Not being a parent, I've never really understood how you'd teach children to talk to strangers, though it's an essential life skill.

Most everyone in the world ought to be able to arrange a meeting with a stranger from in the internet in public and not get raped or murdered (or have their home robbed while they're sitting in one of the good chairs at Starbucks, staring expectantly at the door).

We should sympathize with the least socially-capable people out there, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should write laws and build the world to make their lives go best.

The simple matter is some people want everything solved for them or done for them. So all a person has to do is point or press a button. Actually it is getting to the point some people want it ALL done for them including the decision.

Time and time again I see this attitude from people looking for ESL jobs in Asia to trying to solve a computer problem to if where to go on vacation. Come on people RTFM - read the fucking manual or do a pro/con list, think about it, do some research, ask some questions.... just don't abdicate responsibility. Because you either will not get anything done or you will end up with a horrible set of looking drapes in your living room.

Know it would be a good business that does a criminal record check! It can be a good selling point. But people do not think of the consequences. People blocked from site because of record. Customers leave site because of privacy issue (I really do not think that girl I want to see needs to know about mu failure to appear summons). Doing the check cost money that affects the bottom line. Sorry that 5 dollars a month is now 20 dollars. That cost that makes you lose half your customers.

These people should lose their right to vote. I'm serious. You're an adult, with the associated rights and responsibilities, or you're not. If you don't want to live your own life, there are plenty of politicians who will happily make all the decisions for you.

You can't ever be completely safe ... ever. Nobody, and definitely no government, can make you completely safe ... life is scary, you can die, get over it. If you want to feel completely safe, get a religion that tells you you'll live forever instead of making your irrational hysteria everyone else's problem by forcing everyone else to pay for expensive draconian and totally pointless laws.

Modern Western society is by far the most safe any group of humans have ever been in the history of humans, ever ... presumably evolution must have generally favored the irrationally paranoid to some degree, but the amount of hysteria evident in our society is clearly a flaw in human reasoning in today's context.

"Doing the check cost money that affects the bottom line. Sorry that 5 dollars a month is now 20 dollars. That cost that makes you lose half your customers."

To put it another way, this is a problem that the free market can solve all on its own, and has *already solved* ... the people have voted with their wallets that they DO NOT want background checks on dating sites. If people wanted this, dating sites would already have it and just cost more --- no government force required. If dating sites don't have it it's because by and large people don't want it. As with most things I say 'follow the money' - who would profit from such a law, and see if that leads you to who is promoting it and their real agenda.

Ridiculous idea. A background check will only tell you so much anyway. Most people you don't want to be involved with don't have criminal records or homicidal tendencies. They're just jerks. Besides, anyone who is concerned can do a background check themselves.

Last night, I was at a gathering, and I met a widow who has been remarried for 8 years to a man she met on Match.com. Her son met his wife on E-harmony. Another friend there is happily living with a guy she met on plentyoffish.com.

None of these sites provide guarantees, but they can be successful at matching couples, provided common sense is used.

Okay, You can't protect people from everything.

Your bar example was good.

Are they going to require bars to do a backround check on everyone that comes in the place.

Maybe fingerprints and a DNA sample?

David M, don't go giving the nanny-staters any ideas. As for this: "Know it would be a good business that does a criminal record check!", it sounds good in theory. But there's too much liability. If someone gets past the checks, you get sued by nanny-state activists. If you deny membership to someone based on the checks, you get sued by diversity activists.

There are sites that do background checks, or there were. Maybe they went out of business, as they were expensive compared to the competition. I was on one called "True" something or other. Not everyone was background checked, but you could agree to be, and then you were given a special membership designation. Hardly anyone did it though.

Some sites that proclaim to match wealthy people also do that - supposedly verifying income. The ones who verified were gold or platinum members. Men who were really looking for a "sugarbaby" (as they were affectionately called on such sites) probably found it worthwhile to invest in the verification.

It is different from the dating sights back ground checks, but I am familiar with the sensitivity of gathering information on people alive today. In a couple days I have a family reunion to attend. And being the "family genealogist" I'm expected to give a presentation on our families history. I'll explain where different lineages came from, different characters within our past clans, and just in general tell entertaining stories about how we came to be a family. In preparation, for the last few days, I've been studying old documents gathered years ago.

As usually happens at these reunions, someone will undoubtably ask why I do not talk about the current generation? It happens every time. Do I keep tabs on those alive today?

As with most genealogist I keep information digging to those born before 1930. There are two reason for that, the basic being liability and the other being simply that some do not want their past looked at. The liability being that if the information I have collected is used in an identity theft, I'll feel bad for the family member(s) it occurred to, obviously, but also I could and probably would find myself being sued. I do not want that! So in general for people that are alive, I encourage them to provide information, I enjoy what is told, place that information into a secure, bolted to the ground, file cabinet, and leave it at that. As I like to joke, when it comes to genealogy the legend of past relatives lives works out best for me.

It is funny though. This can be a heated issue. Some in the family provide me little to no personal information about themselves. And others have been known to become upset that I didn't interview and examine records on them in great detail about their life.

Oddly, people who give such liberty away, never realize until too late. I know a LOT of women that would like this because they are afraid of meeting the smooth liar, or perhaps even psycho. They don't know how to measure the risk of that, though. They also don't know how to measure the risk of their own incompetance at judging people. They are just afraid.

What do you sell fearful people? Security blankets. They won't consider the potential that a company with such info, {like BluCross and Blue Shield} will have Data FUBAR'S and expose all of their data, or that anyone would game the system.

There are ways of doing this... Verisign Digital Certificates require notary and such, but that can be gamed too, AND it's expensive.

Even IF you could make work, it's a problem to outsource security to others. It dulls your own situational awareness, and otheres will NEVER care about your security as much as you will, you have much more to lose. But you have to believe in the idea of individual responsibility over collective responsibility. There are many people who no longer see that as good.

Meanwhile, folks like the above-mentioned convict troll these sites, never mentioning their multiple homicides, or even the fact that their pictures are four years old and have been photoshopped to death.

This statement sounds as if the author thinks only horrible, horrible people play photo shenanigans on social sites. But how many of the women who read this and whole-heartedly agreed that this is just *horrible* use 5-year-old pictures from when they were 30 pounds lighter, and fail to mention their 2 divorces and 3 young children?

Granted, murder /= children, divorces, or weight gains. But you don't trust someone, or date them, based on one profile photo - you check the person out, get to know a little more, and back off quickly if something rings an alarm bell.

OFFTOPIC amusement: Follow this tweet-link for a charming video.

"folks like the above-mentioned convict troll these sites, never mentioning their multiple homicides"

I wonder what's actually more likely, getting killed by someone trolling an online dating site for victims, or getting killed by lightning. I suspect the latter.

Also, if you really think about it, online dating would be a really stupid place for a murderer to look for victims, for multiple reasons, least of which is the massive easily trackable trail you leave online and the near impossibility of being anonymous ... anyone interested in killing would be FAR better off elsewhere, e.g. picking up prozzies for victims. (Granted, some murderers are stupid, but they'll also be the ones who get caught the easiest.)

People have such an inflated sense of self-importance, honestly --- when you're on a dating site, *nobody cares*, you're just another boring ordinary person out of millions online and no, serial killers aren't stalking you, nobody is gawking your profile all day.

People have such an inflated sense of self-importance, honestly --- when you're on a dating site, *nobody cares*, you're just another boring ordinary person out of millions online and no, serial killers aren't stalking you, nobody is gawking your profile all day.

But... But!... But that would mean the universe isn't all about ME!.... [/whine]

I know of someone who got on a offender list, along with violent pedophiles and rapists, for--urinating in public. Mind you, it was at night, in a parking lot, and no one was around except a zealous, bored, cop.
I did it myself (gasp) alone on the top level of a parking garage, at 1:00 am, waiting for a tow truck. I had a dying cell phone and a flat tire. There are way too many other defensive details to give here. It.was.necessary.
There are many real offenders who aren't on the lists, who end up working in schools until they finally fuck up.
Also- parents push "stranger danger" when a friendly neighbor, coach, or uncle could be standing around acting like a wonderful guy. Perverts don't always look like one.
Kids have to be aware of their surroundings and to pay attention to their usually reliable gut feelings or "icky" vibes.

Laws can't solve everything.

I do think there should be basic requirements for bearing children: common sense, patience, stamina, work ethic, responsibility and compassion. They are usually overlooked. Hormones win!

The federal government has already done this called IMBRA (attached to VAWA). IIRC, the state of Maryland is working on a law similar to that one this session.

“I can understand why daters are getting a false sense of security -- they're paying a fee to be on their site.”

It’s an interesting response to a perceived problem, but the actual problem isn’t with ex-convicts on dating sites, it’s with women (and I suppose some men) who say things like “it was a red flag but…” or “he seemed controlling but I thought it meant he really loved me, but…” Or “I was just so into him that (_____) didn’t bother me until…” No amount of vetting by a website can catch everything.

How do you fix that? You can’t. You can’t fix stupid. Sometimes stupid has to fix itself, and sometimes stupid just has to stay stupid. If the idea of running into a convicted felon on a dating site is bothersome, don’t use one. If you have no objective judgment because “judging is bad m’kay?” then you have no one to blame but yourself when the hottie that passed the criminal record check turns out to be a married douchebag with an incurable STD and a furry fetish.

To me the easy way to tell if a site does background checks on possible sutors is to ask yourself did they do one on me when I joined. Unless it is the very sexist ones that only background one sex. Most of these people would panic if they had been searched themselves.
With technology today, it is relatively easy to do a quick check on someone if you are that nosy or paranoid.
It is amazing how much stuff you can find on someone with just their name.

I wonder how many of societies problem would disappear if we stopped putting warning labels on things. Think of the benifit to society when truly stupid people are no longer protected from themselves.

Imagine a world where people who thought to blowdry their hair in the shower were allowed to die.

Mankind has no natural enemies anymore - stupidity has to be allowed to kill people damnit

The federal government has already done this called IMBRA (attached to VAWA). IIRC, the state of Maryland is working on a law similar to that one this session.

Every single day I am becoming more of an independent or small "r" republican.

The two questions to always ask anymore: Where does the money go?/Who is going to profit?

And

Where the hell is this in the U.S. Constitution?

I take it back, seems there are predators on online dating sites: http://failblog.org/2010/05/21/epic-fail-photosonline-dating-fail-2/

HI,I read what you wrote to poor manhandled(saturday/july 3). OK their is 1 piece of advice you left out,the moment she lost control was when she did't say why don't you take a cab,Iam sure 1 of them had a cell if not the bar would have then if he turned that down then tell the bartender he's to drunk 2 drive if he or she does nothing let him go then call the cops!(there was no reason for her at all 2 take him home!)

I am a Colorado native, and, no, I did not vote for the anti-gay amendment or the same-sex marriage ban, and I am not a member of a militia.

Fear defeats more people than any other one thing in the world.

Hey! I think there is something wrong with your blog, i tried to follow, but it didn't worked. Can you please see what the problem is and send me an email when it's back again? Thanks! :)