And the winner is …
In the beginning, (of this saga of course) was an online sex auction … and a woman in Germany became pregnant. Six different men won the Internet auctions to have sex with the woman last year – April and May. Suddenly, the woman decided … hey, I gotta know my baby daddy so she sues the website that hosted the sale to reveal the names of the winners. 
Apparently, the winners were only known to her by their online names, said a spokesman for a court in the southwestern city of Stuttgart.
“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 site’s operator however refused to reveal the true identity of the men, citing a confidentiality clause in its terms and conditions. So she takes them to court.
Guess who won this court battle? The woman! The court said the child’s right to know who its father was took precedence.
Was the court really fair in its ruling given the confidentiality clause in terms and conditions for the website? So why have these terms and conditions if the court itself cant go by them?
Tags: online sex auction, black women black men, internet sex action
Popularity: 33% [?]
Comment by DOCWG on 18 February 2008:
ALL WOMEN WITH ONE PIC FROM Ghana, Greater Accra, Accra ARE fAKE BE WARNED
Comment by TeeTee1117 on 18 February 2008:
Well the whole thing was dumb, The web site should have had nothing to do with this, when people ahve sex there is always something that happens when they get up. It’s never just wow bam thank you mam
Comment by HereIamBaby on 18 February 2008:
Wow…now this is a real catch 22!!!
But, I do think I agree with the courts…
The mother and father entered into this with eyes open…but the innocent one…being the child, did not and I do believe the child has rights over the father and mother since it can not defend itself.
I do think that information should be kept conmfidental until the child wants/needs to know…since this is about the child not the parents.
The child needs it’s own attorny!
Takes a village to raise a child…or…so they say…and perhaps this is the case with these two adults who were not acting responsibly at the time, that is a true statement.
I say thumbs up for the child!
Southern smiles and world peace,
Sharon
Comment by fala on 18 February 2008:
I agree, don’t punish the child for the parents’ stupidity.
Comment by lawna on 18 February 2008:
hello
Comment by lawna on 18 February 2008:
hi
Comment by HapppyKitty65 on 18 February 2008:
I’m wondering how this happened in the first place. Didn’t they use protection? If not, why? And why would someone participate in something like this anyway? Just curious…
Comment by outpass35 on 18 February 2008:
That all depend on the contract each of them signed if there was one she would have not won. And if them men were smart they would have use protection what made them not think this is what she was after all along was to trap them with a baby.
Comment by cocokisses on 19 February 2008:
Just nasty…poor child to come into the world like that with a Mom who thinks so lowly of herself!
Comment by Ms_vida on 19 February 2008:
Y the hell it there such a thing on the net anyways ? That is jus nasty… and that woman needs to get her nasty ass sum help. and hope that poor child don’t find out cause if it was me i might jus kill myself.
Comment by Nick Carter on 19 February 2008:
This is a sticky issue (no pun intended). At a time when individual privacy rights are being eroded in the interest of keeping “freedom” safe, this is a truly grey area.
At the same time, in the words of the old Chairmen of the Board hit, If you dance to the music, don’t you know you’ve got to pay to the piper. Just because this woman was offering her sexual services in an auction (isn’t there a name for that?), doesn’t mean that the man adventurous enough (horny enough, dumb enough) to take part don’t have a duty to support the offspring of that union, financially, emotionally and in a ton of other ways, if they are the child’s father. “Protection” is only a partial safety net, assuming it was used and didn’t break, or have a pinhole or whatever. Even combinations of protection have risks. If you are gonna dabble in such risky behavior, get fixed or get ready to pay…again!
Comment by fala on 19 February 2008:
I can’t believe how foolish some women can be. This is really loathsome.
Comment by HereIamBaby on 19 February 2008:
Well, it looks like most feel the same way about this subject…
Too bad that children have to suffer at the hands of adults.
Smiles,
Sharon
Comment by fala on 19 February 2008:
I posted a message already today, but I didn’t get any points!
Comment by lity20 on 20 February 2008:
well my dears this woman must have wanted this from the start. well with the terms she must have read them if she wanted something for the child or the father know she shouldnt have gone to the net where most poeple want some privacy so no what will she tell the child “honey my baby you from the internet my sweet baby”
Comment by HereIamBaby on 21 February 2008:
Glad they haven’t done that here, YET!
Smiles
Sharon
Comment by krockwyo on 22 February 2008:
wow, is it really legal to auction off sex like that–and that’s in the line of prosititution.
Comment by talldarkhoney on 22 February 2008:
Yes, quite unfortunate for the child
We cannot say what actually happened. The men may not have been stupid enough not to use a condom. I have heard stories of women who impregnate themselves with the “used” condom.
Let this be a lesson to men who think with “wrong” head!
Comment by swifteagle on 23 February 2008:
Consensual sex, regardless of how ill-advised its purpose, carries with it responsibility for both parties involved. Both sides in this case share the label of stupid. In most countries, the court’s responsibility is for the child. The lesson we are should learn here is: never participate in activity under the cover of privacy you can’t stand to face in the light of day.
Comment by Cutie on 23 February 2008:
I call this stupidity of the highest level !!! Both the woman and the men must have been sick in the head to involve themselves in such kind of a behaviour. I wonder what this woman was after the money or what? I surely cannot understand where this world is going because somethings people do are crazy and unless God intervenes we are surely doomed. All these people need serious prayers and laying of hands. I am very sorry to the innocent poor child. God have mercy on us.
Comment by 6wings on 23 February 2008:
the woman was stupid but I agree with the court’s decision.
Not all women with one pic from Ghana are fakes. Open your eyes!
Comment by ethereal99 on 23 February 2008:
ohhh lawdy, these are the last days for sure!
Comment by lovemyjeans on 23 February 2008:
I must agree with the “panel”. The adults (woman, men, creators of the website) were completely irresponsible from start to finish. Sex can create a baby. That is a primary reason for sex. Precautions can be, and in this ridiculous situation here, should have been taken several times over. I fear for this child, because we already know that its parents are not the “brightest of the bunch”. Hopefully, that is not hereditary. The father should be identified for financial and family reasons, PLUS all of his parental rights should be awarded and exercised. Don’t short change the kid again by dropping out of his/her life. My heart cries for the day this child grows up and learns how he/she came to be. I hope both parents are mature enough by then to give him/her the honest answer they deserve.
Comment by cocokisses on 23 February 2008:
Both parties must’ve been insane. For a man to want to be with a woman wo clearly has no problem sleeping with multiple partners without a condom is crazy. Then she gets knocked up and wants DNA to determine who the father is? Poor kid…his mother is a slut and his papa was a rolling sperm!
Comment by tigerlilies on 24 February 2008:
Sad when it’s momma’s baby, daddy’s maybe. But what is it when it’s momma’s baby, daddy’s(x6) maybe??
Comment by fala on 25 February 2008:
I’m going to have to think on that one Tiger.
Comment by kenyanito on 27 February 2008:
This is realy sad…how sure was this man that the lady was clean as in STIs and even HIV?
Where are we heading to?
Comment by Majestic _one on 29 February 2008:
ok… this world is definitely out of control. and sick.
Comment by mossimo36 on 6 March 2008:
I guess nothing should surprise me anymore…but it does
Comment by ice_princess on 8 April 2008:
The court was right, this child should know who his/her father is. Its not the child’s fault the mother was stupid for doing what she did.
Comment by GREG on 28 April 2008:
seems this [cunt] is just this,MENTAL ERROR!hello? HELLO?
GO TO IQ TEST .COM PROBABLY 50 [RETARDED] 100 IS STUPID!125 IS PARTIALLY DUMB[accronism] Cant Understand Normal Thinking[cunt]?? FiretrUCK [only word that has it in it spelled correctly,in right order,?I hear the sirens!of stupid!G?
Comment by lala2qz on 14 October 2008:
aww.
WOW.
poor child, poor mother, poor father. poor character on the woman and the man’s behalf. such questionable decisions and choices….
but nevertheless, the man and woman both made their bed and should handle the reprecussions of their actions made in said bed.
hopefully they handle it the right way. and hopefully this doesnt affect the child tooo negatively, because then its not fair for it because its the innocent one in all this..