Facebook Rage

Once again - the victims are being blamed or called obsessed! Why are cheaters, liars and players FRIENDING their victims and/ or putting their business on Facebook in the first place? If they weren't acting like narcissistic creeps - there wouldn't be a problem.

And what about 50 year old married people who put their spouses and buddies on Facebook to make themselves look like good people (like Beckstead or Dunetz!) and then prey on vulnerable people on loads of other sites... all the while pointing to their Facebook saying "see, you can trust me!" - EOPC


Social networking sites are causing an outbreak of jealousy among partners of online fans that researchers have dubbed "Facebook rage".

Suspicious lovers find it so easy to trawl profiles for photos or messages that may show their partner is a cheat (or misinterpret things on Facebook) that they become obsessed.

And the more time they spent with their online surveillance, the more jealous they feel, according to the study by the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.

Psychologist Dr Brenda Wiederhold said: "This new forum might be impacting the dynamics of adult relationships."

Thoughts About the PSYCHOPATHS Among Us (Online!)

[Dr. Robert Hare (foremost authority in psychopaths] calls them "subclinical" psychopaths. They're the charming predators who, unable to form real emotional bonds, find and use vulnerable women for sex, playing games and money (and inevitably abandon them).

[this brings to mind Dunetz/ Yidwithlid - who posted reviews of his lunch hour liaisons on bigdoggie.net and theeroticreview.com and now says either 'the reviews were planted by his Targets' or 'denies it ever happened'... despite cybercrimes police finding his IP and personal credit card number associated with the reviews! )

And Dan Jacoby who posted on sexforums (and probably elsewhere)]:

Robyn Few, a former prostitute who lobbies to decriminalize prostitution as executive director of the Sex Workers Outreach Project in San Francisco, said that on a personal level, “I hate it” that women are “being reviewed and rated like some subhuman.”

The sites represent the ultimate commodification of women, who are impersonally rated by anonymous men in much the same way they would judge a sports car or a racehorse.

original article here

So its a given that these cyberpaths don't think of their victims any differently! Their Targets are Anonymous THINGS, existing only in cyberspace or for their sexual & emotional kicks. [Otherwise - victims are nothing & no one to them.]

Psychopaths can be found in legislatures, hospitals, and used-car lots. They're your neighbor, your boss, and your blind date. Because they have no conscience, they're natural predators. If you didn't have a conscience, you'd be one too.

"The con man works one-on-one," says Babiak. "They'll go after a woman, marry her, take her money (trust/ love/ sex...), then move on and marry someone else. The puppet master would manipulate somebody to get at someone else. This type is more powerful because they're hidden." Babiak says psychopaths have three motivations:

• thrill-seeking,
  


• the pathological desire to win,
  


• and the inclination to hurt people.

"They'll jump on any opportunity that allows them to do those things," he says. "If something better comes along, they'll drop you and move on."

original from this article

The Online Predator's Profile

- You know how people are forever telling you to go with your instinct? It's true; you should. If you think an online friend is lying to you, he (or she) most likely is.

- If he seems too good to be true, then obviously and most likely that is the situation. He may present himself as the perfect match to what you are looking for, only someone you wish you could be with. He could share similiarites, make you seem like you're his priority, and seem "perfect" in countless ways. Another precaution to take when you find yourself in a relationship with someone online.

- One who seems they could never betray you, seems trustworthy, and one who would never let you down, is one who is probably very likely to break your trust easily. In fact, the whole time, an online predator is continuously breaking your trust by ensuring you how "trustworthy" he may be, luring you into the fake comforts of the predator.

- In reality, the online predator is insecure, although he may not seem to be in his relationship with you. He can make you look up to him, giving himself a benefit of self-confidence.

- As an obvious point, he may tell you things and plans he has for you, that appears to be a perfect dream to you, but in all truth, he is planning something rather unhealthy or not exactly something you would feel comfort in, even though he makes you think that it is.

- He will lead you to believe that his reputation stands strong in his home area as a well human being. Making you think that he is safe, and well loved and known by many, and is respected by all who knows him, thus making you feel safer in continuing a relationship with him. In reality, the perpetrator, is generally exactly opposite of the person he leads you to believe he is, usually one without such honor, and lacking great reputation among his friends, family, etc.

- He will attack others and belittle many others, but with you as an exception. The person could guide you to believing your "current local boyfriend/spouse", friends, family etc. aren't good enough for you, and make you believe his thoughts as well, sometimes turning you away from those people. He will also slam his spouse/ partner and say she "drove him to the internet" because she doesn't love him/ no sex, etc. And by him denigrating others, he starts to become superior and a higher priority in your life, as he very well planned to.

- It is unlikely that the person has many long-term friends. Especially since the fact that he dedicates so much of his time to luring, tricking, and lying to you (and others). Additionally, a lot of his time is spent shoring up his "belief ceiling" that he's a good guy, a good father/ partner, altruistic or whatever he wants everyone to believe (as well as convincing himself). Which also proves that point that his reputation isn't as great as he claims it to be, leaving him with fewer friends. Most predators don't mind this however; many are accustomed to isolation.

- An online predator cleverly plans things, many times with every little detail mapped and sorted out, making sure he successfully gets you to believing his stories, and him, damaging you as well, for his own benefits and satisfaction, though you don't realize it.

- A predator knows his activities are something he needs to keep discreet, so his online activities are carefully hidden, not revealing what is he doing. He keeps himself a secret and you become part of that secret.

- The person appears to be charming, someone who any person would want to be in a relationship with. He could be the typical "Mr. Right" and fill in every blank that you have wanted in a partner. But obviously, him being "perfect" means he can lure and manipulate his victims with more ease, and getting them to stay because of his "charm".

- The predator makes careful selections in the choice of his victims - usually profiling victims who appear to be in need of a self-esteem boost, certain weaknesses (lonely, divorced, disabled, abused, recovering), etc. and tried his best to comfort you in giving you the "confidence" you need. He scouts out these certain weaknesses from complaining about certain things to him, or straight out telling him. He can work in very smooth ways.

- Of course this person will seem to be amazing and a perfect match for you. They can change themselves to be exactly what you need, and want, thus making you long for them. Anything you like - they like, anything you need - they have, anything you want - they they can get. It may just seem like mere coincidences, and just make you believe this is the perfect partner for you, but remember, they already aren't being their true selves, so they can mold themselves into anything that will suit you perfectly, regardless of their truth. They are 'mirroring' you.

- The person behind the computer may seem to have plenty of self discipline and control over any actions, but in reality, has a major lacking in self control and confidence. The only place they seem to find that control is in this relationship he has created with his victim. And that's a reason why he does so much to keep this relationship active and alive, because it's one of the few things he can take over with. It seems as if he is creating a "fake life" for himself, which is better than his life in reality. In his fake life, he can be anything great that he wants to be, and trick his victim into thinking he is superior and perfect, and forming a relationship with someone that he probably couldn't in reality, as his own self.

(JUST ONE OR TWO OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS IS ENOUGH TO MAKE HIM A PREDATOR!)

original article here

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

"Find Your Perfect NIGHTMARE Online"

"Find Your Perfect Date at Match.com", reads this online dating service's current banner ad. "Find a Nightmare", reads the banner ad attached to the inside of my skull. Because online dating, at least in my experience, is one of the unfunniest jokes around.

What am I ranting about? Well, the six months that I spent on Match.com, and the 120 dollars I coughed up were complete wastes of time and money.

I first joined Match.com because it seemed to have the biggest database, and its friendly, photo-driven database let me actually look at the people I was sending e-mail to. Unfortunately, the database underwent a complete restructuring shortly after I joined, destoying several evening's worth of work creating an an earnest, heartfelt personal profile. So I had to painstakingly re-enter all this information.

After re-building my personal information, reconstructing my personal search criteria, and uploading a new picture of myself, I waited patiently for some incoming e-mail to arrive. After two weeks had gone by, with nary a response, I went on the offensive, and started to actively search for women matching my criteria (heavy-smoking divorced caucasion atheists).

I quickly found that there were forty-one of these people within a 50 mile radius of my location. Because I don't believe that love is blind, I narrowed my search criteria to the twenty-five who had actually uploaded pictures of themselves, and immediately screened out another seven for being butt-ugly. That left me with eighteen, so I composed one heartfelt, sincere, earnest e-mail, and sent the same message to the group using a "blind copy BCC".
Five women of the eighteen replied, and over the next several weeks, I began trading e-mails with three of them. Here is a brief summary of the resulting encounters.

Date 1: A Candle-Lit Dinner
J*** seemed to have everything going for her. A cute face, a paying job at a prominent New York film institute, a wry way of expressing herself in e-mail, and realistic expectations about the prospects of meeting Mr. Right through an online dating service. She wrote: "I really don't think we'll know if there's a real connection between us until we actually sit down together and make eye contact". She suggested we meet at an intimate Italian restaurant near her workplace on the West Side, and I hung out at the bar until she showed up.

I remember sitting there with a Diet Coke, with my back to the entrance and my mind swirling with fantasies about what we'd talk about - the arts, Giuliani, the Yankees - whatever seemed most conducive to romance. But then, my reverie was broken when an extremely large woman tapped me on the shoulder, I turned around, and it was J*** - about 80 pounds heavier than her picture had indicated. I could hardly even see her eyes peering out from within the folds of fat, much less make contact with them.

Because I consider myself a gentleman, I bought her dinner (Lasagna), and talked exclusively about Giuliani, which seemed to please her to no end. But as soon as I could dump her in the subway, I ran screaming back to the East side, and never sent her e-mail again.
Date 2: Romantic Phone Sex
With the J*** experience safely behind me, I began to more carefully analyze the pictures that my six "hot" prospects had uploaded of themselves, to look for obvious signs of retouching or Loch Ness monster-style fakery. Using software originally developed by the CIA Global Maps Division, I began blowing up and enhancing some of these grainy JPEGs, and sure enough, several contained dead giveways that they were taken many years ago, when the subject was in much better (or at least much younger) shape. These background clues included biplanes flying in the distance, cars with tailfins, and an old Nixon: Now More Than Ever poster.

I was left with two prospects whose pictures seemed honest. One was an exotic belly-dancer, and I had made all the arrangements to meet her when she requested that we talk on the phone first.

There was scratchy Middle Eastern music playing in the background when I called, and what seemed to be a couple of hungry kids screaming. This is in itself wasn't a turnoff - in fact it was almost a turn-on. But when this poor woman began talking, I knew that there was no way on earth that we could ever communicate earnestly and heartfeltly about anything, at least in any extant language. She sounded like just like Brezhnev did after a hard night of drinking, so I told her I was feeling ill (which I was), and I moved our date into the far-distant future (2006).
Date 3: Sexy E-Mail
Older, wiser, but still horny as hell, I was now down to just one prospect, so I sent her another piece of earnest e-mail. By this time, I was becoming increasingly desperate to meet someone under 800 lbs. who actually spoke the English language, but I was also getting gunshy.

So I began asking a few personal questions about her - what kind of food she liked eating, whether she liked music from the Middle East, or had a thing for vodka - innocuous things like that. I had become accustomed to this kind of probing behavior - (one of my correspondents had actually asked for my Social Security Number, and I stupidly complied, and of course never heard from her again).

To this day, I don't think I was being overly intrusive, but my correspondent clearly thought differently. Maybe she got my e-mail at the end of a long day, or her real boyfriend had dumped her - I'll never know. But here's the reply I got back after sending her a simple "request for clarification of one of your earlier points" message:

WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU. DO YOU WANT TO MEET ME OR NOT? ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE AMBIVALENT SONS OF B*TCHES WHO CANT MAKE UP THEIR MIND - ARE YOU SRIOUS ABOUT MEETING ME OR JUST WANT TO TORTURE ME AND F*CK WITH MY HEAD? DON'T BOTHER REPONDING - IM UP TO HERE WTH YOUR DUMB QUESTIONS. N**
Epilogue:
I cancelled my Match.com subscription, spent the money I saved on two reasonably good subscription porn services, and tried to forget the whole thing. But I can't really forget, because every day, I receive junk mail about some wretched new Match.com event - a wine tasting, or a boat cruise, or a getaway weekend.

Someday, I'm sure I'll meet someone, and maybe, God willing, we'll wind up having grandchildren together. But I'm 100% sure that I'd be better off taking my chances with a random, in-your-face encounter than by flying blind in a world of illusion. And I'll certainly never date online again, until such time as they can screen out the imposters, the losers, the psychos, and the women who sound like Brezhnev.

I actually do know people who have met compatible mates online, but I believe these success stories are vastly outnumbered by the number of empty, unhappy, soul-searing experiences that nobody publicizes - the victims are too ashamed, and the service doesn't want to know either. Match.com and its brethren are, in my opinion, seamy lonely-hearts clubs where deception, trickery, and paranoia run rampant, scarring the gullible and the guileless.

But then again, I guess I'm one of those "ambivalent sons-of-b*tches who can't make up their mind" - at least about throwing myself blindly into the arms of these cyber-weirdos.

ORIGINAL POST HERE

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

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 INFIDELITY INDUSTRY

Cheaters Inc

Cheating on your spouse is always immoral, sometimes illegal, and if that doesn’t matter, a wide range of Web sites are ready to help you play around.

Are you married and looking for a one-night stand? Need a soul mate to fill the void that’s been growing since your wedding day? Even if you just need an alibi to explain where you were last night, there are companies especially designed for the married-but-looking clientele.

The ease of the Internet is one reason women are quickly catching up to men in the arena of extramarital nookie, according to Newsweek. Nowadays, an estimated 30 percent to 40 percent of wives are unfaithful, compared to 50 percent of husbands, therapists told the news magazine.

To show how fast the world is changing, only 10 percent of married women admitted to infidelity in 1991, according to a poll by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Ten years later, that number jumped to 15 percent for women, while the level of unfaithful men stayed a constant 22 percent.

Can we believe these numbers? Why would husbands and wives be honest with pollsters if they can’t be honest with each other?

What can’t be denied is the growing number of Web sites catering to philandering, discreet dating and other services that may do a marriage a disservice. Here are a few:

1. Wages of Sin (and Various Payment Plans) You pay a price for cheating — and many dating sites for wed wanderers offer various payment plans that won’t stick out like a sore thumb on your credit card bill.

AshleyMadison.com, a dating site for married adults "with unmet needs," claims revenue has shot up 10 percent this year, now that it expanded its billing methods to accept debit cards along with credit card payments.

Don’t worry about leaving your spouse’s divorce lawyer an electronic money trail straight to your secret lover. Your credit card will merely show a charge from "Ashley Madison," which sounds more like an accounting firm than a dating service that boasts the slogan: "When Monogamy Becomes Monotony."

About 160,000 people have registered, a no-cost endeavor. You get to post a profile with a nom de plume, and, if you dare, a photo. You only pay if you want to contact other members.

Newbies are encouraged to get specific about what extramarital pleasure they’re seeking. "Swingers" should distinguish themselves from those seeking a "secondary relationship" — a long-term romance that’s not necessarily sexual.

A "tertiary relationship" is a polite way to refer to a one-night stand.

And you should be warned: Some married daters expect you not to cheat on your mistress with another mistress — a concept known as "polyfidelity."

"Our service is not meant to glorify or promote infidelity," says operations director Darren Morgenstern, who married shortly before Ashley Madison opened three years ago, in a press release.

"We’re simply offering a safe and anonymous way for people to communicate with each other once they’ve made up their mind to explore options outside their relationship."

2. Honor Among Philanderers? A Lothario’s Creed
From one philanderer to another, are you emotionally prepared for an affair? Can you handle the guilt, hide incriminating receipts and delete computer files that would spell ruin in divorce court?

"Unless you are the only one who has access to your computer, don’t bookmark this webpage," visitors of philanderers.com are warned. "The contents can bury you!!!"

This warning comes from a man who identifies himself as Doug Mitchell. He won’t give out his real name because, in addition to a wife, two children and a dog, he has had a girlfriend for seven years — just about as long as he’s been running this site.

"I thought I was alone when I started this site," says Mitchell, who describes himself as a 40ish importer-exporter from Canada. "I couldn’t find anywhere on the Internet to turn for advice."

Mitchell says he’s still dating the same woman and that his marriage has actually improved because he’s found a way of life that suits him.

"It’s not for everyone. You have to be prepared," he says. "My girlfriend knows I run the site. My wife does not."

Would-be philanderers should be warned of the Web site’s disclaimer against any liability, should your spouse get wise and take you for all you’re worth. You are also warned that breaking your marriage vows is against the law in some jurisdictions.

If you’re still bent on cheating, however, you’ll get free how-to guides and handy — presumably tested — advice.

Never use credit cards, a hotel phone or let anyone take a picture.

Toothpaste is apparently great to remove a lipstick stain. If you’re still worried about telltale signs of a lover on your apparel, stop at a gas station, smear yourself with motor oil and claim you slipped while pumping gas. Better to ruin a shirt than a marriage.

Condoms are part of the philanderer’s code, Mitchell says. And it’s a good habit to use generic nicknames like "honey" and "dear" to avoid mix-ups when you get home.

Another part of the philanderer’s creed: "Never tell anyone what you are doing, not even your best friend."

"We don’t encourage extramarital affairs. We understand them," Mitchell says.

"People who come to this site are already sitting on the fence. I help them make an informed decision, to see if the benefits outweigh the risks."

Mitchell claims he’s getting 35,000 hits a day. About 70 percent of his online personals come from men, who pay about $10 a month (cheating women can post ads for free).

He says women are more active than men on his message boards.

Mitchell admits receiving his share of angry letters from husbands and wives who’ve been done wrong, but says that’s less than one-tenth of the e-mail he receives. "I can’t say those people are wrong. Everyone has their own moral code," he says. "It’s always best to be honest, and honestly, this works for me."

A philanderer isn’t a bad person as much as a person who finds his marriage is missing something, and an affair might be that certain spark, he says.

"You would never know if you met me," he says. "I could be your next-door neighbor."

But what if Mitchell found that his wife was cheating on him — or worse yet, if she were one of the many happy customers on philanderers.com? "I guess I couldn’t say much," he says. "That would be like the pot calling the kettle black."

3. Liar-for-Hire: The Perfect Alibi Agency
Need someone to call home to say you need to work late? How about a service to send all your mistresses bouquets on Valentine’s Day?

A German company called "Perfect Alibi" claims it provides about 350 clients each month handy excuses, such as bogus invitations to weekend business seminars. Such liar-for-hire services range in price between $13 and $104, depending on the nature of the alibi, and a $35 annual membership fee.

4. Is Chatting Cheating? The advent of Internet dating over the last few years may have changed courtship more than anything since the advent of the pill.

Some married folks miss that thrilling yet harrowing experience of flirting with a stranger via e-mail. This could be why so many straying spouses slip off their wedding ring and into an online persona.

All online dating services (including Christian or other religious dating sites) say they’ve had trouble with married men posing as single dreamboats.

Some sites allow members to post "discreet" listings, which allow them to not announce their marital status. Others, like Match.com, will boot you off if you’re reported to be less than legally separated. (oh really? not from what the recent class action suits say! And do you really think a cheater will ADMIT they are married? - Fighter) Posting an online personal advertisement is a clear ethical no-no when you’re hitched. But can you flirt in a chat room if you are espoused but filled with ennui?

Interestingly, men say chatting is cheating more than women, according to a member survey by imatchup.com. Only 35 percent of ladies think online flirting is a breach of the wedding vows, compared to 48 percent of men.

The problems presented by wed surfers posing as singles has opened the door to companies like Marriedsecrets.com, yet another married-but-still-dating Web site. There are now close to 100 of these type of sites.

"Thirty percent of those who use online dating services are married," the Web site claims. "Why not join a site specifically designed for you? With marriedsecrets.com, there’s no excuses, no explanations."

5. Jealous Spouse Panty Raids
If you think your spouse is a louse, you don’t have to wash your dirty laundry in public. You can investigate yourself by checking for incriminating DNA evidence.

The CheckMate 5-Minute Infidelity Kit, available at DNAplus.com for $49.95, allows you to soak your spouse’s suspiciously stained underwear with a chemical and then blot it with a strip of paper. It’s similar to a pregnancy test.

The company claims Checkmate is effective on both men and women, even if the man is using a condom or the woman showers after a tryst. The Web site is also marketing Checkmate as a way for parents to find out if their child has become sexually active.

For best results when checking up on your spouse, the company suggests you abstain from sex with your partner for a few days to make sure the suspicious stain came from a third party (and perhaps at a third party).

To be doubly sure, the company provides a service of testing the husband’s sperm and comparing it with the questionable underwear.

What should you do while you abstain from sex with your alleged ratfink of a partner? Why not cruise the Internet, where you’re sure to find kindred spirits looking for companionship?

Buck Wolf is entertainment producer at ABCNEWS.com.

Just a FEW other Internet "Cheating Sites"
www.mate1.com
www.philanderers.com
www.meet2cheat.com
www.discreetadventures.com
www.marriedsecrets.com
www.dateplace.com
www.bangmatch.com
www.iwantu.com
www.sexsearch.com
www.utopiaguide.com
www.redpersonals.com
www.Married-Woman-Personals.com
www.marriedsingles.com
www.outsidelove.com
http://www.internethookups.com

These do NOT include the numerous online dating sites, penpal sites, reunion sites or chat sites (such as Yahoo Personals) where a person lies about being single or divorced; to the best of our knowledge.

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 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!

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 women! )

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!"

"...until I read your site, 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, Capers 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

UPDATE: DOUG BECKSTEAD - NAILED!

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