I'm extra feisty today--shocker, I know--but I have to get my two cents in once in a while, right? 

I was just reminiscing with someone today about my time in grammar school: every parent-teacher conference that my mother attended, she returned with the bad news that I talk too much, can't keep my hands to myself and that I've got an opinion about everything. Big mouth or not, there's no muzzling it.

My irritation today lies in Carole Markin, a woman suing Match.com because of an alleged sexual assault she suffered by one of the men she met off of the site. Apparently she and Alan Paul Wurtzel met in person after sparking up an online match, had dinner last May and then after arriving at his home, he forced her to perform a sexual act. Wurtzel denies the allegations and claims that the act was consensual. 

In her suit, Markin is requesting that Match.com installs some form of sex offender screening system and one that checks the background of those who register for the site. She seeks a temporary restraining order that would prevent the site from accepting any new members until such a program is installed.  She's also seeking money damages from the site. Shocker, right? 

Notwithstanding the egregiousness of what happened to Markin and not at all condoning Wurtzel's awful behavior, I still feel very strongly that she's a little too hysterical and trying to shake the wrong tree. Now, the website has already promised to start screening its users against a national sex offenders registry so that portion of her suit is satisfied, but regardless, Markin isn't relenting. She's making the rounds on the morning news talk shows trying to beef up sympathy for her case and for the damages portion of same. 

Maybe it's my general attitude today or maybe because I feel that many times people like to shirk their own responsibility and foist it upon someone else, regardless, I feel that this woman's suit is entirely misguided. It is not the website's responsibility to investigate individuals; that responsibility lies with the individual setting up the potential date. Further, if the website actually bore such a duty of investigation and monitoring and maybe even reporting, the fees for use of the website, its popularity and its success would definitely be detrimentally effected. What's better, a site that millions can readily use and benefit from or one that's too stringent, costly and ultimately fails because of a lack of users?

Here's my two cents: find out the name of your date. Google him or her yourself. Don't expect a website to do this grunt work for you. In fact, in Markin's case, she alleges that had her cell phone call with Wurtzel not dropped, she would have learned his full name, researched him, and decided not to go on a date with him, thereby avoiding her assault. She states that "what happened to [her] was a preventable crime." Well, hello lady--ever heard of calling back? You dropped a call with him when you were getting his name and never called him back? You set up a time and place for dinner but couldn't be bothered to re-ask his name? It's kind of important, don't you think?

Give me a break. Seems to me that if you enter into the world of on-line dating, you inherently open yourself up to some risk of meeting the wrong person with the wrong intentions and/or questionable motives. This is precisely why you, as an on-line dater, appreciate that and that's why you complete your own research on the clown before you sit down for a meal or a drink. Finally, you certainly get to know him better than over a mere meal before you follow him to his house on the first date.

Markin's suit should be against her cell phone company for dropping the call--there's probably more money there anyway.