Life Is Not Without Risk, And Neither Is Life.com
A woman is suing Match.com, writes Alexandra Zavis in the LA Times, because she was sexually assaulted by a guy she met on the site.
She's asking that the site start screening members to see if they're sexual predators -- which would likely raise the price of joining considerably...as well as giving members a false sense of security.
What are they going to do, run extensive psychological profiles (which sociopaths can likely game), or criminal background checks? What if the person has yet to be arrested for any sort of crime?
An excerpt from the piece:
Attorney Mark L. Webb, who represents the woman identified in the lawsuit only as Jane Doe, said he will ask a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge for a temporary injunction barring the site from signing up more members until his client's demands are met....Webb described his client as an Ivy League graduate who works in film and television. He said she met her alleged assailant last year at Urth Cafe in West Hollywood. He seemed charming and she agreed to see him again. After the second date, however, he allegedly followed her home and forced himself on her, Webb said.
"This horrific ordeal completely blindsided me because I had considered myself savvy about online dating safety," the woman said in a statement released through her attorney last week. "Things quickly turned into a nightmare, beyond my control."
After the man left, the woman went online and learned that he had been convicted of several counts of sexual battery. Charges are pending in the Match.com case, Webb said.
The attorney said his client wants Match.com to check members' names against public sex offender registries. "It's not a guarantee," he said. "But don't you think something is better than nothing?"
As I said above, I think it's a guarantee of a false sense of security (for many people).
There are people out there without a lot of street smarts. Those people should avoid online dating. (Some people think they have street smarts. Who wants to think of him or herself as lacking them?) And frankly, even people with street smarts will sometimes pick the wrong partner. That's the breaks. Life is not without risk. If you take the risk and ends badly, you stick that on you, not the company and everyone else.
"But don't you think something is better than nothing?"
A lawyer said this? Not in American judicial system, in which if you do something you are assumed to have 100% made it safe, as far as the courts are concerned. It doing something basically states you acknoledged there was some risk and that with you doing something that it was your responsibility to do something.
Joe at April 14, 2011 10:44 PM
Going off with a stranger -- whether you meet that person in a bar or online -- is a risk. Then again, somebody you know can do dastardly things to you. Again, life is not without risk. If you aren't willing to assume it, kindly stay at home hiding under your bed and refrain from suing and expecting the entire to be swaddled in cotton-wool for your benefit.
Amy Alkon at April 14, 2011 10:49 PM
It's not especially difficult to establish a fake identity for dating sites. So someone who was determined could evade these checks.
Also there was nothing stopping her from conducting her own check prior to meeting him in person. She was able to do so after the incident, which suggests that he used his true name.
tim at April 14, 2011 11:14 PM
She should sue the federal government and Joe Biden (who promoted VAWA/IMBRA when in the senate) over IMBRA first. It protects foreign women from "sexual predators" but not American women.
Oh, and you know... violates free speech rights, freedom of association etc.. Minor things like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Marriage_Broker_Regulation_Act
From page 117 of the pdf file of the law in the wiki link. Under exceptions:
"(ii) an entity that provides dating services if its principal business is not to provide international dating services between United States citizens or United States residents and foreign nationals and it charges comparable rates and offers comparable services to all individuals it serves regardless of the individual’s gender or country of citizenship"
So, sorry Jane Doe, the Feds gave match.com a break.
Sio at April 14, 2011 11:36 PM
I wonder how she feels about that Ivy League education working out for her now.
Because she learned nothing about Personal Responsibility 101 while she was there.
Jen Wading at April 14, 2011 11:41 PM
Your eye is now injured because you didn't wear safety glasses when using <the tool> with a fast spinning, moving parts.
This is the same argument that was/is used about gun manufacturers. They produced the <the tool> that you used to injure yourself, or others.
Someone is now injured because she used a dating website -- and didn't verify the person beyond the website. A dating website is nothing more than <the tool>, like a saw, drill, a gun, or the Dollar Store's website. If I go onto Dollar Store's website and buy a $1K worth of crap from them and expect it all to work from the first delivery I am a fool.
I don't know about anybody else, but I google people, or even use Spokeo or other sites to find if the person is who they say they are. I do a trust but verify.
That still doesn't address the issue of those who have never been caught or convicted before. For all anyone knows -- I could have done any number of heinous things in my past. But no one called a law enforcement agency for any number of reasons.
Wetware is messy. You have to figure out what to do with it.
Jim P. at April 15, 2011 12:04 AM
Erm, shouldn't she be pressing charges against the psycho guy instead???
NicoleK at April 15, 2011 12:37 AM
Amy you disappoint me. I am a personal friend of yours for many years. You know I was raped by a man I met on Match.com 3 weeks ago. Having just been divorced a year (and you know first hand what a terrible divorce it was) and being completely out of the dating scene for 12 years, call me naive, stupid, whatever you want - you know me too well to believe I am anything but - your response seems so cold considering I reached out to you personally for advice between calling rape crisis hot lines.
olivia2011 at April 15, 2011 1:51 AM
and by the way if you want the links to over 100 rapes that have befallen women using match over the last three years I have them. I learned this of course after the event. I was too busy being married to research the cancer that has become Match.com.
olivia2001 at April 15, 2011 1:58 AM
there was a service like that. Can't remember the name now so it might still be around. As you would guess the initial fee was quite high -- several hundred dollars if I remember correctly. They did do a significant background check on all members though (or at least claimed to).
Unfortunately Match cannot do much about this. People can just sign up under a different name unless they have added some kind of verification.
This would be like the TSA checks if you could send someone in your place to be checked yet you still get on the plane.
kindly stay at home hiding under your bed
Can I sue the bed maker?
The Former Banker at April 15, 2011 2:26 AM
A friend of mine was raped after she met a guy in a bar. We go out together often, and it's not unusual for her to go home with guys (or bring them home to my place, which would have been better). She came and told me she was leaving and I didn't think much of it. The next day I found out she had changed her mind in the cab and asked to be taken back - he refused and basically pushed her into it. Then kicked her out on the street.
I gave a statement to the police but nothing much came of it, I suppose because it's a difficult charge to prove when it's her word against his, and I had to be honest and say she didn't seem under duress when she left (it was a 2 second conversation). I'm not sure if they tracked down the cab driver, she's over it so I don't like to bring it up.
My point is - how can Match be responsible for this? The same thing can happen if you meet someone on the street. Could you sue a bar for not doing background checks on everyone who came in? It's sad, but it's going to happen.
Ltw at April 15, 2011 3:06 AM
Is there some reason the woman couldn't have run the man's name against the sex registry list?
Oh yes, that's right, personal responsibility is passe. Rape happens. Whether you meet hte guy at church, match.com, the bar, or ha grabs you as you walk down the street. It's horrible, one of the worst crimes there is. Men who commit it should be locked away for life (or killed, IMO). But blaming the way you met the man isn't helpful. Predators go where the prey is. match.com, Eharmony, any other dating site-they're going to have predators on them. You have to use common sense. Using common sense won't always save you, but it's better than nothing, don't you think?
And yes, I've been raped. When I was 14. I've also gone along to avoid a potential messy rape and attack, a once when older when I got myself in a stupid situation. That was my choice-both getting there, and going along to get along once there. You don't see me suing anyone.
momof4 at April 15, 2011 5:15 AM
Maybe the site could also check for STDs, weight, age and if the person is as cute as he/she claims to be, too.
Life involves risk. Match.com isn't your mom.
KateC at April 15, 2011 5:16 AM
If gets food poisoning should Match.com be responsible for not checking the rating of all of the restaurants within a 20 mile radius of her date? She could have been hit by a bus, broadsided by a drunk driver, carjacked, or even hit by lightning. Whew, I'm tired thinking about all the things you have to watch out for just to leave the house.
Kristen at April 15, 2011 5:44 AM
Hmmmm.....
Don't see the check against the offender registry as doing much good, but then again, it can't hurt. Maybe give an option to check, making the interested party responsible for the bill, which would lower the cost to people who actually use common sense?
I think there are a few points this woman seems to be forgetting.
1) It's possible to fake your identity in person as well as online.
2) She's a woman. Genetically programmed to be physically smaller and weaker then a man. Logic dictates that anyone, man or woman, would minimize their own vulnerability. Protect themselves. Wouldn't walk alone in a bad neighborhood at night, wouldn't wave money around near a crack house, and would never go anywhere with ANYONE they JUST MET, man or woman, online or otherwise!
It's a heinous crime, yes, and he should be punished. No, it isn't her fault, but a little common sense would have saved her a world of hurt. It isn't the sites fault she left her smarts in her other purse that night.
3) Even if a victim does get financial compensation, I can say from personal experience, it really doesn't provide any closure. The LW is doing herself more harm then good by suing the site, as she has now produced a Streisand effect. She's made herself out to be a laughing stock and/or a gold digger and is wasting everyones time and money, when she could be putting her legal costs towards counselling and moving on with her life. The more focus she allows towards the rape, and the longer she prolongs it, the worse it will be for her.
Angel at April 15, 2011 5:52 AM
BTW Amy,
What happened to this weeks articles?
Angel at April 15, 2011 5:55 AM
The thing that made me roll my eyes was her finding him online after...why the hell wouldn't you check out some guy you don't know (and none of your friends do, so no personal references) BEFORE you go out with him, let alone a second date. Especially if you are "savvy" about online dating.
And education is no guarantee of common sense. Many of my university colleagues are as clueless as the most naive of my students and while some students improve over the 4 years just as many do not.
Catherine at April 15, 2011 6:22 AM
Angel, what do you mean about "this week's articles"? Are they missing from a newspaper website? I posted new columns here on Tuesday.
"Olivia," terribly, terribly sorry to hear what happened to you, but I really don't think you can blame match.com
I was attacked by a guy on the street in New York, and while you think my response above is "cold" per your particular situation, I approached what happened to me with a similar attitude.
I was attacked walking in my old neighborhood after coming back from California. I used to only walk down Greenwich at night if the UPS loading docks were still open. They weren't but I broke my old rule. Should I have been attacked? No, nobody has a right to do that to you. But, I needed to be prudent, and I wasn't.
As far as "reaching out to me" goes, you wrote me a nebulous message on Facebook. I get mail for a living and people who want to reach me e-mail me. I finally noticed your message and wrote you and told you to e-mail me about whatever the problem might be and I'd set up a time to talk to you after my deadline day on Monday. You never e-mailed me and I figured you either didn't read my message back or really didn't want to talk to me.
And again, awful that this happened to you, but rapes don't happen because of match.com -- as somebody wisely pointed out above, it's merely a tool with which to meet people.
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2011 6:43 AM
As for background checks, I could establish a credible fake identity in probably an hour. It might cost me $150 at Macarthur Park for a new driver's license and maybe a few more bucks for the fake social security number. Anybody who thinks they are protected from a determined predator by this has another thing coming.
And where is the protection if you meet a guy in a bar or even through friends? That guy you meet through friends could force himself on you and say you're lying about it afterward.
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2011 6:54 AM
This is so silly, to blame Match.com.
I mean really. People WAKE up and take responsibility for yourselves!!!
You can meet wacko's anywhere!!
Some people you may have known for EVER can be wackos!
This silly nanny state mind set has me so freaking FRUSTRATED!
Melody at April 15, 2011 7:32 AM
After the man left, the woman went online...
I hope this is bad news reporting and that after the man left, the woman called the police and had her assailant arrested.
Joe at April 15, 2011 8:06 AM
This is fair only if we also give Match excessive credit for the good stuff. I met my husband on Match. Do I owe them my first born?
MonicaP at April 15, 2011 9:16 AM
I was disappointed with the results I was getting with match.com and stopped using them after 3 or 4 failed attempts. All the ladies looked good, sounded nice, were very personable, but had junk in the truck. I can’t stand junk in the trunk.
Roger at April 15, 2011 9:22 AM
True.com offers background checks, but it doesn't seem to have improved their position in the industry, which suggests that they're not seen as especially valuable by online daters.
Here's the thing that I suspect most dating sites recognize, which foils the utility of checks - many of their members want to use a fictional identity because they're either married or in a relationship already, or they may just want to maintain a barrier between their dating identity and the true one. You can meet some real weirdo's online and it's not unreasonable for someone to conceal their identity to avoid picking up a stalker.
The thing that I hadn't realized about match.com until recently is that in some cities it's basically fuckme.com. You don't use it unless you're looking for an anonymous hook up. But in my city it's just a normal dating site. I can see where someone who didn't know better could find themselves in an uncomfortable situation, not realizing that.
loo at April 15, 2011 9:41 AM
Thank heavens there's a lawyer to save the dim damsel. What else would she do?
lsomber at April 15, 2011 11:06 AM
Really sad what happened but I agree with what someone said above - Why is all the energy being directed at Match.com, and not the jerk that raped her?
Deflecting the blame to match.com would serve me no other purpose than to keep myself in the dark about what I should have done differently to prevent this from happening to begin with and, more importantly, how to prevent this happening again....
While being the victim here is absolutely justified for purposes of a criminal remedy, it will do little in the long run in terms of psychological healing. Unfortunately, that particular part of the the process needs to be self-initiated by the victim - not sure how long she can avoid the obvious without becoming miserably unhappy with her chosen logic.
Feebie at April 15, 2011 12:02 PM
She was on Good Morning America this morning. I hate to blame the victim, really. But after listening to her side of the story, there are a few missing pieces in my mind. Amy's story reports that, "After the second date, however, he allegedly followed her home and forced himself on her, Webb said." Jane Doe offered quite a different version this morning. She said he followed her back to her place, came upstairs with her, ran into the bathroom as soon as they entered her apartment then came out a few minutes later and attacked her. When I first read the story this morning I honestly thought he followed her as in stalked her and caught her totally by surprise. That doesn't appear to be the case. Awful no matter how it happened, but I'm with some of the others, due diligence should be done before the first meeting...that's what public records searches are there for, IMO.
sara at April 15, 2011 12:11 PM
I'm amazed I made it through my youth alive.
NicoleK at April 15, 2011 12:34 PM
All this high-horse talk of personal responsibility, in this case, is a bit annoying. This woman wasn't responsible in any way for what happened to her. Some son of a bitch who was bigger than her attacked her. Not much she could've done about that except to never date anyone.
I agree that her suit against the website is ridiculous and is akin to suing a coffee shop where she met her assailant. It's particularly silly since it happened on their second date. He did a good enough job of fooling her, he could've foiled any efforts by the website as well. He clearly seemed like a nice enough guy on that first date.
She should've cyber-stalked him a bit before going out with him? Really? Is that what people do? Only in hindsight does this make sense as it would've clued her in. But do women really do this as a matter of course? I would imagine women that haven't been attacked before and, therefore, have no serious trust issues wouldn't bother to do this regularly.
My point is, criticize this woman all you want for her nonsensical lawsuit and misguided rage. But I think it's a mistake to suggest that she was lacking some sort of due diligence that resulted in her getting raped in the first place.
whistleDick at April 15, 2011 12:41 PM
Agreed.
I mean, the odds of something like that happening are low, website or no website.
Running a background check on everyone you ever meet would mean never getting anything done.
NicoleK at April 15, 2011 12:43 PM
This is all about the benjamins... and hurt pride. presumably she emailed and had phone conversations with him, as you are instructed to do. she went out with him, and had a nice time. after all that time has elapsed, Match has no part in what is going on. you're an adult, and you have to make adult choices. obviously he didn't squick her out, and she didn't feel he was creepy. second date, didn't end well.
whose fault is it for going out with him a second time?
Nobody deserves this brutality. It was the guy who did this at fault. Match didn't make any decisions for her. they are selling a contact, NOT a product.
Her blaming them is disingenuous, and so is asking for the impossible. There is a long period of time that she could have done her own check, but apparently there were no red flags to make her do such a check. so either she has no sense, or the guy is quite smooth. a criminal like that would likely be able to skirt a background check too.
This has all the hallmarks of making a mistake, and then looking for someone to blame. it will do her damage, too. Getting the guy convicted, and working with someone to heal the pain, are helpful... and learning from the experience is to avoid such a situation again, by figuring out where you went wrong...
SwissArmyD at April 15, 2011 1:20 PM
Isn't this how we end up with 6-year-olds on the No Fly List?
====================
That was intentional. The attention is what she wants.
====================
This would be why:
Because guys who troll for dates or hook ups on match.com probably aren't as fat and juicy a target as match.com is.
And reporting an assault and filing charges just doesn't generate the media attention that suing a nationwide multi-million dollar dating service does.
Conan the Grammarian at April 15, 2011 1:32 PM
Amy a few things:
(1) I did in fact email you a lengthy account of what happened to me at the address you sent me.
(2) My case is a little different I suppose because I was specifically targeted by someone who held a grudge against my ex husband
(3) As a researcher I spent at minimum 5 hours on the Internet checking him out before responding. He came up clean.
(4)
http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/match-com-serial-rapist/
(5) I see a lot of people playing "blame the victim" here. That is the one thing a victim of rape fears the most and keeps many from coming forward or getting the help they need.
olivia2011 at April 15, 2011 1:32 PM
"This has all the hallmarks of making a mistake, and then looking for someone to blame. it will do her damage, too. Getting the guy convicted, and working with someone to heal the pain, are helpful... and learning from the experience is to avoid such a situation again, by figuring out where you went wrong..."
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. She didn't make any mistake at all. She didn't do anything wrong ahead of the attack. There is nothing about the attack that is her fault. Nothing. Not one single thing.
whistleDick at April 15, 2011 1:32 PM
She may have made mistakes, but if she'd met the guy in a bar, she probably would have followed the same steps. And millions of other women would have as well without getting attacked.
The article said this happened on the second date, so it's not like they met for coffee and she immediately invited him upstairs without getting a sense for him.
He's at fault for the assault. He already has multiple accusations (convictions?) already and charges are pending in this case.
But she's at fault for her reaction after the assault. She's either lashing out (understandable, but still wrong) or she's trolling for sympathy on a grand scale (also understandable but wallowing in self-pity is never a healthy reaction). Or she's opporutnistically seeking a payout (just wrong).
And her lawyer's no prize either. He's manipulating her grief to get a nice payout for himself.
Conan the Grammarian at April 15, 2011 1:49 PM
"But I think it's a mistake to suggest that she was lacking some sort of due diligence that resulted in her getting raped in the first place."
I don't know about due diligence, but she certainly was lacking in common sense and good judgment. I just watched an interview with her on ABC news and while she doesn't come right out and state that she went back to her home with her date, that is exactly what she did: she went home with him.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-sues-match-sex-assault/story?id=13378401
The article linked in the blog post had me believing that her date followed her home and attacked her after they had parted. But from the interview with her above, that was not the case at all. She herself stated that she was in the car with him when they arrived at her home and that they both went into her home. There was no mention of force or coercion involved in her decision to go into her home with this man - she made the decision to allow him entry.
She misjudged him and her misjudgment led to her being sexually assaulted. You don't get to sue a business because you don't know how to exercise good judgment. Match.com has no culpability in this case so far as I can see. It is unfortunate what happened to her. But based on her situation, I can think of several ways that she herself could have prevented the assault from taking place.
Jen Wading at April 15, 2011 1:51 PM
Rape is a horrible, ugly crime. No one deserves that and rapists should be punished and deterred...preferably by a 9mm to the head as the assault occurs. Self defense is a wonderful thing.
Having said that, once you get beyond the "stranger broke through my window and raped me at knifepoint" situations, there is a real lack of consensus on what constitutes rape. And for good reason.
Women like to be pursued VERY aggressively...by guys they like. Guys have to pursue VERY aggressively....in order to figure out if the girl REALLY like you! (versus just flirting, leading you on, etc.. Making a girl put up or shut up is a standard tool I use all the time. Closure is a wonderful thing.)
Given the "coy but chase me hard" nature of the game, the occasional physical miscues, up to and including "sex I regretted", is just the cost of doing business.
Most reasonable people I know acknowledge this readily...but there are a surprising number of unreasonable people out there.
Don't complain to me, I like these rules pretty much not at all. If it was up to me I'd have the role of pursuer and pursuee distributed much more equitably. But alas, it isn't, and fighting reality is a losing proposition.
Peter at April 15, 2011 2:03 PM
Conan,
I still maintain that she made no mistakes ahead of the attack and agree completely that her understandable rage is aimed in the wrong way. I'm not talking at all about her questionable behavior AFTER the attack. I also agree that the lawyer is a real worm.
Jen,
So she invited him into her home. So what? It doesn't happen as often as I'd like, but I get invited into women's homes sometimes after a date. Women like to fuck, too, you know and there isn't anything wrong with that. Up to a point, it's clear things were going smoothly.
That doesn't give him the right to attack her and it still doesn't mean she did anything wrong. When I'm invited into a woman's home, I understand that it doesn't make sex a done deal. It's still on her terms.
whistleDick at April 15, 2011 2:08 PM
"Women like to be pursued VERY aggressively..." No ... no they don't.
"Guys have to pursue VERY aggressively....in order to figure out if the girl REALLY like you!" No ... no you don't.
You should try being a bit more coy yourself. You'd be surprised how much more interesting women might find you. You might also enjoy the benefits of not having "date rape" legal issues to contend with.
whistleDick at April 15, 2011 2:15 PM
Jen,
I just watched the video from your link and it sounds like the woman is claiming that the man was just walking her to her door, as you do, and then charged into the bathroom. It's not real clear from that interview whether or not he was invited inside.
I was on a date the weekend before last. I certainly walked the woman to her door. Though, unlike the guy in the news piece, I had the good sense to open her car door for her :) Should the woman with whom I was dating been alarmed that I walked her to her door? What if I had asked to use her bathroom before I drove myself home? Would she be stupid, naive, or at fault somehow to allow me in?
Do the rules from vampire novels apply? If you invite them in, they can do anything?
whistleDick at April 15, 2011 2:32 PM
Given the fact that We can certainly agree that adding a screening feature to Match.com seems inane given the ability, actually almost surety that people will go to some lengths to conceal their true identity at first (women and men, I certainly would not give anyone a way to track me from one of those sites), Why isn't this woman going after the Law Enforcement and District Attorney offices that failed to put this guy in jail for his previous offenses? I'd push for better enforcement and longer sentences, myself.
Kat at April 15, 2011 2:34 PM
One more observation from that news piece that is a bit off topic. Why is it that they show his face looking all sinister, not once, but twice. I'm not arguing that the alleged victim's face be shown, but I don't think his face should be shown either until he is convicted and all this is sorted out.
whistleDick at April 15, 2011 2:42 PM
whistleDick,
I am not suggesting - and never have - that he had a right to attack her. He committed a crime against her, if indeed it was an assault and not consensual. At this point, I believe many of us are assuming that it's an open and shut case of a previous sex offender attacking a victim, but how do we know it's not another case of a woman experiencing regret after having slept with a man, looking him up online, realizing she slept with a sex offender and then suing a successful business for her own foolishness?
But I digress: if indeed, it was an assault, I still insist that this was an assault she could have prevented. She invited into her home a man she had met just once. I don't care if she wants to fuck or if she wants to cuddle. But she knew nothing about him, his character, or his background. She used extremely poor judgment allowing someone she knew very little about into her home. Her poor judgment led to her getting assaulted (again, if indeed it was an assault and not consensual.)
Perhaps you have some personal bias towards this, based on your revelation that you don't get invited into women's homes as often as you would like. But my personal bias as a very petite female is that you don't put yourself in risky situations with strangers you don't know. I highly value my own personal safety and I don't leave it in the hands of either the police or Match.com to see to it I'm shielded from potential assault. I exercise my own judgment and err on the side of caution until I can make a relatively informed decision about who I invite into my home.
Jen Wading at April 15, 2011 3:22 PM
"(3) As a researcher I spent at minimum 5 hours on the Internet checking him out before responding. He came up clean."
Didn't that essentially just prove that having sites like match.com do some kind of check isn't really going to gain anything and that there's no blaming them in general?
I'm guessing any sex offenders are smart enough to not use their real name on said sites, so a simple name check wouldn't work. What of the cases where just a name matches multiple people? Do the non-offenders have to somehow now prove it's not really them? Just like the no-fly lists?
Miguelitosd at April 15, 2011 4:59 PM
All this high-horse talk of personal responsibility, in this case, is a bit annoying. This woman wasn't responsible in any way for what happened to her. Some son of a bitch who was bigger than her attacked her. Not much she could've done about that except to never date anyone.
She took him into her home volenarily on her second date by her own admision. Did she deserve what happened to her - ofcourse not. But she is responible for her own poor judgement
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. She didn't make any mistake at all. She didn't do anything wrong ahead of the attack. There is nothing about the attack that is her fault. Nothing. Not one single thing.
If she did nothing wrong by inviting a total stranger into her home knowing him for less than 3hrs total and failing to run her own offender database check, then how is match.com liable for failing to run such a check for her?
lujlp at April 15, 2011 5:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2048715">comment from olivia2011(1) I did in fact email you a lengthy account of what happened to me at the address you sent me.
You just did that today, apparently. I haven't read my e-mail today, as it's been a long day that started at 5am, with an appearance in studio on Dr. Helen's TV show with Barb Oakley, a work day with my assistant, and a full writing day.
I'm very sorry that this happened to you, but I do not base my opinions of how people should respond vis a vis their safety according to emotion and/or a need to be politically correct or otherwise pussyfooting in my language and advice. In fact, I think it's quite dangerous (and bad advice) to do so.
I took a number of risks when I was still dating, like letting near strangers into my home, but I was well-aware that they were risks, and I had nobody to blame but myself if they didn't pan out well. I feel strongly that this personal responsibility approach, not the idea that somebody else will protect you with a background check on somebody (that somebody can easily get around by borrowing somebody else's ID or buying a stolen ID), is the way to be the safest...if that's what you desire. Some people find risk-taking exciting and knowingly choose to take risks. That's their prerogative. Those who are not willing to suffer the potential consequences should not date off the Internet, meet strangers in bars, or allow somebody into their home until they have had a great deal of experience with them in public, and otherwise take precautions.
A note to people who e-mail me -- I sometimes get truly overwhelmed with e-mail, deadlines, and life, as I work seven days a week. I love what I do, but there is a whole lot to do within that. For example, this month, a regular commenter was a little mad that I hadn't responded to his e-mail. First, I get e-mail for a living and if I make people at all mad with a column, I get a slew of it. I try to answer it all (especially advice requests and, always, advice requests from people in the military), but some gets answered very late, and I sometimes don't get to all of the mail about blog suggestions. I hate that, but I also need to write and work on some things -- like trying to get good on radio so I can do a radio show. I'm also writing a book and I read studies and go to ev psych and other conferences, and that means I get behind in my writing. And then, when I get particularly overworked (this month, with taxes, LA Times Festival of Books -- with six books to read and analyze by the end of the month) I sometimes get sick. Like this week. Luckily, I started sounded a little more Greta Garbo than Humphrey Bogart by yesterday evening and by this morning, for Dr. Helen's TV show I taped with Dr. Barbara Oakley, I sort of sounded myself.
Amy Alkon at April 15, 2011 5:15 PM
Amy, I'm tired just reading all that. I'm gonna pop a beer and relax.
MonicaP at April 15, 2011 6:46 PM
To Miguelitosd
I suppose what I find alarming is that after I reported the rape he took himself off the site and is now up again under a new name. If he was not guilty and had nothing to hide - why go to the effort. And as for Match why let him back up at all until an investigation was done. I spoke to LA'S Sex Crimes Unit for over two hours about this. By the way my cousin just retired as the assistant prosecutor of sex crimes for Camden County NJ. They both had the same thing to say. Many of the women they have seen took the precautions I did only to find themselves in the same situation. Some predators are that good. And the both said not everyone has the ability to get into every base needed to really catch a predator. That should be the job of the service not the customer. My cousin has a 97% incarceration rate and a national medal for putting a major serial rapist/murderer in jail because for ten years she would not give up. Even after multiple death threats. I stand with her and her observations.
olivia2011 at April 15, 2011 7:04 PM
Why not, because it's McDonald's fault for getting you fat and Starbucks' fault for making extra hot coffee, this is just the next logical (?) step.
jessica at April 15, 2011 7:35 PM
seeing that interview, it's apparent that this woman is a bit older. She really may not have understood what Match.com is, and assumed that everyone was being thoroughly checked out. I could see my parents making that assumption.
The requirements that she and her attorney want to impose on Match.com suggest that neither are familiar with how a website like Match.com operates. For instance, they certainly can't take people's CC purchase information and run background checks on them. That's a violation of their processing agreements and probably isn't even legal due to privacy regs.
joe at April 15, 2011 9:11 PM
OK, now to the practical:
1) What crime must a person have committed to exclude them - forever - from meeting other people?
2) Distinguish between the patrons of a bar and those of Match.com in social contact.
3) What due diligence must Match.com - and eHarmony, etc. - demonstrate and keep discoverable?
If it is the venue's responsibility to protect you, then you have to tell them who they have to admit.
It would be simpler for them to ask you a few questions and exclude the naive.
Radwaste at April 15, 2011 10:18 PM
If March.com even tried to implement it, the next thing would be a lawsuit from someone who was unfairly excluded from the site.
Just like a bar, there are certain things they can and should do. Bars exclude or eject obvious drunks for instance. On a dating site, if someone sends you abusive messages or harasses you, you can block them or report them, and I assume the site would take some action (I don't know it so I can't say for sure).
That much they can do. But they can't vouch for the identity or character of every person you meet. It's just not possible.
Ltw at April 15, 2011 11:52 PM
It's so "Blame the victim " its sad. Hope nothing unexpectedly bad happens to any of you. Just got a call from a friend who received a stage 4 liver cancer diagnosis and 3-6 months to live. He's 65. maybe I should tell him to just 'deal with it' as its his bodies fault. Won't be posting here anymore. There's no compassion and that starts at the top. See you round the bend.
olivia2011 at April 16, 2011 1:24 AM
Olivia what you fail to realize that women here have come forward and said they had been raped or been close to being raped and they have a different perspective than you. It's not blaming the victim but being realistic about the dangers in society.
Just look at it this way. I was almost raped by a neighbor, a man that used to park next to me and lived in the same apartment complex as me. Nobody can guarantee my safety from a neighbor what makes you think online dating sites can have any sort of protection against it? Dating, in and of itself, has inherent risks, including the prospect of being raped.
Ppen at April 16, 2011 2:05 AM
And just for the record I have always found Amy to be most gracious and kind in her advice. She was especially sympathetic and caring when I told her a relative had been decapitated and murdered in Mexico.
Ppen at April 16, 2011 2:09 AM
Olivia, I don't agree that it's "Blame the victim". Most are not saying it's her fault she was assaulted, they're saying she's wrong to blame Match. Match is no more responsible than is a bar, coffee shop, or grocery store where you meet a man who turns out to be a criminal.
Lizzie at April 16, 2011 3:40 AM
Hi Amy;
Not sure whats wrong, maybe it's me, but the last article I'm able to view is the one about strip joints and plastic vagina's.
Angel at April 16, 2011 6:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2049143">comment from AngelHi Amy; Not sure whats wrong, maybe it's me, but the last article I'm able to view is the one about strip joints and plastic vagina's.
Angel, that's the last one that was posted. Writing my column is extremely labor intensive, and I only write one a week.
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2011 6:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2049167">comment from olivia2011It's so "Blame the victim " its sad. Hope nothing unexpectedly bad happens to any of you. Just got a call from a friend who received a stage 4 liver cancer diagnosis and 3-6 months to live. He's 65. maybe I should tell him to just 'deal with it' as its his bodies fault. Won't be posting here anymore. There's no compassion and that starts at the top. See you round the bend.
There's a lack of logic in your association here.
By putting the responsibility on match.com, you endanger women. It is absolutely ridiculous to think you will be protected from predators by a background check, which will only serve to make it very, very expensive to online date. It is only by putting responsibility on yourself -- by taking responsibility for your safety, and thinking that it is your responsibility alone -- that you have any hope to be safe.
You saw that when I was attacked, I reminded myself that I had no business walking down a dark, isolated street in Tribeca by myself. The man had no right whatsoever to attack me. But, ONLY by saying that I needed to take responsibility, to be street smart, will I be able to protect myself in the future.
People don't like to take responsibility. There's a great book, "Mistakes Were Made (but not by ME)" in which Tavris and Aronson show how people justify their mistakes in the way that best protects their ego. I know this, so I actively look for when I might be doing it, and avoid it. One of the healthiest things I do, actually, is seek to accept responsibility for my behavior -- before I do something and in retrospect.
I am enormously sympathetic to people who have suffered attacks or other tragedies (PPen mentions the e-mail I wrote her when I heard about a terrible attack on her relative), but that doesn't mean I will enable the sort of thinking "olivia" is seeking here. That sort of thinking tells women, especially, to believe that some big company, for example, will protect you. That same sort of thinking has people believing the police will solve their crime. Take it from me, they usually won't -- unless you have a body lying bleeding on your kitchen floor...and typically, even when you provide them with the evidence.
In fact, I particularly love the notion that I am somehow compassionless. I'm remembering a girl who got her home robbed in LA -- a food blogger. I read about it on LA Observed, and wrote her a sympathetic e-mail -- and then a string of e-mails to try to help her. These wouldn't make my column or ever be published, but I felt I could tell her some things that might help her. Compassion is action, not this bullshit notion that you accept the thinking that a company, rather than you, is responsible for vetting your dates.
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2011 6:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2049179">comment from Amy AlkonExample that proves my point that background checks are pretty meaningless: Dr. Barbara Oakley is staying with me. She wrote the new book, "Cold-Blooded Kindness," which centers around a woman, Carol Alden, who murdered her husband. I just told Barb about olivia's last post and asked her if Carol could've passed a background check: "Absolutely," said Barb. People who are smart predators don't always have a record of anything. This is why YOU need to be the gatekeeper of your safety, and why it is anything but "compassionless" to say so. If you're going to take a risk, you need to fully accept the possible consequences.
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2011 6:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2049190">comment from Amy Alkonfriend who received a stage 4 liver cancer diagnosis and 3-6 months to live. He's 65. maybe I should tell him to just 'deal with it' as its his bodies fault. Won't be posting here anymore. There's no compassion and that starts at the top.
Oh, and re: compassion in action, when my friend Cathy Seipp was dying of cancer, 15 of us became "Team Cathy," and saw that there was somebody there with her every minute in the year before, so she'd never be alone. I was Wednesday and Thursday from 10:30 am to 9 at night. I'm sorry to hear about your friend and I hope his friends will do the same.
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2011 6:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2049192">comment from Amy AlkonDr. Barb just called the cancer thing "tarring you with a straw man sort of argument." And she's right.
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2011 6:57 AM
Do people really come here to complain that Amy's content isn't fresh enough?
Dragging personal grievances against Amy into the middle of a discussion on the merits of suing Match.com seems pointless.
The man charged is in his 60s--was the woman in the same age range? Maybe she's not very experienced with what online sites can and cannot do?
KateC at April 16, 2011 7:29 AM
Hi Amy, I've been super busy with real life, sorry to hear that you are only human, too! You have been very kind to me as well, but no need to go into the details, I wanted to get back on topic with the observation that people have let the P c culture overide their instincts, they no longer trust their gut.
When my eldest, The Mermaid, started dating, I told her 2 things. The first was that if she felt ANY hinky feelings she was to get the hell out of dodge, and the second was a shot to the family jewels and running was her best bet at survival. She was a goth, always wore Doc Martins, so that helped. She's 27 and married to a wonderful Airforce Staff Sgt, so I'm guessing my advice either wasn't needed or worked. She wouldn't tell me. I told my youngest the same thing, at 17 we are still in the proving stages.
Of course, having a Mom like me may help, a Scadian that collects swords and introduces herself with "This is my daughter, I love her more than my own life." then writes the dates name on a shotgun shell w/ a sharpie *evil grin*
Kat at April 16, 2011 8:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2049385">comment from KateCThe woman wrote to me on Facebook several times. I won't print her message, since it was sent to me privately, but I will print my response:
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2011 8:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2049419">comment from Amy AlkonI will say that this woman mentioned that the other woman's suit will "pave the way" for her to get "compensation."
What I don't understand: A person who is on match.com knows how they vet people (not at all, other than seeing that their credit card goes through), and does not take any precautions, and when something happens (regrettable and awful) it is somehow match.com's fault?
You can feel compassion for any crime victim -- probably anybody who is not a sociopath does -- or even a person who gets a flat tire. But, feeling compassion does not mean you have to turn off your rationality.
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2011 8:34 AM
It's so "Blame the victim " its sad. Hope nothing unexpectedly bad happens to any of you. Just got a call from a friend who received a stage 4 liver cancer diagnosis and 3-6 months to live. He's 65. maybe I should tell him to just 'deal with it' as its his bodies fault. Won't be posting here anymore. There's no compassion and that starts at the top. See you round the bend.
Not to pile on but....
I'm not blaming the victim, it's the victim blaming the tool that I have a problem with.
What if the victim called 911 as he entered the house and they didn't respond for 30+ minutes.
This is where the landmark cases such as Warren v. District of Columbia held:
SCOTUS also held the same way with Castle Rock v. Gonzales (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales)
The point is that if law enforcement can't be sued for this, why is a privately owned, non-law enforcement company any more liable?
Another example would be a grocery store that has a generally well lit parking lot. The women parks at the far corner on a 1AM shopping trip. She is attacked by a random person. Should the store be held responsible for her decision to park away instead of close?
Jim P. at April 16, 2011 8:37 AM
Nobody's blaming her for the rape. We're saying suing a company to provide a screening she didn't feel was worth her time to do herself, is idiotic. And takes the responsibility off of her for her own safety and decisions.
momof4 at April 16, 2011 8:39 AM
"I just told Barb about olivia's last post and asked her if Carol could've passed a background check: "Absolutely," said Barb."
Copy/paste these three things onto a new, blank sheet of paper and post it next to your front door:
-----
No person may be prevented from a first offense.
The operative syllable in the term, "self-defense" is self.
The operative syllable in the term, "law enforcement" is force.
-----
There is more to say about each point, but if these things make you uncomfortable, then you have some work to do.
Radwaste at April 16, 2011 9:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2049816">comment from RadwasteWise, Raddy.
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2011 10:10 AM
You know, there's a chance that this whole thing is a put on. The presentation that she and her attorney are making seems dramatized, and it's very light on facts. The individual that she's naming hasn't even been charged.
And frankly having her interviewed in disguise w/ her voice distorted, because she's purportedly in fear of her life, undermines her credibility. The whole thing is a little too stock.
loren at April 16, 2011 10:20 AM
Typical and a problem with the modern world. People fail to take personal responsibility for their actions and expect the court to punish everyone when they are offended.
She signed up willingly knowing a computer was going to match her up with a stranger based on their similarities. Match no more needs to provide background checks than one would if they were meeting someone in a bar.
That will be what is next though. Everyone walking around with their background checks when they try to hook up. An the next big business. Fake background checks. My laser printers are warming up now...
DH at April 16, 2011 12:52 PM
Loren, clearly you're blaming the victim.
/sarcasm
People really play the emotional terrorist card too much these days. Cry wolf enough and folks will start to ignore/distrust you.
Sio at April 16, 2011 1:15 PM
Poor baby ivy leaguer got a boo boo on her hoo ha... Okay, that's not nice, but seriously! This is what happens when you take a pretty little spoiled brat and plunk her down into the real world. Guess what? Bitches get raped out here! Grow up! It's like Camille Paglia says- You're not going to stuff your purse full of money, leave it on a park bench and walk away, so why would you do the equivalent with your vagina? This is even worse than when they got rid of the adult gigs section on craigslist because of the craigslist killer. What happens if someone gets killed by someone they met at the library. Are we going to shut those down too? WTF? I got drunk and blacked out when I was thirteen- that's the night I lost my virginity to rape. Ask me how many times I've blacked out since then? I think y'all know the answer. Do I have guns and know how to shoot them? I think you know the answer to that one too. Ugh! spoiled ass bitches crying wee wee wee all the way to the lawyer. So pathetic!
Gspotted at April 16, 2011 4:32 PM
In other words...
"The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness."
--Robert A. Heinlein
Gspotted at April 16, 2011 5:05 PM
I don't think she's a baby, Ivy or no. He's in his 60s, and I'll bet she's of the same generation.
KateC at April 16, 2011 6:56 PM
"Poor baby" works at any age when someone is this foolish. Women are considered property in many countries and only ever see their husbands, they're locked up and don't get raped(except by their husbands). Over here we can make the choice to take self defense classes/ buy a gun /some pepper spray/ or all three(I did!)... I'm not saying she deserved to get raped bc she didn't prepare herself, I'm just saying if you are a woman you should be aware at all times that you have less upper body strength than most men and a vagina. If you're going to trust just anyone, just anyone could be a rapist. What do rapists do?.....Okay. So, get a gun and do some push ups or stay at home and paint your nails with the girls. Unless you are dead or deformed you are not a victim, you are a survivor of male chauvinism. Pick yourself up, dust yourself down and get your ass to spin class and the firing range! Go Girl!
Gspotted at April 16, 2011 9:01 PM
Gspotted;
While I agree with your basic point, I think it's pretty crass of you to mock her. And remember, 1 in 3 women has been a victim of sexual assault. That's a whole lotta women your mocking out there, victim yourself or no.
Angel at April 17, 2011 3:27 AM
The presentation that she and her attorney are making seems dramatized, and it's very light on facts.
I think that that's because they're trying to evade the fact that she wasn't sexually assaulted. They keep letting the press describe her as a rape victim, but when you look into her claims it's apparent that she isn't. She's not actually claiming to have been raped or even sexually assaulted.
Apparently Wurtzel's MO is to masturbate in front of women. He has a history of doing this, but not of rape. So their claim that he's a convicted rapist isn't accurate.
I have the impression that this is what happened to her. She's understandably upset about it, and wants some payback. This press campaign may be more about getting back at him, and they're just using the Match.com angle as a hook.
JJ at April 17, 2011 6:02 AM
Angel,
That false statistic was 1 in 4. And even that is dead wrong.
Jim P. at April 17, 2011 7:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/15/life_is_not_wit.html#comment-2052042">comment from Jim P.And remember, 1 in 3 women has been a victim of sexual assault.
Please, please, stop quoting bullshit rape stats that come from radical feminists and not unbiased researchers seeking the truth.
This woman is arguing that I am terrible for telling the truth -- that background checks will protect you from rapists. I got fired from a paper for telling the truth in the past -- about these crap stats. The editor who fired me just left, so I'm hoping I can get back in. Here's an excerpt from the column I got fired for:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/05/diddle-he-or-di.html
Amy Alkon at April 17, 2011 7:45 AM
Blah blah blah. Stats shmats. No one can really know bc most things like that go unreported-Molested at nine, unreported. Raped at thirteen, unreported. Ready to kick some ass and take some names at thirty, reported to anyone smart enough to listen. What one can know for certain (and teach future generations) is that women get raped, and so do men, boys and girls. If you're not ready to fend off an attack as a grown ass man or as a grown ass woman you might as well get demoted to child status. Act like a civilized person but be ready for the monsters under the bed because...
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
--Robert E. Howard
Gspotted at April 17, 2011 8:19 AM
@Angel I gave her the best advice here. I told her to pick herself up and grow a pair. She's a survivor, not a victim. Maybe I can be a bit of a harsh mistress, but I will not feel sorry for any woman who has the power to pull through this type of thing with her head held high. Being a human can be pretty embarrassing. She should be embarrassed about this ludicrous lawsuit. She should also ditch the victim mentality, so she never has to be embarrassed again.
Gspotted at April 17, 2011 8:33 AM
I just read JJ's post! OMFG! He wagged his cock at her? That's it? She should of started laughing her ass off. It's a John Waters film LIVE! LIVE NUDE BOYS!!! Did he have a trench coat? Hahahaha ROTFL!!!
Gspotted at April 17, 2011 11:23 AM
Yeah, if in fact all he did was masturbate in front of her, she's probably too delicate to be out dating. Like Gspotted, I would have LMAO. Wow. At any rate, she does have to take some responsibility for letting the guy in her house. And, like people said, if SHE couldn't find anything on the guy, how the hell is Match.com supposed to? What a useless false sense of security. Sorry girls, but it's high time we all grew up and starting taking care of ourselves - no one else is going to do it for us. The best defense is not to be there. Yeah, you could know a guy for six years and he might rape you even then, but she moved way too fast on this one, letting him anywhere near her front door like that. That part she needs to chalk up to experience and learn from. Regardless, the "assault" or whatever it was is all on him. But she needs to quit demanding everyone bubble wrap the world for her.
And this:
"No person may be prevented from a first offense.
The operative syllable in the term, "self-defense" is self.
The operative syllable in the term, "law enforcement" is force."
WORD.
Daghain at April 17, 2011 5:18 PM
Of course it's ridiculous to blame Match.com for this. I also think that some of you are getting really close to placing blame on rape victims. Of course we need to try to make smart choices in life but honestly, if I ran around naked in the middle of flipping Detroit at 3:00 in the morning that wouldn't make it my fault if some asshole FORCED ME AGAINST MY WILL TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM. Sure, I would have put myself in a less than good situation (understatement) but any non-screwed up person would at the very most look at me running around naked and laugh or wonder what was wrong with me, a decent person would ask me if I was ok and more than a few people might end up making some kind of nasty comment. Only a complete scumwad would look at it as an opportunity to rape me.
Amy, I understand the points you are trying to make about taking responsibility for ourselves and our own actions, I get that you don't like the idea of our government babysitting us (and neither do I for that matter), I also get that there are annoying ultra-feminists out there doing the rest of us a disservice BUT that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to bash feminists in general (if there weren't any we wouldn't be able to vote), it doesn't mean that it's a good idea to start putting men in the victim role and to toss women into the sink or swim category (a little balance would be nice) and there are some points where we do need some regulation and some help before things get out of hand. I tend to agree with you on most things until you reach a certain point and then I find myself thinking that I don't want to live in the world that you would like for us. It seems like a mean, hard and unwelcoming place.
binewskio at April 17, 2011 11:49 PM
that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to bash feminists in general (if there weren't any we wouldn't be able to vote),
Thats the liitle lie they dont want you to know about. Women could vote from the time this coutry was founded if they werent married and owned property in their own name.
Women in the west had the right to vote long before the national change. In fact women in Utah had their right to vote stripped from them by the federal government(some say at the insistance of a few senatoers wives) due to the overly patrioricah nature of the mormon church and its strangle hold in every area of Utahs governemt and federal representaion.
Also if it hadnt been for men(who were the actual perople to vote for womens suffrage) all the speeches and posturing by bored upper middle class housewives who didnt have to work a job to help support their famillies would have amounted to nothing.
Also for some reason the whole everyone is equal manta of first wave feminism died the day after the vote as they threw minority women under the ideological bus
lujlp at April 18, 2011 6:15 AM
lujlp is right, 'Feminism' had little to do with suffrage for women. That's a claim that feminists like to promote, but it's historically inaccurate.
marci at April 18, 2011 6:35 AM
Fine, my public school history class feminism comment seems to have obviously negated everything else that I had to say, let me put what I said differently:
Of course it's ridiculous to blame Match.com for this. I also think that some of you are getting really close to placing blame on rape victims. Of course we need to try to make smart choices in life but honestly, if I ran around naked in the middle of flipping Detroit at 3:00 in the morning that wouldn't make it my fault if some asshole FORCED ME AGAINST MY WILL TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM. Sure, I would have put myself in a less than good situation (understatement) but any non-screwed up person would at the very most look at me running around naked and laugh or wonder what was wrong with me, a decent person would ask me if I was ok and more than a few people might end up making some kind of nasty comment. Only a complete scumwad would look at it as an opportunity to rape me.
Amy, I understand the points you are trying to make about taking responsibility for ourselves and our own actions, I get that you don't like the idea of our government babysitting us (and neither do I for that matter), I get that there are annoying ultra-feminists out there doing the rest of us a disservice BUT (note the omission of the offending sentence) that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to start putting men in the victim role and to toss women into the sink or swim category (a little balance would be nice) and there are some points where we do need some regulation and some help before things get out of hand. I tend to agree with you on most things until you reach a certain point and then I find myself thinking that I don't want to live in the world that you would like for us. It seems like a mean, hard and unwelcoming place.
binewskio at April 18, 2011 10:39 AM
Fine, my public school history class feminism comment seems to have obviously negated everything else that I had to say, let me put what I said differently:
Ohhh poor put upon you, someone disagreed with a dumbass, factually wrong statment you made.
Listen sweetheart(and I'm not calling you sweetheart in a condesending manner due to you being a woman and me being an oppresive patriarichal male, I'm calling you sweetheart in a condesending manner due to you being an adult who deserves to be treated the same way I treat every otherperson who write such stupid trip)
So listen sweetheart, If I had had a problm with the rest of what you wrote I'd have highlighted the protions and written an appropriate response.
Grow up
And also, it seems match.com caved. I wonder ho much their prices will go up and how many people will refuse to pay the increased price. And whether mach.com will have to balls to sue this woman for the loss of revenue
lujlp at April 18, 2011 12:31 PM
lujlp, I was truly interested in hearing what people had to say to the remainder of my post and decided to remove the offending sentence in order to take it out of the mix. I obviously made a mistake and was simply citing my public education, public school being where I was taught what you were debating with me.
I would never assume that you were calling me sweetheart due to you being male and me being female, I have a feeling it's how you talk to anyone who doesn't agree with you. In spite of what you're trying to imply, I'm not a bleeding heart feminist with a chip on my shoulder. I'm a woman who wants men and woman to have equal opportunities and gets equally angry when I hear about the misrepresentation or mistreatment of people of either sex. So no worries there sweetcheeks.
binewskio at April 18, 2011 1:25 PM
Never assume anything you learned in public school outside of math and real phyical scinces is true.
lujlp at April 18, 2011 1:27 PM
It's a shame that Match.com caved and it's a shame that we live in a society where our food needs to include warnings that it might burn us when it's hot.
binewskio at April 18, 2011 1:33 PM
Binewskio, look, you can do all kinds of crazy shit, but the bottom line is, if you do, you put yourself at a higher risk of danger than, say, someone who doesn't. It's a simple fact. Do you deserve to get raped? Absolutely not. But why up your odds and then cry foul when it happens? Sometimes shit does just happen, but more often than not there's a dumbass move in there somewhere.
Daghain at April 18, 2011 7:41 PM
If match.com caves, it is only a matter of time before the floodgates open for even more lawsuits. And they better do std and aids testing too. Might as well get full medical records, lest some guy get a woman preggers after she claimed to have had her tubes tied. Soon they will be sending out condoms with the match.com logo embossed on the side.
Why stop there? Polygraph tests to find out why the last relationship really ended or if they are a secret crossdresser. Xrays so we can find out if those boobs are real. Credit checks too - too many cases on Judge Judy where they want money back for bad loans after the relationship ended. And don't forget the driving record too, they could drive recklessly, and that would prevent shaving off a few years. The voting records would be nice too, don't want to associate with the radicals. And I'm not dating anyone without seeing their pay-per-view history. I'm not spending the next years of my life watching vampire movies.
Gary G at April 19, 2011 10:19 AM
And be consistent. Since you have nothing to hide in the line to get on the airplane, and therefore being groped is OK because it makes you safer, then all of these other measures are just dandy!
"Match dot com - guaranteed to present you with NO surprises! We even develop your relationship for you, so you don't have to take any time out of your busy day! Just send your last tax form and our nine-page questionnaire to the link provided."
Radwaste at April 19, 2011 6:32 PM
@ Gary G I dated a secret crossdresser. The corset didn't do a thing for me, but I ...humored him. Maybe if Miss Priss had an open mind or a sense of humor she could have worked the flasher fantasy instead of running to daddy, er, her lawyer.
@binewskio No, just no. Stop typing now.
Gspotted at April 19, 2011 10:28 PM
Gspotted: just no what?
binewskio at April 20, 2011 3:03 AM
binewskio: Why don't you go run around Compton naked and find out?
Gspotted at April 20, 2011 9:41 AM
Or go to a frat party and pass out in one of the empty bedrooms. Why don't you go to the nude hot springs and smile at every guy that looks in your direction and then slowly wander off into an abandoned wooded area?
Gspotted at April 20, 2011 9:43 AM
Let me know when you find the magical utopia, that is probably accessible only by unicorn.
Gspotted at April 20, 2011 9:46 AM
Let me know when you find the magical utopia, that is probably accessible only by unicorn.
Posted by: Gspotted
THAT UNICORN IS A MOTHERFUCKING PERVERT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qDsqPaJht0
lujlp at April 20, 2011 10:39 AM
Gspotted-I never said it was even remotely a good idea. I was saying that the victim is the victim and the rapist is the person who performs the crime. Of course a person needs to use common sense in life, we need to use it in every possible situation we can but that doesn't mean that we are at fault when someone commits a crime against us.
If I bring my kid to the park, drop a kleenex on the ground, look up to find her kidnapped, is it my fault that someone stole her? If I buy groceries at a store in a slightly bad neighborhood with my checkcard and someone steals my checkcard info with their cellphone, is that my fault? If I park my car in a bad neighborhood is it my fault when someone steals it? And how do we define bad neighborhood? And how do we define risky behavior? And are the rules different for someone with mental retardation or would you blame the parents? What if the parents are dead? What about teenagers, they get raped too, if a girl wears a short skirt to school and flirts a lot (something an awful lot of teenage girls do)is it partially her fault when she gets gang-raped behind the school because she stays late for basketball practice which meets right next to the football team? I mean really, when does the finger pointing stop?
If I did all of those things that you just described, it would show that I was naive at best, dumber than a bag of hammers at the worst but if someone came up to me and tried to have sex with me, I said "no" and he forced himself on me, it would be rape. Let's put it into perspective here, if you saw a woman in any of those circumstances would you force yourself on her? I doubt it. I doubt most people would. And this is coming from someone who tends to not like humanity much at all.
I hope that you aren't one of those folks who complains about all of the misconceptions about men, considering that from what you're saying most men can barely keep from raping any women who looks suggestively in their direction.
binewskio at April 20, 2011 10:47 AM
Leave a comment