[JamesP81]

I think you're exaggerating the potential downside of "dating" someone to unrealistic levels, unless "dating" includes sex.

Dating does not include sex. And furthermore, empirical evidence and life experience of people I know suggest otherwise at this point.

I really don't want to paint all women with a brush. A minority are the kind of people I am worried about. However, there are still enough of them that it's easy to get caught. And because women, when communicating, tend not to simply say what's on their mind directly it's nearly impossible for me to have even an inkling what's on a lady's mind.

The problem is somewhat alleviated since I restrict myself to ladies who go to good, biblically sound churches. Nevertheless, just because she's in a church every week doesn't make her a believer and doesn't mean she lives by what's taught. More than one person has found that out the hard way.

[Tax-chick]

Nevertheless, just because she's in a church every week doesn't make her a believer and doesn't mean she lives by what's taught.

That's true. However, if you don't have sex outside marriage, the odds of many of your negative outcomes drop to nearly nothing. Perhaps even statistically zero, although not "effectively" zero, since there's always at least one anecdote.

If you don't have sex, you're not going to get the woman pregnant. If she becomes pregnant anyway, you know it's not your child, and you can disclaim paternity (and prove non-paternity, if necessary) immediately. Many of the child-suppport cases involving non-fathers have turned on the statute of limitations.

If you don't have sex with a woman, the chance of her charging you with rape is mighty small, and the chance of a charge making it to prosecution is even smaller. (I suspect the young man in the article left DNA behind, even if he says he didn't complete the act, as it were.)

Yes, the worst, unlikely outcome is a possibility in any relationship ... but you can choose to live in fear of that, or you can choose not to.