Why is this here? Because the upsurge in interest has caused people to ask whether the site is legal. Specifically, they ask if including these people's photos is defamatory. First, truth is a complete defense to a claim of defamation. Done. That said, the question was not asked by a lawyer, so lets look at "defamation" claims in the vernacular sense, including portrayal in a false light, public disclosure of private facts, and privacy. These photos are not flattering, but they don't seem to take anything out of context. Scratch false light. To be liable for outing private facts those facts need to be private. I imagine the decision to wear some of these outfits in public does away with the expectation of privacy. Finally, there is the right to privacy. Generally, it was created for public figures, not regular people. It is meant to defend against reporting of fact that is nonetheless private. It doesn't really apply to the average person. Moreover, it generally doesn't apply to photos taken in public - you were out in public. You can't expect that to remain private.
Let's get one thing straight - the law protects you from embarrassment from that which is untrue or which you make an attempt to conceal. If you're embarrassed by seeing what you do in public reflected on the screen and it makes you unhappy, isn't that why we humans developed the emotion in the first place? The law has done nothing to change that.