So an Ivy League graduate living in California went on a second date with a guy she met on match.com and he followed her home and assaulted her so she wants the site stop adding new members until they start including some kind of screening for sexual predators. She says in the article that she considered herself to be 'savvy' but apparently wasn't aware enough of her surroundings to notice that she was being followed. Only after being attacked did she go online and find out this guy had been arrested for several sexual assaults--something she could have just as easily found BEFORE going out. But he was charming and she was 'savvy' so she didn't do what she needed to ensure her own safety. I'd think that some initial due diligence would be her responsibility and before meeting him anywhere she would have done a check.
But it wasn't her fault, it was match.com's fault. even though match does recommend checking someone out and has other safety tips on their site. Again, she read the rules, she neglected to take steps to secure her own safety, and it's someone else's fault. Maybe match should screen for stupidity instead.
ETA: in talking with my sister about this (she is most wise) it sounds like I'm totally blaming the victim here and that's not the case. My actual issue is that the victim is trying to blame a third party.
2 years ago