Douchebag Decree: FalseFlesh


Have you ever thought about Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, naked? Well, he might be thinking about you naked, and FalseFlesh wants to help him with his dreams. If his dreams are to look at your naked body without your permission. There's an app for that!

FalseFlesh is "Adult Image Editing Software," according to its website, which can be used to imagine (and render said imaginations) anyone you know whose picture you have, naked. If you, like me, have 700+ pictures tagged of yourself on the internet, than you, also like me, will have trouble sleeping tonight. The software works by superimposing the subject's face onto a nude body that has been "customized" in order to "realistically" give voyeurs an idea of what the subject looks like naked. Here is the graphic on their website: (NSFW!!)


...Yeah. So. Besides clearly hiring the same ad team as American Apparel, FalseFlesh has some other attributes worth mentioning. First, it mentions Facebook and Myspace by name, to make sure everyone using the software remembers that there are thousands of pictures of pretty people just an unconsenting click away. (Zuckerberg has not, as of this writing, released any kind of statement about FalseFlesh.) Second, FF gives you even more specific advice to get the most out of your CREEPY PREDATORY experience with its software, suggesting "a beautiful celebrity, or a stunning coed girl in her swimsuit" might be nice targets for your digitally-enhanced gaze. More from the website, just in case you weren't sure the $34.95 price tag was worth it:

In most cases only a few millimeters of fabric separates you from an amazing but previously unobtainable image. FalseFlesh can elegantly eliminate clothing from any photograph and provide you with natural looking nude flesh.

FYI, world, women are just MILLIMETERS away from being naked at all times! BASICALLY IT'S LIKE THEY WANT YOU TO LOOK! Ah, and I thought I would make it through this Decree without resorting to caps-lock sarcasm. Alas. Encouraging rape culture and calling it "elegant" brings it outta me, I guess.

Side note: the FF website has a "Privacy Policy" detailing the many ways in which its customers are safe from discovery, are protected by the website, and must not re-sell their product. A PRIVACY POLICY. FOR THE DOUCHEBAGS BUYING THE SOFTWARE. (Could you write that in lower case??) The beautiful celebs and stunning coeds, protected as they are by mere millimeters, must fend for themselves.

Log complaints at purchase [at] falseflesh [dot] com, or write to Zuckerberg on the Facebook to tell him it needs to be impossible for programs like FF to get to your pictures. In the meantime, you might consider making sure you pictures are set to "friends-only."

The Hairpin has a gem of a user testimonial, the rest of which I could not bring myself to read, and Salon has the article that brought FF to my attention. Thanks for the spike in blood pressure and a day of untagging pictures of myself, friends...

by Katie Presley
View profile »

Bitch Media's Music Editor. As heard on BBC, CBC, and NPR's All Songs Considered and, very occasionally, Pop Culture Happy Hour. I've always wanted to be a talking head in a feminist documentary or commercial, so if someone out there can make that dream a reality, I'm here for it.

Still Reading? Sign up for our Weekly Reader!

13 Comments Have Been Posted

Absolutely Repulsive.

Absolutely Repulsive. Reaching new lows every day...

It's creepy, douchey, and

It's creepy, douchey, and gross. But... that's all it is. All this software can be capable of doing is posting my face on a stock photo of some porno chick or auto-painting flesh tones to the shape suggested by my clothes. And I'm willing to bet money that the results are a lot worse quality than their ad suggests. It's *not* actually my naked body, and I can bet that it would render something that isn't remotely reminiscent of my naked body. Creepy, yes, but it's not doing much more than creeps are already capable of doing with their imagination, PhotoShop, or a pencil and sketchpad (and have already been doing so for quite a while). The worst case scenario I can imagine is some crazy stalker type trying to prove I've sent him/her flesh pics, in which case I can photograph a scar, tattoo, piercing, birthmark, dimple, freckle, etc. to prove that it's just a fake. I shouldn't *have* to do that, true, but this isn't nearly as big of worry for me as cameras built into public toilets and hotel clocks, because it's not invading my *real* privacy.

Hi Napoleana, I agree with

Hi Napoleana,
I agree with you, it could be a lot worse. The program does not have access to our real naked bodies. What bothered me the most, besides a skeevy product aimed disproportionately at a woman's body as raw material with which to tamper, is the way the advertising SUGGESTED whom you might try to see naked. The suggestion that just "a few millimeters" is all that ever stands between a clothed woman and a naked woman, a few millimeters FF would like to help us erase, implies to me that women are not well protected, are always almost naked and ready for ogling. Irritating at best. At worst, that sentiment feeds an understanding that women's bodies are easily manipulated, taken advantage of, used for someone else's purposes, etc.

I agree. I think the makers

I agree. I think the makers are disgusting, and the people who use it are creeps, and the suggestions made belittle the value of women. I just thought it was worth pointing out what the program can *actually* do since it seems to bill itself as having the magic to give you some sort of real idea of what's there. I wanted to assure anyone reading the comments what was *actually* possible from a program like this, because I remember when Photoshop suddenly became a mainstream thing that so many people did not actually understand, and people started asking me how to edit out doors and walls so they could see the people that were partially hidden in bad photos. With all the amazing things that technology is capable of doing today, sometimes it's hard to remember what it *can't* do. I think that's an important point in a post about a program designed to *sort of* invade our privacy.

And the connection to Zuckerberg/Facebook is ...

Yes, this is gross, foul, and disturbing piece of software that is advertised in a gross, foul and disturbing way.

But, besides that the advertisers chose to use the fame of Facebook and Myspace (really?) to push their product, what does this have to do with Zuckerberg and Facebook? If the guys (my assumption) behind False Flesh had said "In minutes transform any digital camera image, Bitch Magazine, or New York Times picture into full frontal nudity!", would you be indicting Bitch! and the NYT as involved?

Also ... it's not a facebook app. It's a separate piece of software. Facebook can't control it, any more than it can control what I do with Photoshop, Word, or ... say, putting your face over Animal in a video editing suite for an edit of a Muppets Movie edit in which you really loved drums.

Overall, yes, you are right in having rage. Yes, thank you for bringing this to my attention. But shame for involving an innocent party.

Zuckerberg and Privacy

I see what you're saying, Automator. Zuckerberg had nothing (that I know of) to do with making FalseFlesh. I do NOT think he is entirely innocent, however. Facebook very famously retains all information posted on the site, no matter what you take down or untag or change. Every picture that has ever been on Facebook is cached somewhere in Silicon Valley. Zuckerberg does not seem to be someone all that interested in the privacy of FB users; the default setting on Facebook are, for the most part, the settings that leave users the most vulnerable and visible. Conversations are published for all your friends to read, even when they have nothing to do with the conversation; in order to list books and movies, you HAVE to plug in to a fan page where your profile will be linked, etc. Yes, he's a bystander to this particular program, but no, he is not totally innocent when it comes to the privacy of facebook users and the ease with which FalseFlesh fodder may be obtained by outsiders.

It seems to me that the

It seems to me that the obvious course of action is to find photos of FalseFlesh's creator(s), and use their invention on them, then repost to the Internet. I'm being dead serious. Find me an illegal download of FF (because I am certainly not spending money on it) and I'll do it myself. I'll be sure to add in a bikini wax.

In a weird way, it's the use of the word "coed" that angers me the most. As a recent college grad, I can't tell you how stabby the willing, bouncy college babe stereotype makes me--not to mention the fact that it perpetuates the idea of a female college student as an oddity. Grrr.

Things like this

This makes me feel contented that I display my real identity online as little as possible. I do not even own a computer/cellphone with a webcam, even an apparatus. So thankful I personally have no real use for one!

Creepiest, rapiest thing

Creepiest, rapiest thing ever.
"Log complaints at purchase [at] falseflesh [dot] com"- I will.
"write to Zuckerberg on the Facebook to tell him it needs to be impossible for programs like FF to get to your pictures." - that sounds impossible, doesn't it?

Let me guess

Oh, let me guess what the overwhelming response will be. If we don't want people looking at us naked, we shouldn't have any photos of ourselves online. /facepalm, /facepalm, /facepalm


1. I can't help but think that if beautiful men - not just women - were featured on the ads, we'd have immediate news coverage and swift legal action on the grounds for a privacy infringement. As it stands however, this is gender-specific and therefore classifies as a "special interest".

2. Obviously the point of this IS sexual predation, as the author remarks, since the internet is rife with porn but the selling point here is that the viewer can see women he knows and would not otherwise see naked.

3. That privacy is afforded to buyers is perhaps the most telling statement of all, since it parallels the legislative response to rape and sexual harassment in general society. Once money enters the conversation, all federally protected human rights are negotiable. Yay, capitalism!


Most men are doing this with their imagination anyways, I don't see anything that out of the ordinary.


On the FalseFlesh website it says in *tiny* print that the user agrees to "to not use the program in any manner that violates state and/or federal laws." How is using this program in ANY way NOT already violating my rights to privacy? Does that mean if I were to catch a glimpse of my nude self courtesy of falseflesh on my partner's friend's phone would I be able to drag their ass to court for voyeurism?

Add new comment