Or worse...
Five-four, long blonde hair, blue eyes, 34-24-36, ...
;o)
Posted on 08/24/2005 8:09:41 AM PDT by billorites
ONE in three women prepare for blind dates by spying on their prospective partners via the internet to obtain information about their careers, their hobbies and what they look like, a new study has found.
Increasing numbers of men are also using internet search engines to carry out so-called "suitability checks" before meeting their date.
And private investigators have reported an increase in clients whose suspicions about their partners have been driven by "i-spying".
The study found about 35 per cent of women said they had no qualms about going even further and looking at messages on the mobile phone of a partner or date.
The UK poll of 3,000 people by Onetel, a broadband provider, found women were far more likely to admit to snooping than men, with just half the number of males confessing they had sneaked a look at their partners' text messages.
One in 20 people of both sexes said they had searched the internet for a photo of a future blind date - leading 4 per cent of them to cancel a meeting because they did not like what they saw.
While psychologists said that there is nothing wrong with checking out background information, they warned that those who meddled too deeply could end up losing partners through lack of trust.
Websites such as Friends Reunited were named as a fruitful source of information.
Over half of those questioned admitted they had checked the site to find out about partners.
Professional investigators said they were not surprised by the findings.
Stephen Grant, a partner at Grant and McMurtie with 25 years' experience as a private detective, said he had had an increase in clients coming to him whose suspicions had been fuelled by internet searches.
And he said he had dealt with more women than men in such cases. "I don't know if that is because men are more philandering or women are more suspicious," he said.
He added: "With internet searches, we get people in the early days of a relationship coming to us after they have found things out - perhaps that a person is married - and they want us to confirm that.
"For people in a relationship, it is often their mobile phones that give them away. Another area where people get caught out is e-mail.
"When a client comes to us we do an internet search and see what comes up - we may well find something in a newspaper article or court records."
While the report found over two-thirds of people believe women are more likely to snoop, it showed less distinction between male and female behaviour at the more extreme levels of suspicious behaviour.
Around 15 per cent of women and 12 per cent of men said they had sent a text to their partner from a different number pretending to be someone else to see if they took the bait.
And 17 per cent of women and 15 per cent of men would do a police check on their partner if they got the chance. It also found 28 per cent of women and 21 per cent of men frequently drive past the house of someone they are attracted to, to see if they are in and if any extra cars are on the drive.
Half the women said they read their partner's bank statement, compared to a third of men, and 40 per cent would inspect their partner's phone bill, compared to 24 per cent of men. And 16 per cent of people have unearthed a secret they really did not want to find out.
Dr Cynthia McVey, a psychologist at Glasgow Caledonian University, said: "[The stereotype of women snooping] may date back to a time when women were at home and had less opportunity to stray, while men were out at work. Wives who were suspicious would check receipts or for signs of lipstick or perfume.
"Internet snooping is just a modern version of ancient human responses to feelings of insecurity and jealousy.
"But while checking the internet for general information is fairly harmless, to read someone's text messages or e-mails is an invasion of privacy and shows a real lack of trust, which is not good in a relationship."
Perils and pros of doing some research when love comes a-clicking
EDWARD BLACK
WOMEN might think they are stealing a march on men by using the internet to uncover information on a prospective date, but they are not alone.
After meeting my current girlfriend in a nightclub, e-mail proved an embarrassment-free way of arranging that tricky first date as well as yielding her company details. A quick Google search dug up a photograph of her on a financial firm's website, and also a résumé of her career - invaluable for conversation purposes later.
Unfortunately, with me being a journalist, she was able to glean far more information about me as well as finding details of a romantic mini-break spent in a Scottish health spa with a former partner published in The Scotsman's travel section.
Fortunately she missed my name on a lapdancing industry website which appeared when I wrote a story on a sheriff who was forced to resign after being caught in a sauna.
Another potential internet banana skin was a feature which involved three former girlfriends dishing the dirt on what I was like to go out with. The so-called Ex-files were a response to a call from feminist Germaine Greer to set up a website for women to log details of men who had behaved badly towards them so that other women could avoid a similar fate.
Behaviour such as making a partner show you a text message when their phone bleeps in front of you shows an unattractive degree of paranoia. Teenage love letters should be private, so when it comes to saved text messages or e-mails, try something a bit more old-fashioned: trust.
Reminds me of the story of the guy who spent years looking for the "Perfect Woman" and at last found her.
Too bad for him she was looking for the "Perfect Man".
If a woman is fairly thin to maybe a tad chubby (which doesn't bother me), say at or under 145-150 pounds depending on height, she's usually pretty honest about her weight and height.
Once you break the 150 mark...they start "adjusting" and once she hits 200 she'll usually lie through her teeth! This one girl was at LEAST 274...and her bio (which had been written only a month prior) said she was 165-which at her height of 5'10 (which turned out to be 5'8) would have been "thick" but not overly fat. This chick looked like a (slightly) less hairy Michael Moore...
I would never have enrolled at 'dating' sites, but not for the same reason you judge them... For me, it's not because I feared them lying to me, but more because I don't have the kind of personality that could write an ad for myself or respond to one. It seems to me to be a very loaded place to say "hi" to someone. The way I did it, I began flirting with someone here I already knew as a friend, our relationship did not begin as dating screening, it began as good conversation.
But, for more outgoing personalities, it ~can~ work. I know someone who met and married through an online singles service.
I've done it. I've even found pictures. But, now I've gotten to the point where I don't bother anymore because I expect blind dates not to work out and most of the fun is in the surprise factor. But, I'm a guy though. Would definately do a quick background check if I was a woman going on a blind date.
Arrrggghhh!
That's it. I am cancelling my blind internet date.
LOL!
I actually met several top-notch women through match.com. The problem is, I also had to suffer through some disasters. I remember one time, this "petite" woman and I agreed to meet for a bike ride. I drove up to the designated meeing place and all I saw was an SUV with a bike on the back and this HUGE calf sticking out the driver's side door. I considered turning around and going home, but being the gentlemen I am I suffered through a two hour bike ride with the hog.
I have to say that your arrogant and mean spirited writing here reflects the kind of person I'd steer ~way~ clear of if I were checking up on someone on the internet.
Some people lie about who they are on the internet. Some gain weight, and some are more than a little embarrassed to come to grips and show pictures of themselves that show without uncertainty their actual weight. After seeing how they would be described by you if they did I DONT' BLAME THEM A BIT. Get rid of the chip on your shoulder. It's giving you an ugliness that is worse than a hundred pounds.
These people lied to me, thereby wasting my time and money. Enough said.
I dunno. I don't like an overweight woman myself. So is it horrible that I have my preferences?
I'm actually finding that I like 'em outright skinny, which is new. I've never liked skinny women before, but lately I do.
I just recently signed up to an internet dating service. So far it's going pretty good. It's not as scary as I thought it would be.
It's not about likes and dislikes. I'm responding to the meanness in the writing of these two. It's ~their~ personality that is a red flag to me.
Good luck with it! It just seemed so loaded to me. I'd have never had the guts to hit 'send'.
Good luck to you.
Well, I wound up marrying a 5'2", 100 lb, blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegian beauty, so apparently she thinks my personality is okay.
Incidentally, I did not meet her through an online service.
Oh, okay. From me you aren't sensing any meanness.
Believe me, I was sooo nervous. I still can't believe I did it. Actually my brother-in-law wanted me to do it so he filled out most of the information. All the information is true, we did not put down anything that would be misleading. In fact my title is 'Nice Conservative Girl'.
Not yet, no... :~D
I heard an advertisement on WABC radio last week (I think it was during Levin's show) for a service where you can buy a kit to "swab your mouth and the baby's mouth" and then return the samples for a DNA test - - results are returned within two weeks.
Think about that for a minute.
Good for you. Really. You called a woman a hog. I merely pointed out what that said about you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.