, Joe Fratboy posting about the sex he did/didn't have on his blog.

By: Skwirl

Skwirl — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:54:15 -0800

If these are real girls, then this is pretty obviously libel material. Libel is not protected free speech and the burden of proof for a civil suit is pretty low when you're dealing with non-public figures. (PS, IANAL)

By: fenriq

fenriq — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:51:15 -0800

Real or not, it was pretty fascinating to read the comments left. If the site is faked then the writer should be doing something more useful with his talents. Though posting nude photos of someone without their consent is a pretty clear no no.

By: kindall

kindall — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 03:30:46 -0800

If these are real girls, then this is pretty obviously libel material. Only if the information posted is false.

By: inksyndicate

inksyndicate — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:30:52 -0800

I don't think I could use truth as a defense to libel, if, say, I put up a Web site accurately chronicling how Susie, from my high school, blew the entire football team. Wikipedia has a useful entry on libel. Many nations have various civil and criminal penalties for libel and slander, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. Some legal systems, including some in the United States, require in some situations that the subject of the communication prove, in a civil court, that the defendant made statement with "malice", meaning either believing it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it was. There are four categories of statement, however, that are defamatory per se, which means they are so inherently derogatory that a plaintiff need prove only that they were made: Those are statements accusing a person of: having committed a crime having a loathsome disease (such as leprosy long ago or AIDS now) being unchaste

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:37:42 -0800

If libel doesn't work, some states have a common law tort of invasion of privacy. I'd imagine that posting nekkid pictures on the internet probably fit the bill.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:52:57 -0800

Well, you need permission to disseminate photographs of people; there are exceptions made for journalists and such, but in general the law is pretty clear about this. This is why it's so important for budding photographers to make sure their models have signed their contracts. Even journalists are pretty good about simply asking a man-on-the-street interviewee, "Do you mind if I ask you some questions," and why there's a difference between on the record and off. As far as I know, posting information about someone is legal provided it's truthful, and that it meets whatever the ruling judge's criteria may be for the safety of the individual (so SSN #'s would be a no-no). I know of at least a couple of recent (past couple of years) cases where the line has been pushed back, particularly with websites posting names and addresses of doctors that perform abortions. In those cases, the judges ruled that the intent of posting the information was malicious, but that first amendment principles were more important than the potential threat doctors might receive. More info at this MeFi thread.

By: Samizdata

Samizdata — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:07:19 -0800

I just like the corrupted pics and erratic PHP. Now that's hot...

By: wibbler

wibbler — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:46:55 -0800

There must be people who've uploaded their own conquests - therefore surely SOME of the girls are real. I dunno, the disclaimer's pretty "bangbus"-like, unless it's just to cover their own backs...

By: maggie

maggie — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:54:23 -0800

As far as I know, posting information about someone is legal provided it's truthful Releasing medical information about people can't possibly be legal.

By: soulhuntre

soulhuntre — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:08:31 -0800

"Those are statements accusing a person of: having committed a crime" So all those letters these protesters are writing to the law school he applied to accusing him of being an accessory to rape and a child pronographer, sent specifically "with malice" to ruin his life... Thats libel? If there is a god with a sense of humor the webmaster will sue those people :)