Who's your Daddy?!?!

[Buxom Wench]

Internet sex auction sparks paternity row (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1355570120080213)

BERLIN (Reuters) - A woman in Germany who became pregnant after an online sex auction has won a court battle to force the Web site that hosted the sale to reveal the names of the winners, so she can find out who's the father.

Six different men won Internet auctions to have sex with the woman in April and May last year. They were only known to her by their online names, a spokesman for a court in the southwestern city of Stuttgart said Wednesday.

"The woman wanted to discover which one of the men had made her pregnant," the spokesman said. "So she needed their contact details. Of course, if they're not willing to go along with the gene test, she'll have to take them to court."

The woman asked the site's operator to reveal the true identity of the men, but it refused, citing a confidentiality clause in its terms and conditions.

The court ruled in her favor, saying the child's right to know who its father was took precedence.

The court declined to give the woman's age and nationality.

[Lady Hefron]

OMG! Have these people never heard of BIRTH CONTROL (sorry to yell but this kind of thing just steams me).

Theres a wonderful tale to tell little johnny/jill.."Mommy, how did you meet my daddy?"
"Well child, I auctioned myself off for sex then had to go to court to find out which one of the many men I had sex with fathered you."

My God...Just hire the psycologist now!

:off my rant now:

[RaevynCait]

OMG! Have these people never heard of BIRTH CONTROL (sorry to yell but this kind of thing just steams me).

My God...Just hire the psycologist now!

:off my rant now:

That's kinda what I was thinkin'. Though IMO, SHE needs the shrink because clearly she's got SOME issue if she thinks it's a good idea to auction off sex with strangers!

[MaidenFaeSnow]

No way the court should have sided for her. Course then again, the men could have used protection too, not that anything is a guarantee.

[Phoenix McHeit]

So wait... she had sex... over a 2-month time frame ... with six strangers ... and there was no condom usage?

By anyone??

On Either side???

:blech::blech::blech:

[Buxom Wench]

The article never said if protection of any kind was ever used.
I mean, was she on the pill? Did he/them use condoms?
Did the condom break at some point?
Was she on antibiotics that nulled the BC pills?

There's so much that's not mentioned.

[Phoenix McHeit]

Ok breakage, I can see.

But still - The Pill doesn't stop STD's, so there's still a big ewww factor in my brain.

[Buxom Wench]

This whole thing was an ewwww factor for me.

Maybe she was a "professional"?

[Gellis Indigo]

This whole thing was an ewwww factor for me.

Maybe she was a "professional"?

If that was the case, then you'd think she would have known better. Sounds like an amateur mistake to me.

[Alluring Alora]

No way the court should have sided for her.

It seemed to me that they did it based on the rights of the child.

That poor kid.

[Selena]

Theres a wonderful tale to tell little johnny/jill.."Mommy, how did you meet my daddy?"
"Well child, I auctioned myself off for sex then had to go to court to find out which one of the many men I had sex with fathered you."

My God...Just hire the psycologist now!

:off my rant now:


That's what I was thinking.
Geez, we live in such a fucked up world as it is... this kid never had a chance. Nevermind the unknowns of the birth control issue, but the known issue of, "Yeah, I fucked a bunch of strangers from a web auction... you were conceived as a joke! Who's your bio dad? Hell if I know!" Please! :unamused:

Seeing as these are the actions of a woman who got knocked up in this way, I shudder to think just how she chooses to raise her crotchfruit.

[Phoenix McHeit]

crotchfruit.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there's a word that will forever live in the Bad Part of my brain.

[surlywench]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there's a word that will forever live in the Bad Part of my brain.

mine too.......

[MaidenFaeSnow]

Hey, all parties went into this knowing exatcly what they were doing it seems to me. The court then thinks it needs to side for the kid? So the 'father' no longer has the right to privacy? Seems like a lot of donkeydookie to me. I wonder if there is a clause in the agreement somewhere that states Mr. So & So agrees to give up his identity if he knocks someone up? You took the chance Miss lovely and had unprotected sex in a majorly immature manner, now off you go and deal with the consequence you undoubtedly concented to.

[Ysobelle]

One more time: we don't know if a condom broke, if one of the guys said he was fixed and he wasn't, if she skipped her pill by accident-- nada. We can't judge the situation with so few facts.

[Phoenix McHeit]

I know its the point of the article, but the baby? Not on my radar so much. I can't get past the whole 'auctioned off for sex' part.

[MaidenFaeSnow]

One more time: we don't know if a condom broke, if one of the guys said he was fixed and he wasn't, if she skipped her pill by accident-- nada. We can't judge the situation with so few facts.

True, but my point here is that condoms and the pill, neither are 100% anyway and you know that going in. There is still a risk of pregnancy. You would also know that humans can lie. There's no way one could go into a situation like this - as an adult - without knowing there are big risks.

[Ysobelle]

True, but my point here is that condoms and the pill, neither are 100% anyway and you know that going in. There is still a risk of pregnancy. You would also know that humans can lie. There's no way one could go into a situation like this - as an adult - without knowing there are big risks.

That's part of the thrill-- which is exactly what this woman was after. It's a pretty common fantasy-- she just went and acted on it. Pretty elaborately, too.

[Gemdrite]

That's part of the thrill-- which is exactly what this woman was after. It's a pretty common fantasy-- she just went and acted on it. Pretty elaborately, too.
I don't think that anybody is disputing that. But, she acted on the thrill, it didn't turn out the way she planned, so now she is going to break the contract she signed because "for the good of the baby" the father should be known? For the good of the mom's wallet and child support, maybe. If it was for the good of the child, she wouldn't have done it in the first place.