The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

All My XXX’s Live in Texas

Posted on | January 23, 2013 | 73 Comments

The Lone Star State has become the Porn Star State:

When a friend told Hollie Toups that topless photos of her had been posted on an Internet pornography site, she felt horrified, but she didn’t feel alone: She recognized more than a dozen other South Texas women on the website, she said.
Last Friday, Ms. Toups and 16 other women filed a civil lawsuit in Texas state court against the site,, alleging that their intimate photos were posted illegally and included information that made them easy to identify. They are seeking damages and to have the site closed down. . . .
Legal experts say they are seeing an increasing number of such lawsuits targeting so-called revenge porn, in which intimate images are posted online, often by jilted former lovers but also by computer repairmen or hackers who gain access to private photos. . . .
“I’m not saying I’m perfect, but I’ve been exploited,” said Ms. Toups, a 32-year-old graduate student in criminal justice, who lives outside Houston. She said she had sent the photos years earlier to a former boyfriend, wasn’t sure how they had ended up on the Internet, and hasn’t sued the former boyfriend. She said the photos appeared on the website alongside a link to her Twitter account . . .

Notice the contradiction: Hollie is stupid enough to send naked photos of herself to at least one of her (perhaps numerous) boyfriends, but Hollie is also smart enough to attend graduate school in Texas.

Talk about your Higher Education Bubble . . .

Hollie and her fellow “revenge porn” plaintiffs want you to think they’re victims of something besides their own stupidity:

Erica Johnstone, a San Francisco lawyer who has represented about a half-dozen victims of revenge porn sites, said that “the emotional toll on women can be devastating,” and includes depression and anxiety.
Ms. Toups said she at first became reclusive last summer, when she learned that her revealing photos had landed online. “I shut everyone off but my mom,” she said, adding that when people greeted her in public, she wondered, “Is it because they are polite or have seen me topless?”

It’s because you’re dumb, Hollie. And also because you’re a naughty girl.

See, here’s what this lawsuit is really about: These tramps are suing for the right to keep their promiscuity secret. They want to be able to send naked photos of themselves around the Internet — “Woo-hoo! Check me out!” — whenever it suits their fancy, but they imagine that somehow they can keep it from becoming general knowledge that they are the kind of girls who send naked photos of themselves around the Internet.

Hollie’s attorney makes this dubious legal principle clear:

The lead lawyer for the Texas plaintiffs, John Morgan of Beaumont, Texas, said he plans to sue the owners and operators of the porn site once he learns their identities.
“None of these women consented to having their photos used,” Mr. Morgan said, adding that all of his clients subsequently suffered bouts of depression. “This site has to be shut down.”

“None of these women consented to having their photos used” . . . how?

That’s the question, you see.  The women consented to having their photos “used” by whomever the chosen recipient was. And when they hit the “send” button on their computers, they consented to that usage, but are now suing because the implied contract between naked-photo sender and naked-photo recipient has been breached, and that the property which the sender in fact consented to share with the recipient was subsequently shared with others, and that the “revenge porn” site is now deriving profit from that breach of (implied) contact.

But how do we know that Hollie Toups or any of her fellow plaintiffs are telling the truth about how their naked photos got online?

Hollie Toups says she only sent her topless photos to only one of her ex-boyfriends, but are we just supposed to take her word for it? For all we know, she was sending those photos to prospective “sugar daddies.” Such arrangements are reportedly all the rage nowadays:

As college costs continue their stubborn rise, and with work harder to come by during an anemic economic recovery, some students are resorting to a rather unusual measure in order to pay their college bills.
“Sugar Daddies,” wealthy older men who provide financial support to younger women in exchange for sex and companionship, have seen a rise in popularity among college students struggling to find a way to pay tuition.
College student membership on, a website that matches sugar daddies and sugar babies, has increased by 58 percent from December 2011 to December 2012
“Currently, we have over 2 million members, 44 percent of which are college students,” Leroy Velasquez, public relations manager at, told ABC News. ”It’s very difficult to retain a part time or full-time job, especially when you have an academic life. With SeekingArrangement, we offer these types of relationships.”

Doing the math here — 44% of 2 million — that means there are 880,000 college girls currently seeking “sugar daddies” via the Internet, and who knows what kind of photos these girls are sending to their . . . uh, clients? Patrons? Benefactors?

Do I have any reason to believe that these Texas floozies were using their naked photos for such purposes? No. But I can’t rule it out, either.

Notice that I am trying to be as deliberately offensive as possible.

It’s not that I am entirely insensitive to the “emotional toll” suffered by these women, it’s just that I’m sick and tired of people trying to blame others for their own stupidity, then expecting everybody to view them as victims, when the answer to their problems is just common sense:


And stop expecting the rest of us to feel sorry for you.



  • Evi L. Bloggerlady

    The head lights are big and bright…
    [Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap]
    Deep in the Heart of Texas!

    Lesson ladies, the internet never forgets. Even if you trust your boyfriends (which you should not) do you trust that they will dispose of old computers properly?

  • Evi L. Bloggerlady

    As far a sugar daddies go, didn’t TOM used to have a sugar daddy blog ad?

  • WJJ Hoge

    Higher Education Bubblehead?

  • Deuce

    Stupid or not, the girls are right that the site has no right to use their photos.

  • robertstacymccain

    Yes, I had to contact the ad provider to tell them to stop running it.

  • Cube

    I told my teenager, as soon as you hit Send or Post, you have lost control of whatever it was you just sent. Even if its being sent to a site that requires a password to access, there is nothing to keep that person from hitting Forward, or doing a screen capture. Even if the recipient is trustworthy, mistakes can still happen – how often have we heard about the “private” email response where the person accidentally hit Reply All? IM chat, email, private message forum, nothing is guaranteed to stay private. And the Internet is indeed forever, especially if the subject is something juicy.

    I’m amazed that message actually got through the teenage “bulletproof” armor.

  • K-Bob

    Young’uns don’t use “computers” anymore. They just put everything on their phone.

    Everything on their phone somehow ends up on “the cloud,” which is lie-to-the-dummies-speak for “on some server farm at Amazon, Google, or perhaps someplace with a .ru domain.”

    It’s AMAZING how many permissions you have to give on your smartphone to let any app that’s actually useful do its work. Some kids have no idea that they are sending their photos to “the cloud” when they are snapped.

    We all have to expect to be on digital recordings pretty much any time we’re out.

  • robertstacymccain

    The operators of the site are obviously scum, and if they were shot dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place the day after tomorrow. But the existence of scum in the world does not excuse the stupidity of women who think they can send naked photos to every guy random guy they hook up with and expect them to remain private forever.

    There was a time — and I’m old enough to remember it — when most people tried to avoid doing stupid things, and did not think that people who did stupid things were “victims.”

  • Thane_Eichenauer

    The point is that whether or not the site as a legal right to use their photos that the fact that they possess the picture gives then a natural right to use it. Caveat sendere.

  • joethefatman

    It’s called a digital footprint. Like I told my daughters, if you put it on the internet, you damn sure better be willing to own what you’ve done. And don’t come crying to me when it blows up in your face. And for once, the wife actually agreed with me.

  • WJJ Hoge

    Is this post about your Rule 5 or Saul Alinsky’s?

  • Gregor Mendel

    I know of no such “natural right” to use of a photo. I am a TX lawyer. You are obviously not and you might want to check your state laws if this is what you think.

  • K-Bob

    Heh. Stay married long enough, and it’s bound to happen again.

  • Wombat_socho

    The internet may be global, but in terms of reputation, “It’s a small town…know what I mean?”

  • robertstacymccain

    “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.” — Benjamin Franklin
    This lawsuit is all about the plaintiffs seeking a life of irresponsibility without consequences. Who do they think they are, Hillary Clinton?

  • joethefatman

    I don’t know, been married 15 years now….

  • robertstacymccain

    “Some kids have no idea that they are sending their photos to ‘the cloud’ when they are snapped.”

    Because kids are ignorant. It used to be the job of adults to remind kids of this on pretty much a daily basis. Now, everybody’s afraid they’ll damage the kids’ precious self-esteem, so kids think they know everything. And then, when their ignorance is made manifest, the kids think they’re victims.

  • K-Bob

    Sounds about like the right timeframe. Only 15 more years till the next time. Probably.

  • K-Bob

    Yep. Like Bill Cosby used to say in his routines about parenting: “Kids are brain damaged.”

  • Mike G.


  • K-Bob

    Speaking of which, checkout the Hillary Howl pic at weasel zippers. I want to see some captions!

    Mine is: “…and then I ate the giant pork chop like this…”

  • AnonymousDrivel

    “…alleging that their intimate photos were posted illegally and included information that made them easy to identify.”

    She stated that her photos were sent to her former boyfriend. Is that considered a “gift”? As a gift, is he legally allowed to do with them what he wants? Were he to re-gift what is his property to another party, are they then liable for its “mis-“use as they repost what was given/sold to them?

    Seems like shaky legal ground to me, but IANAL. Maybe she should go after her former BF since he is the second source of the leak (as she’s the first). She’s a bit of a fool, but he is a snake. Go get the snake first, then press your case.

  • Adjoran

    Even if the ladies never signed any waivers in the EULAs for their phone, software, or internet services, and even if a tort could be established against the exes or the website, the simple fact of litigating it brings more attention and embarrassment to them than if they had quietly sought removal of the postings or just said nothing at all.

  • Adjoran

    Isn’t the whole idea of “revenge porn” to get back at someone who wronged you? If the lady is screwing around and the man posts a picture she sent him, he’s snake?

  • AnonymousDrivel

    Revenge for what though is the question. All we know is that he is an ex. We don’t know she ‘deserved’ revenge for “screwing around.” Maybe she dumped him because he left the toilet seat up and he was bitter about that alone. I understand that happens sometimes. 😉

  • OsborneInk

    So, is Lauren Stranahan a “dumb slut” or is she just a whore? I’m asking for the McCain opinion here.

  • AnonymousDrivel

    There are about 20 million college enrollees; so, if about half are women and about 880,000 (from one matching source alone) of them are “seeking financial aid,” that approaches 9% of women. That’s a lot of prostitution going on.

    College is making for a nastier and nastier meat market every day it seems.

  • bet0001970

    Right. And you’ve never done anything stupid, have you McCain?

    I mean, let’s face it…if it weren’t for your wife, you’d be a fifty-cent cab-ride away from riding shotgun with Hunter S. Thompson through the California desert.

  • Evi L. Bloggerlady

    You are a good man for doing so.

  • M. Thompson

    No, there are no colleges on submarines.

  • JeffS

    If you go back through the archives here, you might find that Stacy beat you to the punch. I don’t think he quotes Benjamin Franklin about experience for no reason.

    Not to mention, Stacy is giving solid advice to would-be voyeurs. Why do you denigrate him for that?

  • JeffS

    “Natural rights” or “Copyrights”?

  • Thane_Eichenauer

    Firstly, in all legal matters lawyers, police and judges should be listened to rather than Joe Bob Eichenauer.
    Secondly, when you possess a given item or picture apart from the legal power and process of government, there is little that keeps a person from using that item or picture in any way he wishes.
    Thirdly, rather than relying on premise firstly above, relying on premise secondly above makes much better practical sense.

  • bet0001970

    I’m not denigrating him. I’m pointing out that he (and I as well) come from particular generations who have been known to engage in some questionable activities during their youth. It’s kind of like smoking dope all during high school and then yelling at your kids for getting caught smoking dope.

    I mean, what is he really upset about here anyway? That these women took naughty pictures? He’s got naughty pictures of girls all over this site. He’s constantyly going on about sexy Hollywood chicks, so that can’t be it. Or is it, perhaps that these girls got caught being naughty? Or maybe it’s that they’re complaining about it.

    I’m not sure any of it matters, but calling them sluts is a bit harsh considering the photos he’s got up on this site. Food for thought.

  • Finrod Felagund

    I think the women have a reasonable copyright case against the company. After all, if they had modeled for the company and didn’t sign modeling releases, the company wouldn’t be able to use the pictures without infringing, so why would it be any different in this case? Just look at your amusement park ticket sometime for the fine print in there that lets them use pictures of you for their promotional use, they have to have that in there to make crowd shots feasible license-wise.

    A clever woman would attach a copyright license to any picture she sends to anyone stating that she is owed $1 million for any and every commercial use of any of her pictures, then she’d own anyone that tried publishing them.

  • BruceC

    “Janet Reno demonstrating the proper technique when using a strap on appliance”

  • John Galt

    some students are resorting to a rather unusual measure in order to pay their college bills.
    “Sugar Daddies,” wealthy older men who provide financial support to younger women in exchange for sex and companionship,

    “Unusual?” Umm…welcome to pretty much all of human history.

  • Evi L. Bloggerlady

    dispose of cell phones properly.

  • jakee308

    Seems telling that she’s not suing the ex BF. Maybe because he knows she sent them to others? Maybe because he can show he never got them? Or that he can show he never sent them to the website?

    Discovery’s gonna be FUN.

    To any young’un on the intertubez or not: NEVER take pictures of yourself naked/posing sexually. Or of you having sex. Or of you talking about sex. See that sort of stuff only works for whores who already have money and want fame (or infamy as the case may be.) You won’t become an internet sensation with multi million dollar offers. You’ll just become a brief (hah) headline on a tabloid somewhere.

    Don’t put any pics on the internet you wouldn’t send your mom.

  • K-Bob

    I just throw ’em on the tire fire out back.

    Reminds me, time for another tire…

  • Steve Skubinna

    Reminds me of when a sex video of Colin Ferrell and his ex-GF went on the net, and she sued to gain control of it. I saw an interview with her, and she was asked why she agreed to the tape in the first place. She was vague on whose idea it was but said her response was “Why not?”

    At that point I had to leave the lounge because I was yelling at the TV “Does a ‘why not’ occur to you now, you idiot?” What was especially upsetting was that, from her demeanor anyway, it did not seem to have sunk in. It also boggled my mind that whatever the result of her lawsuit the video was on the web and would remain there.

    Perhaps I was only jealous that I never associated with women that abysmally stupid.

  • Bob Belvedere

    Also: too many parents want to be friends with their children – fantastical thinking and potentially damaging.

  • Bob Belvedere

    It’s often hard for a blog owner because often the ads are tailored to the individual user. Mrs. B. and I just bought some bedding material and now most of the ads I get are for such items.

  • Bob Belvedere

    Yes there is: the College Of Experience.

  • Bob Belvedere

    I often find my wife agrees with me, but on a delayed basis – the idea I had a year or two ago suddenly becomes valid in her eyes. We exchange a look at that point and she knows that I know, but I say nothing.

  • Bob Belvedere

    Why are you so judgmental! Hater!

  • Wombat_socho

    Wives change their minds from time to time, but they are never wrong.

  • Bob Belvedere

    To give Mrs. B. her due, sometimes she will say: ‘You’re right…you’re always right’.

  • McGehee

    My wife has often told me to stop doing that.

    I chose wisely.

  • Bob Belvedere

    That’s the attitude my wife employs when saying what she does to me.