Just as every generation thinks it invented love and sex, at least a portion of every generation thinks it has to prove how grown up it is by condemning the subsequent generation’s methods of dating. The latest insidious evil that threatens to destroy America’s previously sterling record of successfully matching singles is online dating, especially that inspired by blog.If you listen to the shriller voices in the mainstream media, online dating and blogging are pipelines to rape, robbery, murder, broken hearts, ruined homes, and spiraling credit card debt – all, of course, because men are ravening animals whose lusts are barely under control during even the best of times and women are helpless rag dolls with the word “victim” tattooed in invisible ink on their foreheads.

The internet, if I understand the argument correctly, amplifies these extremely opposite – but tragically mutually attractive — natures. According to the hyperbolic mythos, men such as Alabama’s John Christopher Gaumer are presumably representative of the average male subscriber to dating or blogging sites. The murderous MySpace user apparently had some seriously unresolved issues, because a date with a female subscriber ended in her death at his hands.

While I agree with those who sagely conclude that even one assault or death is “too many,” I have to ask what method of introduction is without some mar on its well-intended record. Are arranged marriages free of misery or tragedy? Do all hook-ups from face-to-face dating services prove to be safe, sane, and consensual? Has every church-going boy ever engaged to a church-going girl lived with her in an idyllic dream world of conjugal love? Where did this concept of consequence-free dating come from?

At issue, in part, is the sometimes startling frankness with which people in online communities share personal information. In part due to the anonymity provided by the internet, in part because of the intentionally created sense of intimacy and good intentions, in part because of the swiftness of communication, in part because of the desire to connect with others, and in part because of varying degrees of well-placed and misplaced confidence, profile driven web properties are rife with information that a less than charitable person could create mischief with.

Yet, in spite of the fact that more than 40 million fools for love and friendship rush in where angels fear to log on, precious few of them wind up dead – which is, I believe I can say with confidence, a good thing and a great relief.

Yet, because no lawmaker likes his or her electorate to be seen as legislatively lazy or unwilling to construct greater protections for the helpless and disadvantaged, some states are thinking of requiring sites where people go looking for dates to do background checks on their members. Dating sites that already do this claim to be going gangbusters – but one has to ask how this applies to something like MySpace, where the intention isn’t necessarily to connect people in meatspace so much as it is to provide them with webspace within which to develop friendships, share interests, or further explore pre-existing relationships. Some community sites, such as Live Journal, encourage members to organize and host meet-ups in public places where, even if ever Live Journal member were vetted, would still open attendees to the possibility of encountering the wandering monsters that inhabit the day-to-day world.

When practical realities of assuring safety to sites where people might presumably actually meet one another are brushed aside for a moment, the idea of background checks is very appealing. But, especially for those who work, live, or play in the adult entertainment industry or any of the alternative lifestyle communities during these unfriendly governmental times, the feel good feeling of background checks won’t feel good for very long. Online romance site True.com not only promises to prosecute any “criminals” who fail their background check – but also any married people who dare log on. Poly and swinger folk need not apply. With a purity test like that, one can assume that the Texas college student who got busted with a joint back in the 70s, the once barely legal inmate who gave oral to his not-quite-legal girlfriend back in the 80s, the World Trade Organization protester who launched a poorly thought-out attack on a shop window back in the 90s, and the serial rapist who got out on parole last month will all get the same screen door on the ass treatment.

True.com is so convinced that mandatory background checks are the answer to online dating woes that they’re urging lawmakers to force the industry big boys like Match.com and Yahoo! to either conduct them or state clearly that they don’t. California, Florida, Michigan, and Texas are all giving the idea serious thought. California, huh? Aren’t there a lot of porn stars and strippers in California, some of whom have had run-ins with the law? If such a law were to be passed, perhaps Larry Flynt could purchase JailBabes.com and JailDudes.com (they’re both available) and turn them into online dating sites for qualified porn workers and the rest of the unwashed mashes who aren’t actually dangerous but whose backgrounds clash with the latest legal trends.

Yahoo! and Match.com, for their part, hold to the novel notion that their six to 15 million monthly visitors should exercise caution when providing strangers with personal information or when preparing to meet a person face-to-face. Match.com, for instance, requires its users to review its safety policy prior to subscription. Both sites check profiles for excessive personal information before releasing them to the membership for scrutiny.

But that’s not enough for people like Michigan state Senator Alan Cropsey, who insists that “The Internet has its dark side and they (website owners) are not doing everything they can to keep sexual predators and gold diggers off these sites.”

Gold diggers, huh? How exactly does the honorable senator from Michigan propose that dating and blog sites figure out which of their members are hoping to hook up with somebody with money and material wealth? Once Cropsey figures it out, perhaps he’ll write a book on the subject, because men and women of means would sure appreciate some help.

Ultimately, it’s all about the government knowing better than the governed. “If you don’t police yourselves,” Cropsey warns ominously, “the government will come in and police you.”

Like pornographers, love merchants aren’t feeling warm and fuzzy about such threats. Online brothers and sisters in smut to Abraham Smilowicz, chief executive of Webdate will likely utter a big “well, duh” in reply to his comment that “There are other ways to get to who that person is, rather than have the government ram a business model down your throat.” Webdate likes to use real-time video via webcams as a way for people chat and see one another. Funny that, porn site members like to use real-time video webcams, too!

All joking aside, anyone who thinks that online porn is getting extreme should ponder the implication of HonestyOnline’s extreme background check techniques. A company representative will visit the home of romantic hopefuls, weigh them, take a photo of them, and run STD tests on them in order to confirm that they look like their posted images and were telling the truth about their disease status – at least on the day that the company representative came to call.