In the real world people are assholes and some more than others. Again if you never leave the bubble you may not know that and since I spent my summer going to "secondary" cities I can assure that people are people and most people are pretty fucking amazing. True there are idiots but that is in just a stupid way not a dangerous way. Okay exception Resting Dump Face in Chief who simply due to his position is in the latter but until the morons of America actually elected him he was more of the former. But I have been most lucky to have discovered cities that are no longer flyover to me.
But as a woman of a certain age I have one advantage that can be also a disadvantage the invisibility of presence. I am outgoing and that enables me to generate conversations, have a radar that let's me assess a situation and quickly extricate myself from potential problems. Add to this an amazing memory for faces (not names I truly rarely give a shit and then immediately forget them when not in use. I never said I wasn't a bitch) that allows me to recall who I have encountered before and what flag (if any) was raised. I am much more in alert now a days than I was before in life when someone I knew did try to kill me but once burned once learned.
And that is why I don't date anymore. I have no way to meet men in safe spaces which would enable me to learn more about them while SPEAKING to them face to face, meeting friends and seeing them in their element be that the gym, at work or some social environment that gives a fuller picture. In today's world we just have and app for that.
Really have we not learned anything? The endless tales of harm including murder from Craigslist. The Ashley Madison scandal. The Grindr house of horrors which makes one label this a killer app in every sense of the word. Then we have endless stories about other dating sites that have led to women and men being robbed, assaulted and raped.
It appears that Bustle and Tinder are the sites du jour and again I have read in the New York Times more sagas in their Modern Love section about failed romances tied to these sites than I care to in a lifetime. My favorite was the Sugar Daddy story. Bitch please what part of that site would make one think anyone on there was sincere and honest? And of course the role of the "Influencer" and now Facebook, YouTube and Instagram can enable you to find love or whatever you need for the now.
As for women over 18 we are sorta kinda fucked without dinner and that can be both literally and figureatively. Men, however, have no problem meeting anyone at any age, willing to go the distance, again that can have any meaning, but women are no longer desirable once the pussy has a closed for servicing sign on the door. Mine says not just closed but out of business. There is game and there is game but again maybe its age or experience or just acknowledging that I suck at it... metaphor only at the parlor games of my youth. I am not good at networking nor caring about what I can get out of every situation and that is dating which may explain why I was and am not good at it. I live in the now and if I like your company now that may or may not mean I like you later so take time and figure that out. No one has that time and with men that means let's fuck now talk later.
Yes and we need legislation to monitor and regulate social media that much is true but really how do we moderate and control human behavior when it comes to sexuality? Well apparently we are to make everyone heterosexual, christian and white and meet in Church where we will have women stay at home and have children to ensure that we can avoid having immigrants do the jobs no one wants and stop all that abortion as well. Sounds great! Can I get a Witness. Home is the best safe space right? Sure tell that to women whose husbands cheat, abuse and harm others. You know the GOP members of Congress. Right Duncan Hunter?
As my mother used to say, "Take them to a motel, don't exchange last names, get it done and get out." She was right. And I add, "Get over it" Seriously I have no idea how to make dating, safer, better and kinder. So just live your best life and it may work out. Or not but hey we could go back to 1950 and make America great again right?
The case for cracking down on Tinder lies
There should be a legal penalty for obtaining sex through fraud.
By Irina D. Manta
The Washington Post
November 16 2018
Irina D. Manta is a professor at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, its associate dean for research and faculty development, and the founding director of its Center for Intellectual Property Law.
Anyone who uses an online dating site — Tinder, Bumble and the rest — quickly learns that people don’t always look like their photos, they sometimes add an inch or two to their height and maybe they fudge their weight. One study found that 80 percent of people lie in their profiles. Many falsehoods are mild, easy to see through within seconds of meeting someone in person and do little harm.
But other lies are more dangerous: They become instruments of sexual fraud. A 44-year-old woman in Britain, for example, fell in love with a man who told her he was a single businessman who often traveled for work. A year later, she learned that he was a married London lawyer using a fake name to sleep with several other women whom he had apparently tricked in the same way.
There have always been people who tell lies to get sex, but apps make it easy to deceive victims on an unprecedented scale, and in relative anonymity, well outside the perpetrators’ social circles. Yet we punish low-level shoplifting, or false claims in commercial advertising, more harshly than we punish most forms of sexual deception, despite the suffering and harm to one’s dignity the latter brings. For a woman in her late 30s or early 40s who wants to marry and have children, the opportunity cost of a fraudulent relationship can add another dimension to the pain in the form of diminished fertility.
Legislators have been wary of wading into this terrain, for reasons both reasonable (it can be difficult to document deception or measure the harm it causes) and less so (nonmarital sex is a risky business, and people who are duped supposedly deserve what they get). In a forthcoming law review, I propose that state lawmakers confront this issue with statutes that would punish, with relatively modest sanctions, material lies that deceived someone into having sexual relations. Confining the cases to small-claims court — which, in the District, would mean that fines would be capped at $10,000 — would deter individual liars, and the cost would add up fast for serial fraudsters.
One way to measure dating-app fraud would be to look for information that (1) was misleading and (2) involved one or more material facts about a person that (3) a reasonable person could have used to decide whether to engage in sexual intercourse. While such legal intervention wouldn’t capture every possible form of sexual fraud (think of lies that originated in a bar rather than on an app), these measures would make a real dent in addressing some of the large-scale problems in today’s dating marketplace.
This legal standard is modeled on how we treat misleading commercial branding through statutes like the Lanham Act. In both the world of brands and the world of dating, there’s an incentive for sellers to misrepresent what they are peddling to gain an advantage. Yet the law recognizes that outright deception about important facts that shape the decision to buy a product not only inflicts real harm on individuals, it also causes markets to break down, because “search costs” balloon. If people can’t trust sellers, they will be forced to undertake expensive or time-consuming investigations of products, or they will simply hold on to their money.
Such concerns led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in an important 1988 case , to reject trademark registration for the name “Lovee Lamb” for synthetic car-seat covers: The products were not made with real lamb’s wool, and a mistaken impression that they were might have swayed purchasing decisions. We can use a similar standard to deal with wolves in sheep’s clothing in the dating arena.
Currently, the law only haphazardly penalizes misrepresentations in the context of sex. Some states make it illegal for people to lie about their sexually-transmitted-disease status (such as HIV positivity), although prosecutions are rare. In other situations, the legal landscape shields victims from some harms and not others without much rhyme or reason, largely driven by historical happenstance or high-profile stories of abuse that drove narrow legislation.
One case that resulted in legal punishment involved a Tennessee defendant who telephoned women and duped them into believing that he was a current sexual partner or friend. He then asked to have sex with the women after they’d blindfolded themselves, supposedly to fulfill a fantasy — and either entirely or partly succeeded in the ruse with three victims. He was convicted of two counts of rape by fraud and one count of attempted rape by fraud, which resulted in a 15-year sentence. In 2002, a California man broke into a sleeping woman’s bedroom and let her believe that he was her husband (who was asleep next to her), then penetrated her. The perpetrator was convicted of rape and sexual penetration by artifice, pretense or concealment, and assault with intent to commit rape, which resulted in a sentence of six years in state prison.
The impact of dating apps, and the associated lying, is only going to grow. By 2013, one-third of married Americans had met their spouses online, and it is estimated that by 2040, more than two-thirds of people will have met their significant others that way. (I found my own husband on Bumble. ) But even as apps amplify the harms caused by lies, they make documenting lies easier, because people’s misleading profiles can be reviewed, and text messages repeating the lies can be saved.
Perhaps all seduction involves embellishment — after all, isn’t makeup or a push-up bra trickery, when the truth might be disappointing? But lies exist on a spectrum, as the law around false advertising already recognizes. You are allowed to boast that a product is “the best in the world,” whether or not that is accurate in the eye of the buyer, and dating-profile claims of being “witty” or “the most amazing cook you’ll ever meet” should be treated similarly. New laws in the dating area should focus on lies that are clearly false, are not easily discoverable before sex takes place, and have a potentially large dignitary or emotional impact. Lies related to physical appearance would thus typically not be punishable, while ones about marital status, fertility circumstances (say, existing children or the ability to have future children) or employment may lead to sanctions.
States might draw the line on deception differently. A number of them may decide that a married man who omits his status from his profile is guilty of misrepresentation. A more cautious approach that requires explicit misrepresentation could also be justified.
Some Tinder users who bend the truth might say they do it so that potential mates don’t weed them out. They hope to win people over in person, and at times they succeed. But “I won’t be able to get laid as easily” is a poor argument for lying in the sexual setting. That line of thinking reflects an often misogynistic attitude of entitlement to sex that, in its more extreme forms, has been used to justify rape and has been embraced recently by the “involuntary celibacy,” or incel, movement.
Most people understand that there is no right to have sex with a particular person — or with anyone at all, if nobody is willing. The #MeToo movement rightly subjects all sorts of behaviors in the dating arena to greater questioning, and the legal boundaries in this context are up for fresh discussion. How to handle sexual fraud in the age of Tinder should be a part of those debates.