Given that misrepresenting yourself on any type of website, especially dating sites, may soon lead to a criminal record, it seems that many adult contact site members may soon need to polish up their acts.
According to a recent survey of 1,000 singles, men are slightly more prone to stretching the truth, but neither sex is whiter than white when it comes to spinning yarns to attract potential partners via their personals profile.
Ironically, the dating website that commissioned the survey, and subsequently managed to compile a top-ten of lies it’s members told in their dating profiles, went on to state “…we’re the only dating website with an authenticity app that verifies members look as they have represented themselves in their photos.”
I just can’t imagine the tales, then, that dating sites which don’t have such rigid security measures members may tell; The Little Match-Up Girl’s site, perhaps, or Pinocchio’s Pin-Ups.
Anyway, in no particular order, here are the porkies that the global participants admitted to fibbing about in a attempt to attract more beautiful people to them.
Men’s highest consideration was about how their career was perceived, by stating that they actually held down a better job than they did. Women also hinted about a fictitious glamorous profession, but it only appeared seventh in their top ten, with the number 10 spot being filled by ‘working in entertainment’ the only other time women considered their career worth lying about.
In contrast, imaginary jobs represented a recurring theme throughout the male top ten: number 6 in the poll was the pretence that their role was more senior than in actuality; number 7, they made their job ‘interesting’, whilst the number 10 spot in the lie-list saw men claiming to work in the film industry.
The top pitfall for women was lying about their weight, where their dating profile was regularly slimmer than the off-line version; however, that buxomness rarely left the upper torso as the bra-size was regularly inflated and appeared at number 6 in the women’s fib-folio.
Weight was also in the top three for men, although their weight differentiate could go either way; for those either lacking in testosterone-boosted muscles or over-burdened by too many beers saw them choosing to lose or gain pounds to suit the target market. Physique followed next, with both slim-jims and podgy people claiming falsely to be athletic.
Age was the second biggest concern for women, as their online self rolled back the years from the real them. A toned physique was the third most popular porky, with height appearing fourth.
There were categories that held equal import for both men and women; having money appeared at number 5 in both lists; numbers 8 & 9 were similarly ‘knowing celebrities’ and having a PA’, respectively.
So, one thing we do know for certain about the dating site members who’d successfully hood-winked the truth app and took part in the survey is, if the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does have its powers expanded to prosecute anyone who misrepresents themselves online, the next form they’ll be filling in is app-lication for bail…
Stretching dating site truths could earn you a stretch
Social media, dating sites, online auctions – all of these internet-based platforms require you to have a ‘user-name’. All also have ‘terms of service’, which you must agree to abide before you can complete your membership.
But does anyone signing up to join online dating communities, in particular, actually read these rules and regulations? Given the bill that The White House is attempting to force through, now may be a good time to print off a copy of your matchmaking guidelines as, by not adhering to them, you could very soon be breaking the law, with the penalty quite possibly culminating in a custodial sentence.
But Obama’s party are pushing to make these lengthy transcripts, which are largely ignored by the majority of singles looking for love online, legally binding. So how is this especially bad for dating websites?
If you care to open your dating site’s terms and conditions, scroll through them as you did when you signed up, but this time stop at the key phrase applicable to this bill, which will read something like: “by accepting the terms of service of [x dating site], you agree not to provide inaccurate, misleading or false information.”
How this is going to be policed, and how any subsequent prosecutions are going to prioritised, we are yet to see. Certainly, the catalyst for this move to increase the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was the unsuccessful prosecution of evil mom Lori Drew. Her constant diatribe, under an assumed name, against a 13-yr old who went on to kill herself as a result was unable to be brought to trial under a criminal act and also failed to secure a conviction for violating MySpace’s terms of service under restricting impersonation, although they clearly did.
Many people who communicate, do business or provide relevant information for others across these mediums share the same name. There must be thousands of people across the globe who, by not being able to submit their real name as their dating site identity (as it will not be unique) will be breaking this law the moment they sign up under a pseudonym. Whether the name they choose instead of their own duplicates another’s is intentional or not, they may be risking prosecution from the outset.
How disastrous would it be if all of the John Smith’s were instructed to use their real name as their user id on their matchmaking site, with only their password the differentiate, for someone to subsequently arrange a date with the wrong John Smith!?
This passes the burden of responsibility onto the dating site involved and what they authorise as permissible on their platform. If they relax their terms to a degree which allows some deviation, then the gates are re-opened for impersonators, once more.
This surely calls for apps like the tru.ly app, which draws upon government records for verification, to be part and parcel of the sign up process for dating websites across the globe. Job done.