Online Daters Burned by Lies

ONLINE DATING CAN BE DANGEROUS

An estimated 40 million Americans use online dating services hoping to meet "the one." There are more than 1,400 Web sites in the $700 million a year business, but some question their safety.

Prosecutors say a Philadelphia nursing student was conning women on match.com. He was convicted in 2007 of assault, but the accusations don't end there. His victims, described as attractive, ambitious professionals say their lives will never be the same.

Prosecutors said Jeffrey Marsalis, 34, told some tall tales, pretending to be a doctor, an astronaut and even a spy to lure women on Internet dating sites.

"He faces up to 20 years in prison and he will have to register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life," said prosecutor Joe Khan.

Marsalis was convicted of sexual assault. However, he was acquitted of more serious charges that he drugged and then raped seven women in his apartment.

"You read about it, you see it on TV but you just don't think it can happen to you," one anonymous victim said.

She said she knows about tricksters like Jeffrey Marsalis and how easy it is to be duped online. According to her, a man she met on a Christian dating Web site was seeing 60 other women from 25 different Web sites. He pretended to be everything from a country music manager to a Pentagon consultant. He even lied about having cancer, she said.

She claims he stole thousands of dollars from his victims.

"Mentally, it just about broke me to think that I had been so naive, when I don't consider myself to be a very naive person," she said. "And of course, I was worried about my safety." She may have good reason to be. Dozens of Internet dating cases have ended in tragedy. And experts said it's only getting worse.

"Men especially are getting are getting bolder as far as using dating Web sites to find their next victim," said Jayne Hitchcock, who is working to halt online abuse.

"Most of these women will tell you that they had a bad feeling about it but they went ahead with it because the person the man had a wonderful profile," Hitchcock said. "He was charming."

One victim said it was loneliness that clouded her judgment.

"Victims are victims because somebody is looking to exploit their weakness," she said. "And it doesn't matter if you're doctor. It doesn't matter if you're an accountant."

She said she wants women to trust their instincts because she didn't trust her own. About 35 percent of daters admit they lie about themselves online, according to a survey research study by Jeana Frost of Boston University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Though the real number is probably MUCH higher!)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Online Dating? Never Again

by Claudia Connell

Tempted by online dating? You won't be after reading CLAUDIA CONNELL'S hilarious (and cautionary) account

(U.K.) Single? Starting to despair of ever meeting Mr Wonderful? Well, don’t — because, ladies, the world is full of handsome, charming men with six-figure salaries, who are all queuing up to commit to ­people just like you.

The virtual world, that is, not the real world — don’t be daft: men like that were all snapped up years ago.

I’m talking about internet dating, of course, where millions of singletons (and quite a few marrieds on the make) line up to be selected and rejected in a process that has become ­Britain’s most popular way for couples to get together.

Over half of all single people turn to the internet in their search for love. Apparently, some of them find it. I never did and I’ve never met anyone it has worked for either. In the long-term, that is. A stream of endless dates is ­guaranteed. But lasting love? I’m not so sure.

It was 14 years ago, when I was 30, that I first tried online dating. I was single and not in bad nick, but working long hours in a female-­dominated environment meant I never got to meet anyone. Too young for the dinner party set, too old to be hanging out at nightclubs, it seemed like a hopeless cause until a friend of a similar age took me out and confessed her dirty little secret: she’d started to meet men online. She imparted this information in hushed tones, without making eye contact, and then, on pain of death, swore me to secrecy. I don’t think she could have been more ashamed if she’d confessed to drowning puppies.

Nowadays, the stigma surrounding internet dating has all but gone. So many people partake that it has became an acceptable way to meet the opposite sex.

But when I started it was a bit like train-spotting — you’d heard about it, you knew it went on, but the sort of people who did it were a little bit odd and not the type whose ­company you’d keep.

Today, there are hundreds of ­dating sites to choose from, catering for those with all sorts of criteria: ­vegetarians, Christians, single ­parents, sports fanatics, people who like pets. You name it, there’s a site where you can meet your perfect match who shares the same interest. But, 14 years ago, there were only a handful.

I browsed one site before signing up and handing over my money. I couldn’t believe my eyes when they matched me up with dozens of sexy, ­gorgeous hunks whose ­dazzling smiles beamed out at me from the screen.

Posing by their sports cars, keen to tell any prospective ladies that while they had two homes and earned a salary that could single-handedly pay off the national debt, they were still ­sensitive souls who liked to strum their guitars and do parachute jumps for charity.

They seemed too good to be true. They were.

After submitting my credit card details, the millionaire Brad Pitt lookalikes all mysteriously disappeared and no amount of searching ever uncovered them again.

They were, of course, plants, who were there to lure in naive punters. A man signing up for the first time (and I know this because I tried it) would have been greeted with ­pictures of ­Scarlett Johansson ­lookalikes, ­boasting about their ­cooking skills while posing in bikinis.

The first step when joining a dating site is to complete a profile. As I learned, this is a complete waste of time — especially for women. It doesn’t matter if you have climbed ­Everest in your lunch break and ­discovered a cure for cancer — no one will read it.

Some of the profiles are ludicrous. Match.com, the world’s biggest ­dating site, asks dozens of pointless questions that go on for pages and pages.

When I’m looking for a partner, there are certain things I’d like to know, but I don’t really care when he last went to the cinema or whether he likes biscuits.

I filled out my first profile questionnaire in painstaking detail. And, like everyone else online, I claimed to like travel, theatre and photography.

The truth is that I have hardly any hobbies or interests, but I’ve never yet seen a box I could tick that says: ‘Likes sitting in front of the TV, bitching about everyone on screen.’

One question some sites do ask is if you’d like to have children. What a mean trick. If you say ‘Yes’, you’ll come across as some baby-hungry bunny boiler, but say ‘No’ and you’re Cruella De Vil.

Any online dater will stand or fall on the strength of their photo.

And as the average person looks, well, average, they have to boost their chances of success by posting totally ­unrealistic images. So it was that on my first date, I found myself ­sitting opposite a very charming man called Patrick.

He’d claimed online he was 35. He certainly was 35, or thereabouts, in the picture he’d posted. But the man sitting opposite me was nudging 50. He had displayed a picture that was at least a decade old — one of the most popular online tricks.

I didn’t fare much better with the next guy. He looked nothing like his photograph — and there was a very good reason for that. It wasn’t him. It was just some ­random stranger whose image he’d scanned. When I questioned him about this, he snapped: ‘Well, I think we look alike.’

I must have had dates with six ­different men before I met someone I clicked with and who appeared to have been reasonably honest. We agreed to meet again and I went home to tell my flatmate, a ­fellow internet dater, that I had a good ­feeling about this one.

She replied cynically: ‘He’s ­probably back online now, lining up the next one.’ I checked his profile online — it was flashing, which meant that he was messaging someone else. She was right.

And that’s the huge stumbling block with internet dating: there’s too much choice.

There are on average seven women to every man, creating the kid in a sweet shop effect.

Why would a man give any woman a ­second chance when they know there’s six others online just ­waiting for his message?

If you’re a man, you can be as fussy as you want. Didn’t like her earlobes? Never mind. NEXT!

I also never made my peace with the fact I was looking for men via my computer. It felt a little bit grubby and, if I’m honest, desperate. Whenever I started to see someone on a regular basis, I could never bring myself to admit where I’d met him to my friends and ­colleagues. So I lied. They couldn’t believe my success in meeting men at the super-
market, the dry cleaners, on the bus, in the park. I even claimed to have met one man at the zoo. The zoo?! Why on earth did I think the idea of a childless woman cruising for men at the zoo was somehow less embarrassing than admitting the truth?

The longest relationship I had as a result of meeting on an internet dating site was seven months. ­During that whole time, I never went to his home; he always came to mine. He insisted this was because he had a flatmate and as I (by then) was living alone, we could have some privacy. It made sense, though I always had a niggling doubt. One day, my suspicions got the better of me. I searched the electoral roll and uncovered the real reason I never went to his home — his wife wouldn’t have liked it very much.

Of course, married men cheated before the internet came along, but online dating is like an adventure playground for philanderers.

Aged 34, I vowed to give up on internet dating for ever and take my chances in the real world. OK, I didn’t have a date every other night, but it was refreshing to meet people without having first to email each other for a week about our favourite films.

Then, a few years ago, I was lamenting my single status with a younger friend who suggested I join an online dating site. When I regaled her with my horror stories, she insisted that times had changed and I should give it another go. After nearly a decade away, she was right: things had changed. There were hundreds of sites to choose from, all with really ­positive, bouncy names that it must have taken marketing executives hours of brainstorming to come up with.

Names such as Soul Mates, Plenty More Fish, Love And Friends. I suppose Oddballs And Social ­Misfits is never going to attract too many customers, is it? The tedious questions were still there and all the men had user names such as Stud4U or Adonis82.

This time around I noticed that the pictures people had posted had taken a worrying turn.

WHO KNEW?

Around 4.7 million people visit dating websites each year in Britain — and one third of online daters admit to lying in their profile Rather than just smiling into the camera, all the men felt compelled to display images of themselves performing some Action Man-like task. Rock climbing and marathon running were particularly popular.

Meanwhile, the women have decided they must all be fun, feisty Sex And The City type gals and post pictures of themselves in little black dresses sipping brightly ­coloured cocktails with a ­coquettish look on their face. Don’t get me wrong — I don’t want to see pictures of men in their pants, picking their teeth with a takeaway menu. But surely a little bit of reality wouldn’t go amiss?

But no one on an internet dating site is ever allowed to be just an ordinary Joe (or Josephine). The impressive sounding ‘psychological and compatibility matching’ is something that’s become big in internet dating since my time away.

It’s particularly favoured by newcomers eHarmony, who vow that their unique formula will match you with your ideal partner. But given that no one online ever tells the truth, how is that going to work? You might as well match up Pollyanna with ­Hannibal Lecter. In the end, none of these changes mattered because I was breaking one of the cardinal sins of internet dating. I was over 40.

In my younger days, an average 70 men would look at my profile in a day. And that was before online dating was massively popular. Aged 42, I was lucky if I got two. Even men ten years older than me clearly stated in their profile that 39 was their cut-off age.

As I’ve already said, they could afford to be selective. If the same man tried to approach a girl in her 20s in the real world, he’d probably be sent packing but, online, well, he might just be in with a chance.

I quickly realised that when it comes to online dating, there are three age brackets: 18 to 29; 30 to 39; and 40 to 110. During my three months online, I didn’t go on a single date and the only interest I had was from men over 60. I did briefly flirt with the idea of signing up to a site that targeted the more mature dater, but something in me balked at the idea.

I am no spring chicken, but I’m not ready for a life of early-bird ­suppers and cosy nights in watching re-runs of Murder She Wrote. So I logged off and I haven’t looked back.

And unless I hear that George Clooney has joined Match.com and is looking to shack up with a ­British woman over 40 with ­absolutely no hobbies or interests, then I doubt I’ll be tempted back.


original article found here

THE INFIDELITY INDUSTRY

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Internet's Five SCARIEST Seducers

Dimitri the Lover is a man with a seduction manual to sell. (Men with "seduction manuals" are the new twentysomething-girl "sex columnists"!) We introduced you to him yesterday, via his awesome "If you're on any sort of medication for anxiety or depression, I'm not interested" voicemail. As the weekend is fast approaching—and because we're not afraid to be servicey—we've gone ahead and compiled a shortlist to some of the worst daters roaming the bars and streets, completely unfettered by shame.

# 1. Dimitri the Lover: We were just introduced to this gentleman yesterday via two long and self-involved voicemails that the Greek stud left to an "elegant" lady. He's "very single," has "no trouble meeting women; I mean, women approach me six or seven times a day. But I'm extremely particular about what I like." In the second, more threatening voicemail, he adds that, "I'm giving you the three o'clock deadline. If I don't hear from you by then, you lose my number—I'm erasing your number right now, so you won't be hearing back from me."

# 2. Prescott Hahn: We still barely know who the infamous "Fashion Meets Finance" "hedge-fund" dater even is. But simply attending such a themed douche-dating event gives us pause. A long pause.


# 3. Paul Janka: The creepy sexual compulsive's fetish is picking up women on the street, in the subway, or—and here lies his genius—in his apartment. (First dates typically take place here.) Unfortunately, his little games have taken a turn for the dark side and we're hoping someone brings him up on charges.

# 4. The Craiglist Cash-Waver: Aw, he's not that bad, really. We admire any man who proudly poses in over a dozen Craigslist personal-ad pics wearing shutter shades and waving a cash-fan. But then he encouraged us to mock him further in an epic phone call to our office, which was recorded for posterity.

# 5. John Fitzgerald Page: By now we're all familiar with the man who proudly carried the title "the worst person in the world;" he carried his hubristic Match.com gaffe ("6 pictures of just your head and your inability to answer a simple question lets me know one thing. You are not in shape") into fame and fortune. Well, mostly just an appearance on CNN and the Dr. Phil Show.

ORIGINAL

THANKS TO ONE OF SEVEN FROM OUR SISTER SITE 'FIGHT BIGAMY' FOR THIS FIND!

How to Spot an Online Fibber

How to spot an online fibber
REPOSTING THIS IN HONOR OF SELF-INVOLVED BLABBERS - CYBERPATHS: writer and historian: DOUGLAS BECKSTEAD AND NATHAN E.B. THOMAS, and self-styled right wing American pundit: JEFF DUNETZ aka Yid With Lid

(ITHACA, N.Y.) How to spot an online fibber: They talk too much, use more pronouns about others and use more terms about the senses, such as "see," "hear" and "feel," than people telling the truth, according to a new study by Cornell University communication experts.

"Our study suggests that people who are lying to another person in a chat room or in instant messaging use approximately one-third more words, probably in their attempt to construct a more cohesive and detailed story in order to seem believable," says Jeff Hancock, assistant professor of communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) at Cornell.

"Perhaps more important is the finding that people being lied to also change the way they talk, even though they don't explicitly know they are being lied to," says Hancock. He found that targets of lies on the Web ask more questions and also use more words than when they are being told the truth. Hancock says that this may be another reason for the extra words: targets of deception may become skeptical and ask more questions than those receiving truthful information.

The study is published in the Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2004). It was first presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society in Chicago.

Other studies have shown that liars use fewer words, but these studies examined deceptive monologues, not a conversation with a partner, and did not look at online communications, which, because they are written, give people more time to prepare their responses. Hancock's finding that liars use more pronouns about others ("he," "she," "they") than truthful communicators is consistent with other research and is probably liars' attempts to distance themselves from their deception and to deflect the focus.

Hancock's co-authors are Lauren E. Curry '04 (now at Fordham Law School) and Saurabh Goorha, M.S. '04 (now in Cornell's S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management), and collaborator Michael T. Woodworth at Okanagan University College, British Columbia. The researchers studied 66 people and paired them up for a conversation via an instant-messaging interface on computers. Participants were asked to discuss five assigned topics about themselves; one of each pair was randomly assigned to fabricate stories in two topics and was given examples about the kinds of lies to tell. They had five minutes to prepare.

Although more research is needed to observe deceptive face-to-face conversations to see what happens when nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, are available, Hancock says that text-based communication is becoming increasingly ubiquitous. His findings suggest that researchers might be able to develop techniques to identify online communication that appears to be deceptive.

~~~~~
The study was supported in part by the Department of Communication at Cornell and a federal Hatch Grant.

Related World Wide Web sites: The following sites provide additional information on this news release. Some might not be part of the Cornell University community, and Cornell has no control over their content or availability.

Jeff Hancock

(Sounds much like Ed Hicks, Dan Jacoby and Gareth Rodger, too!)

MORE: How to Nail an Online Liarhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2012/02/15/how-to-nail-an-online-liar-its-all-about-the-words/

Online Dating is Eroding Humanity

by John Walters

(U.K.) The internet is changing the way society communicates, processes information and knowledge, and configures its relationship towards authority. Some of these developments are exciting and challenging, but in one particular sense the internet poses a fundamental challenge to the way humans interact. The following criticism and concern regarding online dating is not at all intended as a criticism of good and heartening personal stories – I, too, know people who have met their significant other through online dating.

Today, internet dating has become more or less accepted as a way of forming relationships. There has been some criticism, but it has usually been of the functional and operational kind, regarding subscription costs or users providing false pictures or information. There has been little thought or comment on why matchmaking websites might be a bad thing per se.

Online matchmaking is premised on the notion of making rational choices. It is perhaps fitting that the language of economics and business has finally – in our late capitalist society – permeated the most irrational, the most human of all areas: the interpersonal. Internet dating is like shopping at LoveMart. We watch and read the adverts (people's profiles) and – based on what we are told is factually relevant data – we then, allegedly, make a rational decision to try the product. The more choices available (ie the more popular a matchmaking website), we are told, the better for those making the choice. Yet it is these intrusions by business speak into the very inner workings of society that should be of great concern.

This is further emphasised by the manner in which these processes are explained by proponents of online dating, as "opening up options" and "putting yourself out there". One site, Match.com, offers both efficiency ("Receive your compatible matches straight away") and informed choice ("Choose who you'd like to get in touch with"). The irrational and unpredictable nature of something very human – love and the interpersonal – is turned on its head and transformed into a rational product.

Furthermore, the way dating websites calculate matches distorts the very core of interpersonal relations. Online seekers of partners and friends rely on computer calculations of a set of hard questions. There is little room (if any) for subtlety, deviance, or exploration. The questions that many of these websites use are so mind-numbingly awful ("Are you happy with your life? A. Yes, B. No, C. Most of the time") that it cannot even be claimed to replicate real conversations. If I were asked most of the questions used to calculated compatibility on a normal date in a pub, say, I would run a mile. And that's the point: this is not an extension of humanity and human interaction; it is a fundamental shift. Interpersonal relationships are being transformed into products that can be (supposedly) objectively measured and objectively chosen, even though such relations represent the exact opposite.

In his book Éloge de l'amour (2009), Alain Badiou noted two slogans for two online dating websites. The first claims that one can have love without the unexpected ("Ayez l'amour sans le hasard!"). The second promises that one can be in love without falling in love ("On peut être amoureux sans tomber amoureux!"). Love – this great irrational driver of humanity – has become an object, which people wish to be fully informed about, choose rationally, and not suffer any unexpected disappointments from. It is, as philosopher Slavoj Zizek has noted, like caffeine-free coffee.

We want to enjoy these essence-free products, but without the irrationality of consuming bad things or accepting the spontaneous and unpredictable nature of emotions and feelings. Everything that makes culture and society real, impulsive, and often erratic is stripped away in favour of rational choice-making. We don't want to harm ourselves; we don't want suffering; we don't want hardship; we don't accept difficulty and disappointment. We simply want (and demand) the 100% consumer fulfillment of obtaining products based on rationality. This criticism can be extended of course to other forms of online communities, such as Facebook, where contact-less friendships are reduced to pokes, LOLs, and vacuous innuendos.

Some critics, such as Badiou, have suggested that online dating is taking society back to a pre-modern version of arranged marriages. I would say it is worse. Society has invited the language and practice of market rationality into its midst. It has taken over not merely communal aspects of society, but the very essence of what it means to be human.

original article found here

Quotes from Cheaters to their Partners/Spouses

'SILLY' THINGS ONLINE CHEATERS SAY!!

Cheaters come up with the wildest stories, especially if they get caught unexpectedly!

What my ex said when I questioned her late nights on the net:
"I am writing a romance novel"

My cheater said:"you are so suspicious, you need help because its all in your head"

My cheater said:"Oh, she is just like a sister to me, that's all"

My cheater said:
"I wouldn't do that to you. I swear"

I 'swear' he said:
"Do you believe me or your own eyes?"

My cheater said:
"we were talking about his girlfriend's problems"

My cheater said:
"You are trying to control me and it is not going to be that way"

My cheater said:
"I don't know why I gave her my phone number"

My cheater said:
"It's a fatal attraction"

What my husband said when I called his cell phone and it clicked on while he was having sex with another woman:
"it wasn't me! The cell phones must have been crossed with someone else's"

After I finally decided to remotely tap into my wife's computer after months of her staying up all night in internet chat rooms to find love messages between her and another man. My cheater said:
"Why were you spying on me?"

My cheater said:
"I don't start the conversations on the IM, I only respond after she starts talking first"

My cheater said:"yes I have a girlfriend, but we don't have sex, I discuss with her the problems we are having in our marriage"

My cheater said:
"I didn't think you loved me"

This was after my fiance went out with a "friend" and had sex with her. What a fiance, huh? My cheater said:"Nothing is happening, we are just friends, and enjoy each others company. You are really blowing this out of proportion"

My cheater said:
"why were you checking my phone anyway?"

my cheater said:"I have a present for you and if you don't go away I won't give it to you"

My cheater said:"I'm going on another business trip"

My cheater said:
"I wasn't sending the emails to her. I was sending them to her computer"

My cheater said:
"We are just buddies and nothing else!"

My cheater said:"I was just curious"

My cheater said:
"If you were a better wife and a better lover, i would not have to turn to other married women. If you would join me in the swinger's lifestyle, it would not be considered cheating since you would be right there with me."

My cheater said:
"I don't wear my wedding ring because I am allergic to it."

My cheater said:
"I just wanted to have a friend of my own"

My cheater said:"I was peer pressured into it"

My cheater said:
"I thought about you the whole time it was happening"

My cheater said:
"I could never bring myself to cheat on you. That girl that called claiming we had sex was a basket case, a nutjob. Ask anyone"
(How many times have we heard? "she's a stalker; she's a scorned woman; she's crazy; she's lying; she's stalking/ obsessed with me; she's mentally ill... " BALONEY! Don't buy it!)

My cheater said:
"are YOU cheating?"

My cheater said:
"I can't say no to him"

My cheater said:
"It's only harmless flirting... it's not like I was ever going to meet her"

My cheater said:"With every one of them, I fantasized it was you"

My cheater said:"She's a good friend of my mother"

My cheater said:
"I missed you and she looked like you"

My cheater said:
"Oh that number on my cellphone is just a side job."

My cheater said:
"I couldn't get a signal on my cell phone to call you and tell you that I was too tired to drive 1 1/2hrs to our home"

My cheater said:
"If I wanted to cheat, I wouldn't be cheating with a married woman"

(LOL - cyberpaths love to PICK ON ABUSED, MARRIED, DIVORCED, OVERLY TRUSTING, NAIVE or DISABLED people!)

My cheater said:
"The only reason i was talking to her was about us"

what my husband told me when I found a strange number on the caller Id box:
"I am dealing with a bookie for gambling and didn't want you to find out"

My cheater said:
"I would never do that to you, i love you babe, you should trust me"

Right up until I handed him the phone with her on the other end. My cheater said:"I can't break up with her instead of you because you can handle it better"

My cheater said:
"I'm just giving you the time and the space that you need"

One cheater said:

"She's been obsessed with me since we worked together (went to college, high school, etc... together) and I am trying to let her down easy."

NEW!"I swear, I was ONLY looking at this web site because a buddy of mine is the one who DESIGNED the web site, and he wanted my opinion. Honest honey I would never look at another woman! I was just trying to help my buddy and give him my opinion!"

"...I did not know what Ashley Madison was but it was a recurring charge on our credit card for several years, I forget what he told me it was, but he sure didn't tell me the truth!"

Another cheater said:

"Its all just a game. She knew it when we started. Really just playing around, nothing serious."

(Dunetz/ Yidwithlid., Jacoby and Beckstead have tried this "just a game" explanation too! It's bull - did their targets KNOW it was a game? Probably not!

Hey Beckstead and Dunetz/ Yidwithlid:

Did you TELL your victims it was a game upfront, or is it convenient to say this now that you're busted? Or were you REALLY saying how much you loved and cared for these women to get free sex? And did you TELL THEM it was just about sex for you? (Our guess?: NO!!)

My cheater said:
"I am just needy. They were only about sex for me. I swear."

One cheater said:

"She stalked me on the internet, when I found out how fat & ugly she was I told her it was off. I would never cheat on you, sweetie"

One cheater said:
"It was all PLANTED!! These women who are obsessed with me planted those online sex ads and the online dating ads!"

Of course there's the outright:

"that never happened,"

"I never said that,"

"he/she is lying/making it up/planted it all"

And the indignant: "I will sue them/ you/ her!"
For a great site with more CLICK HERE

DISHONESTY: JUST ONE DISADVANTAGE OF ONLINE DATING

Perhaps the most commonly recognized and deserved disadvantage of online dating is the propensity for dishonesty. There is an abundance of stories about e-liars, commonly involving six months of dating ending with the realization one of the two is married. Even more begin with sexy photographs which turn out to be taken prior to a major weight gain, tooth loss, or all-over body tattoo.

Wendy Tanaka tells the story of a man whose online interest described herself as looking like actress Renee Zellweger. Before getting together, she revealed that she was actually “an older, less pretty version of Renee Zellweger.” In one last e-mail before getting together, she said she’d “once been described as looking like John Denver”.

Users aren’t the only liars online. Online dating sites are also caught in fibs from time to time. On November 28, 2002, an article in The Spokesman Review detailed a lawsuit (on behalf of a user whose identity was kept a secret) accusing the site INeedANewGirlfriend.com of lying in order to get newly registered users to buy subscriptions. The lawsuit says that bogus e-mails with photos of beautiful women were sent to men asking them for a reply or for a date. Once the men paid their membership fees and e-mailed the women, they never heard back. The article continued on, explaining:

To prove his client’s contention, the lawyer concocted a handful of cyber straw men -- false profiles of men he believed no woman would want to be involved with. They were the Internet’s most ineligible bachelors, he said: hard-drinking, overweight, out-of-work men. Their goal, he stated in their profiles, was to meet rich, beautiful women who would support them.

The offers came rolling in.

The issue of deception online is more commonly aimed at users, however, than sites. It can be easily argued that profiles as a basis of online dating sites encourage dishonesty. For those eager to meet accepting partners, profile questions can be daunting. For instance, when signing up on Kiss.com, users are prompted to “Please describe your looks.” Possible answers are limited to: ugly; not very good looking; average; good looking; very good looking; and stunning.

Another common question, that of annual income, is a good example of one that is easily exaggerated (or lessened to protect family funds!). With questions such as these, the ultimate goal of attracting interested parties may be threatened by honest answers. Profile questions are exceedingly open to interpretation.

In the end, while the Internet may make dishonesty tempting initially, should a relationship progress to actually meeting, truths will generally be revealed. Online culture seems to have established acceptable, even expected levels of misrepresentation. (NEVER ACCEPTABLE!) Comparable to fibbing on a drivers licenses, height and weight questions are less likely to deem one a dirty liar than, say, not revealing five children and a wife. Whether disclosure makes or breaks a relationship depends on the severity of the lie and the values of the judge.


Ultimately, there is nothing fundamentally honest about meeting in-person either. Under the influence of alcohol and loud music, it is certainly easy for an unhappily married woman to remove a wedding ring before accepting a drink from across the room. Why are people tempted to misrepresent themselves when eventual meetings will reveal all anyway? Morris at Udate.com believes that it comes down to human nature. “If someone is going to lie online, they’d do it offline anyway”. The human desire to increase one’s standing among the competition is strong.

Technology does, however, lend help to those distrustful of the medium. Assuming that a correct name is acquired, the truly determined can visit the county courthouse and search for marriage licenses, divorce records and criminal histories (including felonies and domestic violence. Those with a minimum knowledge of using the Internet--and it’s assumed that online daters qualify -- can do a few quick Google searches with a minimal amount of accurate information and foil liars early on. (NOT ALWAYS!) Generic online searches can reveal work and educational history among other things. The more cynical can access “an abundance of public records, often free and easily accessible, that can tip off online daters to fakes”.

WHAT ABUNDANCE OF PUBLIC RECORDS MIGHT THAT BE?
THERE'S NO NATIONAL MARRIAGE DATABASE or CENTRALIZED CRIMINAL DATABASE EITHER!

EOPC NEVER EVER RECOMMENDS OR IS O.K. WITH ONLINE DATING! EVER!
FROM THIS SITE

Hundreds of Victims of Romance Scams

Almost 400 Canadians complained they were victims of international ripoff schemes involving "romance" last year, according to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

Victims reported losing almost $3.5 million, with more than a third of the money lost by victims between the ages of 40 and 49. One octogenarian victim reported losing $20,000.

"It's the kind of scam that's not reported," said Cpl. Louis Robertson of the fraud centre.

Robertson said 586 people complained to the fraud centre that they had been approached in a romance scheme, with 390 reporting they lost money.

The corporal said that likely reflects only a tiny portion of actual victims, perhaps as few as five per cent of people swindled by Internet romancers.

He said that given the nature of the crime, many feel too embarrassed to come forward.

original article here

More Horror Tales of Online Dating

By Ellie (Advice Columnist)

With Internet dating a viable and popular choice, anyone going this route still needs to decide how to select and be selected, judge and be judged.

I say this because of the vast number of stories I hear about online dating disasters and disappointments. For every successful match with a prince/princess, a lot of frogs of both genders clutter the path.

Here are some women’s horror stories from the online trenches:

Reader 1: “I found that out of all the men’s profiles I was sent, the vast majority contained lies, mostly about age. Or about how long they’d been out of a relationship, if at all. One man said he was living in a basement apartment and visiting his kids on weekends. It didn’t ring true, as he was in banking and talked about making a lot of money, so it seemed strange he was living in someone’s basement.

“On the third date, I insisted he take me to his apartment, as he’d hesitated when I’d previously asked questions about his place. One look and I knew he didn’t live there: no photos, no work-related papers, it looked unused.

“He protested that he wasn’t there much, but when I said I was never going out with him again so he might as well come clean, he confessed he still lived with his wife — but they never slept together. Yeah, right.”

Reader 2: “My profile says I’m athletic, love spending time doing sports and hiking, work in the physical health and fitness field and would never smoke. My photo shows a whole-body view of me in a dress. I am slim and toned. Yet many men who emailed me were visibly and heavily overweight and some were also smokers.

“On the second date with a fit-looking guy who was athletic (though 10 years older than he said), he suggested we stop going out on dates and just eat at home and watch TV.

“In my profile I noted that I love music and being out on the town. I hardly know the guy, so why would I want to settle down to a routine of staying home so fast? It wasn’t about money, because I paid my way on those first two dates, and he had a good job.

“I found that guys like him, in their 40s and never been married, are just too set in their ways.”

original article found here

DETECTING LIES

Are you always the last to know the truth about what's REALLY going on? Does it drive you crazy that you can't seem to pick up clues that someone might be lying, when all your friends seem to be able to spot them a mile away? Here are some telltale signs that what you're hearing might be something less than the whole truth.

(Excerpts applicable to internet communications):

Credibility
...make sure you really listen to their words. If they're explaining why they couldn't make your party, for example, see if the excuse sounds plausible. Some people, in the panic of being forced to lie, can trot out the most absurd story that is just impossible to believe. Really bad liars look skeptical as they tell their tall tale - even THEY don't look like they believe it.

Other people will fire off several excuses in a row, each one more outrageous than the last. Sometimes this list of excuses can even contradict each other, as the liar doesn't have time to think about whether his story works or not.

These are obvious examples of credibility problems, but the bottom line is to combine an awareness the messages this person is sending with his words. If they don't add up, you're entitled to question his truthfulness.


Gut instinct
But how do you deal with a more accomplished liar? What if he seems relaxed and open and has a flawless story? This kind of liar is more of a challenge, but you have a powerful secret weapon left: listen to your instincts.

Sometimes you are face to face with a professional con man or a compulsively unfaithful partner. Such people will be experienced and credible. They will have worked on controlling their reactions to the fear of getting caught out, and will seem natural and trustworthy at first glance. They've probably rehearsed their story, or used it successfully many times before without getting caught, so they are confident that you will believe it too.

In these situations, and often in spite of all the evidence before you, you will sometimes experience a strong feeling that something's not right. Even though logically the story might seem absolutely watertight, something inside you is sending you warning signals.

The biggest mistake you can ever make in such a situation is to ignore this gut feeling. You might not be able to put your finger on your suspicions - let alone explain them to anyone else - bdishout your best course of action is to just reserve judgement until you have more information. Don't accuse anyone, but don't put yourself at their mercy either. Wait until you're sure they're on the level.

Of course, not everyone deserves to be the object of automatic and chronic suspicion. But if you're not sure if someone is lying to you, pay attention. You will find that your ability to spot a lie at 50 paces becomes finely tuned and very reliable.

Written by Elizabeth Hardy
SOURCE

The Player

THE PLAYER

He'll meet you and sweep you off your feet;
He's nice and he's funny, so cute and so sweet.
Surprisingly he likes the same things as you;
He does all the things that you love to do.

He's the perfect guy, the one of your dreams;
You belong together or so it seems.
He looks in your eyes and plays with your hair;
He tells that he'll "always be there."

His touch is so soft, his hold is so tight;
His words are so soothing, his kiss is just right.
You ditch all you friends for your new obsession;
You don't realize your future is full of depression.

You think that you love him, you give him your heart;
little do you know that he'll tear it apart.
You do what he wants though you know its not good;
You told him "slow down" and thought he understood.

You let it slide by he's just having fun;
You'll learn to like it as time goes by.
He's taken your heart and locked it away;
And you see him with a different girl the next day.

You cry and you grieve, but then you forgive;
He'll "never do it again as long as he lives."
At this point you've fallen into his trap;
He has all control when you're in his lap.

You believe he's sorry you're together again;
You give him another chance, he's your best friend.
You're right where he wants you, he molds you like clay;
And you see him with girl number three the next day.

He got what he wanted, accomplished his goal;
He still has your heart, which he evilly stole.
He's taken your purity, you still can't believe;
You feel hurt, cheap and extremely naive.

You know he's an ass but you still want him back;
And you grieve about all the qualities you lack.
All you wanted was to have some fun;
Now you wish this whole thing had never begun.

You wish one day you'll see him cry;
That one day he'll feel what you felt when he killed you inside;
But you know that he won't, he's too numb to pain;
He'll be with some girl while you cry and complain.

Beware the players! they'll steal your heart;
And they'll give it back once its all torn apart.
Don't let them suck you into their game;
Cause once you lose you're never the same.

"Becky"

A NATIONAL MARRIAGE DATABASE IS NEEDED!

THE ABSOLUTE NEED FOR A MARRIAGE DATABASE

Fight Bigamy says:
"Our archaic system is failing in our transitional, wireless-based society of today. Moreover, Internet dating sites have given many of these predators a whole new supply. Our fragile system is taken advantage of by serial bigamists sociopaths and con artists." (and Cyberpaths!)

Click here to read this whole article

~~~~~
"So how do they do it? First of all, sociopaths are experts at sizing up a person’s vulnerabilities. Secondly, they are professional manipulators.

Sociopaths are fluent liars. They sidestep questions and always have a plausible answer when discrepancies are noticed. They create authentic-looking documentation. They imply that other people vouch for them, and actually convince other people to cover for them. They keep people apart so it’s impossible to compare notes.

As a result, it is extremely difficult to spot the deception of a sociopath.

The point of a marriage database is to make the public records searchable."

EXCERPTED FROM THIS WONDERFUL ARTICLE - CLICK HERE

Wanna-Be SEALS & "Special Ops" Pretenders

When 65-year-old David Silbergeld was found dead in a quiet Delaware park -- the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head -- few familiar with his case were surprised. Silbergeld had become much maligned in the small Pennsylvania town where he had been an adjunct community college professor and something of a local celebrity. Silbergeld was fired from his job and found himself the target of federal scrutiny when it was revealed that his long-time claims of having been a Navy SEAL were fraudulent. Moreover, Silbergeld was receiving full V.A. disability as a result of ongoing symptoms stemming from his special-forces service in Vietnam.

In fact, Silbergeld, like thousands of other special-forces pretenders, had never enrolled or graduated from any military special forces school or program. Although he claimed to have killed eleven enemy troops in hand-to-hand combat, no evidence of any combat experience existed. At some point along the path in Silbergeld's grandiose fabrication, those familiar with real SEAL training became suspicious and David Silbergeld had the grave misfortune of becoming the focus of a veteran’s organization devoted to uncovering SEAL fakes. In short order, Silbergeld's lies were made public, his heroic house of cards collapsed, and he took a walk with a revolver rather than face the consequences of his sham.

In recent years, several special-forces watchdog groups have sprung up to combat the problem of phony SEALS and fraudulent medal winners. Wall Street Journal writer, Amy Chozick, recently showcased the work of two of these groups, AuthentiSEAL.org, and VeriSEAL.org. Both groups are run by genuine SEALs, mostly veterans who are sick and tired of hearing wannabe's claim membership in their elite fraternity. Both groups boast remarkable success in identifying frauds and their websites often contain extensive lists, even photos, of those they have outed as imposters. At times, these watchdog groups are tenacious in exposing the fakes to their families, employers, and communities. At present, AuthentiSEAL.org claims to have uncovered about 20,000 SEAL fakers. The tone of these organizations suggests a broad assumption that all fakers mean to diminish the glory of genuine SEALS and that all should be tracked down and humiliated. There is no record of the personal aftermath for their victims nor any body count ticker for suicides. It is unlikely that David Silbergeld was the first. He certainly won’t be the last.

The purpose of this short treatise on faux Navy SEALS is not to stick up for special-forces fakers, nor am I interested in questioning the motives or methods of those who hunt them down. As a former naval officer, I object to any deceit related to one’s military record and I hold particular admiration for colleagues who have what it takes to make it in the SEALS.

My objective is merely to broaden our perspective on the why question. Why fake a special-forces background? Too often we might assume that all fraudulent SEALS are malignant sociopaths bent on milking the SEAL ruse for all it’s worth. If we see these men as deliberately exploitive, lacking any conscience or remorse, and fundamentally criminal in the sense of using the fraud for immediate and tangible gain (e.g., cash, benefits, employment) then they might indeed meet diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopathy) and severe consequences are easy to justify.

But experience suggests there are other "types" or clusters hidden in the population of would-be SEALS. In addition to old fashioned sociopathy, I propose that there are at least three other prominent motivations leading to SEAL (or Special Ops) faking.

First, there are the Narcissists. The Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by extreme egotism, arrogance, an unquenchable need for tribute and admiration, and an ongoing wish to be seen as special or unusual. True, the Narcissist is lying about his SEAL record just like the Antisocial, but his reasons are different. The Narcissist is using a SEAL persona to gratify profound needs for attention and may be uninterested in any tangible gain. Think of the Narcissistic fake SEAL as making a desperate attempt to compensate for his own sense of inadequacy; yes, Freud would say the man has SEAL envy. This type is so convinced of his own worthlessness that only perpetual adulation will ease the pain -- enter the SEAL.

A second, though considerably less common variety of faker is the traumatized veteran. Here we see a service member who actually did time in the service, and may have been involved in combat. He suffers from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and may have related memory difficulties or in rare circumstances, psychotic symptoms. Very gradually, his service-related stories morph to incorporate affiliation with special-forces, unusual missions, or other false information. What part of this is deliberate and what part is more unconscious and linked to traumatic symptoms? In some cases, this is not at all clear.

A final profile among the ranks of faux SEALS is that of the utilitarian fibber. I suspect this may constitute one of the largest groups of special-forces frauds. The utilitarian fibber adopts a false SEAL persona only in isolated circumstances -- at least at first -- to get jobs, get friends, or to get laid. (this would apply to Barber, Thomas & Haberman)

One would not be surprised to see younger, less mature folks in this group. In this instance, the deceiver slings on the SEAL story like a cape, hoping to use the elite persona to leverage access to career advancement, social status, or perhaps just the sack. In contrast to the antisocial or the narcissist, expect this fake to fess up more readily when confronted; he has less to lose by coming clean.

Posing as a member of the special-forces is clearly illegal, not to mention upsetting for all of us who respect and admire the real thing. But remember that SEAL fakers are a varied bunch. While some are malignant; others are just pathetic. ...we should hold all of them accountable...

from: http://www.military.com

(This applies to our exposed predators: Phil Haberman, Nathan E.B. Thomas, Jr., Joseph Cafasso and William Michael Barber. (see list on upper right column of this blog and click the name for more information) While some didn't say they were SEALS, they did lie about their military involvements. Thomas even implied he was CIA and fighting the Taliban. LOL

Barber used his special military training to con his way into a job as a criminal investigator. Cafasso got the media to buy him as a "Terrorism Expert!"

The only terrorism these guys know is the emotional and mental lies they visit upon their hapless victims! - EOPC)