The kernel of American law, jurisprudence, is extinct. Its replacement, juris contemptus, is the forerunner to anarchy and socialism.

Read my latest article “Juris Contemptus: The Un-American Scourge.” More than that, DO SOMETHING about the problem. Reclaim America from the politicians!

by Marc H. Rudov

Home Depot Rules

I know it when I drive past Home Depot, in “Sanctuary” San Jose, and spot protected illegal aliens canvassing for construction jobs, while Senator Ted Kennedy praises their illegality — in Spanish, no less — at an immigration-rights rally in Washington, DC. I know it when the liberal, arrogant mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, orders the validation of illegal homosexual marriages as well as when he publicly refuses to enforce federal immigration laws.

I know it when liberal judges, like John Connor of Columbus, Ohio, return child predators to the streets with light probation, while the liberal, disgraceful newspaper editors-in-chief applaud in response. And, I know it when a district attorney refuses to prosecute a woman who falsely accuses an innocent man of rape — an everyday occurrence — and then admits her felonious lie. Never mind that she practically destroyed the life and wealth of that innocent man.

What exactly do I know, you ask? I know that American jurisprudence, once the cornerstone of this country’s legal foundation, is extinct, a relic of the past. Its replacement is juris contemptus, the forerunner to and root of anarchy and socialism.

Presumption of Guilt

The evidence of this transmogrification is a climate where federal and state legislative, judicial, and executive branches are, on one end of the spectrum, giving rights to the constitutionally unentitled — illegal aliens — and, on the opposite end of the spectrum, stripping rights from the constitutionally entitled — male citizens.

The fallout from the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade, VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), and safe-haven laws — they all violate the Constitution’s 14^th (equal-protection) amendment — is that men have lost both civil rights, especially the presumption of innocence, and parental rights.

Presumption of innocence — once an absolute, fundamental right derived from the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution — is now a slick tool for prosecutors, who use it selectively to pursue personal political agendas. If a district attorney can get reelected, or not get fired, by pandering to liberal or female or nonwhite voters, he’ll do it. Presumption of guilt, in the name of political correctness, is far more important than justice, right? Men are tough and disposable; why should DAs care what happens to them? That’s why we have defense attorneys.

There was a time in the US when prosecutors had the burden of proving guilt; they did so in the courtroom with evidence. Now, in juris-contemptus America, an increasing number of them plead their cases in the streets, in front of network-TV cameras, before they ever go to trial. Then, once tagged publicly with guilt, it becomes incumbent upon and outrageously expensive to the defendant to prove his innocence.

On April 14, 2006, the Boston Herald reported that a 16-year-old girl recanted her rape accusation against her stepfather, a friend of her stepfather, and her mother — who “allegedly” videotaped the rape. The stepfather was facing four counts of child rape. But, then, the girl admitted faking the story, whose plot idea came from the girl’s cousin two years before. The Massachusetts Department of Social Services immediately presumed the girl innocent and the adults guilty, and removed the girl’s younger siblings from the custodianship of her parents and placed them in foster homes. Neither the police nor DA Timothy Cruz elected to prosecute the girl, who destroyed the lives of her siblings and three innocent adults — two of whom just happen to be her parents.

As of this writing, we are witnessing a politically hungry DA use presumption of guilt in a case of alleged rape in Durham, North Carolina. In what is now a world-famous case, a 27-year-old black stripper, who is also a college student and single mother, has accused three white male members of Duke University’s lacrosse team of raping her. Her allegations at this juncture seem shady at best, but, before all the evidence is known, we cannot and should not conclude anything. Jesse Jackson, never too shy to maintain his dubious profile and fatten his wallet, has pledged that, regardless of this stripper’s honesty about her accusations, his Rainbow Coalition will pay her full tuition. Jackson is playing the race card, again, presuming the white boys guilty.

Even before filing any charges, District Attorney Mike Nifong told TV reporters that he “believes” a crime was committed. Believes? Not only are his beliefs irrelevant, he violated one of the American Bar Association’s Rules of Conduct: “except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law-enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused, and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making.”

Did any government official reprimand DA Nifong for his prosecutorial transgression? No. Did the National Organization of Women reprimand Nifong for a miscarriage of justice? Hell no! How can these boys, now presumed guilty, ever receive a fair trial? They can’t. Juris contemptus reigns supreme.

Follow the Votes

Reality is, the United States of America no longer has a justice system. Yes, of course, it has a legal system — but not a justice system. A country that has contempt for the law cannot advocate or deliver justice. What caused this systemic collapse? Simple. Electoris amor: love of the voter. Actually, politicians don’t love voters; they love votes. I will call the true culprit voti amor: love of the vote. Politicians would rather give citizenship to illegal aliens and sacrifice innocent men than sacrifice votes.

George Santayana once said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Our politicians know that most Americans have short memories and little knowledge of history — in other words, no memory of the past and no ability to detect its repetition.

Is it any wonder? The California senate is now hearing a bill that would require public-school students to study the contributions of “people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.” I believe this colossal waste of everyone’s time is part of a left-wing conspiracy to keep voters perpetually stupid. Do kids really need to know about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Abraham Lincoln? After all, these guys were just white European-Americans who invented the very system they now enjoy.

Apathy is Destiny

Too many Americans have no appreciation for the uniqueness of the USA or the meaning of being American. Why would they? If an illegal alien can sneak into the US and be treated as royalty, the original definition of American ceases to exist. What was once un-American is now American.

So, when politicians rewrite, distort, or pollute history, or selectively disregard or tweak laws in exchange for votes, they meet little resistance: the electorate is too ignorant and apathetic to fight back. How else can one explain the massive crowds of American citizens protesting in the streets on behalf of illegal aliens?

Every election day, people get the government they deserve. By the same token, they also get the laws they permit their deserved government to enact. The government we have, and the laws it enacts, is taking us down. Juris contemptus is a scourge, a stain we must eradicate. If we do not take back control of our country from the politicians who are dismantling the American way of life — in the name of political correctness, senseless tolerance, and shameless vote-mongering — we as citizens will be guilty of injuring ourselves with self-inflicted wounds. I pray it is not too late to stop the hemorrhaging.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719), and 18 articles.

Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.thenononsenseman.com/.

Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

by Marc H. Rudov

Punani for Sale

It’s no secret that a man’s degree of irrationality, in the presence of a woman, is directly proportional to her cup size. Even though this neurophysiological phenomenon isn’t exactly the point of my treatise here, I would be remiss not to mention it. After all, reckless choices in matters female, regardless of their causes, can lead to bankruptcy, which is the point here.

Divorce is the quickest path to financial ruin, bar none. Considering modern realities—the 50% divorce rate, that women initiate 70% of divorces, and that most family courts are biased towards females—the probability is significantly high that a married man eventually will be single again, returning to the scrimping lifestyle of his younger days. It behooves him, therefore, to avoid this economic horror show. So, understanding the perniciousness of her Double-D’s must become his highest priority.

I’ve appeared on numerous radio talkshows, most recently on Maxim Radio Channel’s Covino & Rich Show, of Sirius Satellite Radio, addressing the issue of man vs. woman and the dinner check. An angry wife phoned into the show to call me an idiot, then said: “Unless you pay, no punani for you.” Of course, I called her a prostitute, right on the air, and reminded her that cash-for-sex transactions occur in whorehouses. Sadly, it seems they occur in many marriages, too. I think the caller meant to say that her husband is the idiot.

Emasculated Men

It amazes me that, in an era when females fly combat missions in Iraq, captain the space shuttle, head major universities and corporations, and represent the United States to foreign governments, many women refuse to treat men to dinner in restaurants. The fault does not lie entirely with women, though. If a woman won’t buy dinner, it’s because her man tolerates it. Some men are too chicken to insist on reciprocity, for fear of not getting laid. Others believe they can control their girlfriends through largesse. Finally, there are guys, whose wallets apparently are bigger than their testicles, who feel emasculated in the presence of cash-wielding babes willing to fete them. One could conclude that the self-confident man is a rarity today.

The Wining/Dining Poll

After hearing case after case of anecdotal evidence, I decided to conduct a wining/dining poll on my Website, in the last two weeks of March. My objective was to quantify the attitudes of men and women about who treats for dinner in restaurants. I specifically say restaurants because I don’t accept an oft-heard woman’s contention that making dinner in her home is tantamount to buying it in a public restaurant. It ain’t the same. Nothing beats the experience of a woman bold and emancipated enough to extract her credit card from her purse, in public view, and hand it to the waiter to buy me dinner. It rocks.

I divided my wining/dining poll into separate polls for men and women, respectively—men couldn’t see how the women were voting, and vice versa. I asked men whether or not they like women to buy (not offer to buy) them dinner in restaurants, and I asked women whether or not they like to buy (not offer to buy) men dinner in restaurants. The men and women voted according to marital status and age, to uncover and reflect any differences in those categories. I received responses from 420 men and 258 women, for a total of 678. The tables with the results of the two polls are shown below:

Table 1. Men’s Wining/Dining Poll

In Table 1 above, the long green bars make it easy to deduce that most men want women to buy them dinners in restaurants. In fact, 79.9% (but not 100%) want that—in line with my earlier comments. Corresponding to general demographics, there were no under-35 voters who are divorced or widowed, and just a few never-marrieds over 50. The “under-35 never-marrieds” are the most-inexperienced and -insecure men, in favor of being treated by a ratio of only 1.75:1. The 35-50-year-old divorced/widowed men, by a ratio of 7.86:1, are the most receptive to female culinary generosity, followed by the divorced/widowed over 50 at 6.41:1 and the 35-50-year-old never-marrieds at 5.89:1. All in all, guys are on board with women treating them for dinner in restaurants.

Table 2 below depicts a different story, as I expected. Overall, only 60.5% of women like to treat men to dinner—meaning that 39.5% expect to be wined and dined. Compared with the male voting, all female voting ratios are close—2:1 or lower, meaning high ambivalence. The most-generous group, by a ratio of just 2.04:1, is the never-married women over 50. Following are the never-marrieds between 35 and 50, at 1.98:1. Interestingly, the divorced/widowed under 35 and over 50 are the stingiest, sharing the ratio of 1:1. The highest number of positive responses came from the 35-50-year-old divorced/widowed women, even though the category posted the third-highest total ratio, at 1.80:1.

Table 2. Women’s Wining/Dining Poll

Culinary Conclusions

The wining/dining poll shows with specificity what I have learned anecdotally through my own dating experiences, conversations with friends, e-mails from readers, and radio interviews—that there is a big disconnect between what men want and what women want. What’s new?

The poll doesn’t show everything, however. A lot of men who say they like women to treat them don’t always demand it. They should. Giving is not the man’s job. If a woman doesn’t reciprocate, without your prompting, why do you want to be with her? Dump her. It’s sad to meet guys who are silently resentful but complicit in the female-entitlement game. They will grumble to their friends, and to me, but they won’t challenge women to their faces—all because they are afraid they won’t get laid. The worst culprit is the man who accepts a dinner invitation from a generous woman, making him her guest, but he grabs the check at the last minute, refusing to let her pay—as if he has the authority to overrule her. Insecure guy. Stupid guy. Weak woman. Disingenuous woman.

Based on everything I’ve culled from this exercise and all my experiences to date, I’ve concluded that male and female diners fit into seven categories, as shown below:

Only the men and women in categories #1 and #4 above, respectively, are straightforward, above-board, agenda-free, entitlement-free people. Those in the other five categories, however, are either content to live in perpetual states of mystery, unspoken feelings, and awkwardness or are selfish gameplayers. Either way, danger lurks on the horizon, as we shall see.

Her Double-D’s

Every relationship has two termination points, the beginning and the end. The best end for a married couple is natural death in old age, after many years of happiness. Unfortunately, at least half of marriages end prematurely, in divorce. And, as I indicated in the first section of this article, women seek 70% of all divorces. According to credible research, the biggest reason women seek divorce is to take custody of the children, the most important assets of the marriage. This means that most men, by definition, enter marriages in positions of weakness.

In the marriage so typical of modern society, the beginning and ending points are dating and divorce, respectively: The Double-D’s. Think of The Double-D’s as a pair of matching bookends that bestride the relationship’s key epics: marriage, friends, children, the house, and wealth—all of which virtually disintegrate in divorce for most men.

I contend that whatever financial dynamic occurs between a man and woman in dating will be mirrored in divorce—hence, the matching bookends. So, if a woman exhibits selfish entitlement behavior in your first few dates, as exemplified by her refusal to host you for a night on the town, she is making a cosmic statement. Overlook this statement at your own peril, for she is demonstrating just how much she’ll clean your clock in a divorce. If she feels entitled to be the primary beneficiary of the dating dollars, she will feel no compunction about taking the lion’s share of the divorce dollars, as well as custody of the children and the house—while watching with schadenfreude as you downgrade your life. And that, my friends, is how her Double-D’s can bankrupt you.

Parting Comments

There is nothing more pathetic than the guy who introduces himself to a woman by enumerating and bragging about his possessions, as if he is an empty shell of a man without his money, yacht, plane, and mansion. Most women find this approach a turnoff, but there are those who salivate at the opportunity to separate this man from his possessions. This guy feels like such a master of the universe during dating and such a loser during divorce. But, there is no mystery here, pal. Her Double-D’s were bouncing. You begged her to steal from you, and she didn’t disappoint, did she!

The next time you find yourself with a woman who says “You’re the man; you’re supposed to pay for dinner,” and you stay with her any longer than it takes to say “hit the road,” you are a fool and a masochist. By being a financial doormat, you are training her to fleece you in the future. Compare that $50 meal she won’t buy you today with the $150,000 legal bill you’ll have in a few years—not to mention losing half of your assets, plus paying alimony and child support. Never stop thinking about her Double-D’s. It’s up to you. Bon appetit!

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of the book The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719) and 16 articles:

Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.thenononsenseman.com/.

Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

For the past two days, the San Jose Mercury News has been heralding the efficacy and value of California’s Safely Surrendered Baby Law (SSB). A local mother, who decided not to be a mother, dropped off her unwanted newborn baby at a San Jose fire station.

She is allowed to do this. The SSB law encourages her to do this. California is one of at least 47 states to offer safe haven to “desperate mothers who are unwilling or unable to keep their babies.” California brags that, as of January 1, 2006, 122 babies have been safely surrendered under this law. Champagne, anyone?

For those of you unfamiliar with these “safe-haven” laws, depending on the state, mothers have 72 hours after giving birth to return their unwanted newborns to police stations, fire stations, or hospitals — no questions asked. How nice. Oh, but wait, there’s more. The hapless mommy can change her mind (what’s new?) within 14 days of discarding her little bundle to reclaim it. Again, no questions asked.

Recently, the National Center for Men filed a landmark federal lawsuit on behalf of Matt Dubay, called Roe v. Wade for Men, asking for dismissal of his obligations to support a child he did not want. The mother of this child told him, at the beginning of their relationship, that she is infertile and also was taking birth-control pills. As expected, feminists, and many men, impugned Matt Dubay as a deadbeat dad. If he wants out, he’s a villain. If she wants out, we say: “Poor baby, you have so much stress. We understand. There, there.”

Is it possible we have yet another double standard here? Let’s see. Despite a man’s wishes, a woman can get an abortion. Or, she can deliver her child and then collect child support from the father, who, according to Roe v. Wade, was meaningless during the abortion decision. Or, she can deliver the child, then decide she doesn’t want it, then dump it off at the fire station, thereby releasing herself and the father from parental obligations. Or, she can go back to the fire station, 14 days after legally abandoning her baby, to reclaim the abandoned child, thereby reobligating herself and the father to support the child. Or, or, or, or, or, or. So many choices. What’s a woman to do? Alas, the man has to go along with whatever she decides. Seems fair, right?

We, as a society, must start holding women to account. Such a move would be a breakthrough, as women have far too many escape routes to avoid responsibility. I suggest we use the term “miscreant mom” to describe a woman who either: 1) shirks her responsibility for her child or 2) uses her child to take financial advantage of a man. 

Let’s see if NOW (National Organization for Women) begins throwing around the term “miscreant mom” as easily as it does deadbeat dad. Let’s see.

I read with astonishment Leonard Sax’s Washington Post article (also available below) about unmotivated boys, the premise of the recent movie Failure to Launch, starring Matthew McConaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker.

During the late ’60s and early ’70s, when I was a teenager, it was rare to find unmotivated boys. The pressure from peers, teachers, parents, and society in general made it nearly impossible, and highly embarrassing, to be a slacker boy.

Today, according to Sax, slacker boys are omnipresent. Girls, says he, have a plan for the future. I believe he overstates the case. Now, just as when I was young, many girls go to college solely to find husbands. He should check it out.

What’s changed since the ’70s? Why are today’s boys so unmotivated? Sax suggests that, perhaps, environmental toxins are the culprits. Really? He is absolutely correct! Except the environmental toxins are not chemical. They are rap music, excessive Title IX funding, false ADD & ADHD diagnoses, Roe v. Wade, and the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Boys are deemphasized, marginalized, and ignored in our society. Look no further than the rape double standard for proof. When a hot female teacher like Debra LaFave screws her 14-year-old male student, our society deems it cool. Why? Boys are tough; they can handle anything, right? Well, if that were the case, Leonard Sax wouldn’t be writing a new book about the epidemic of unmotivated boys.

Legislatures, courts, police forces, and the media are focused on girls and women. Boys see that and self-destruct. They give up and become slackers. If our society wants to motivate boys, I suggest that it start respecting them. That’s the best detox program in the world.

The article was also published in the MercuryNews.com

The Wall Street Journal published today an article by Ellen Gamerman (reprinted below) about the hazards of online dating, appropriately entitled Mism@tched.com. The premise of Gamerman’s article is that online daters are not responsible for either their illogical behaviors or verifying the claims of potential paramours; this, they believe, is the province of the dating Websites. Makes sense, right? The United States of America is a land where nobody ever takes responsibility for his own thoughts, feelings, actions, or inactions. So, dating Websites, according to Gamerman’s subtitle, are “scrambling to make sure forever is really forever.”

Give me a break! Are these dating Websites nuts? Are they blind to reality? Our society today is anti-marriage. Divorce is a lucrative industry. People in relationships, at least half of whom are themselves products of broken homes, are noncommital. Fewer and fewer men want to get married. Does this shock you? Spend a day, sitting in the “visitors’ gallery” of family court. Mystery solved, in case you didn’t already know why.

The out-of-wedlock birthrate is skyrocketing (30% for whites and 70% for blacks), for two fundamental reasons: 1) Hollywood glamorizes illegitimate births; 2) family courts compensate unmarried women for becoming mothers. We are an out-of-control, dysfunctional society with no boundaries, no values, no shame. There is no way an online-dating service can fix or overcome society’s ills. It’s time for people to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives.
 
As Ronald Reagan used to say: “Trust but verify.” If online daters don’t verify everything they read in others’ profiles, shame on them. Blaming dating Websites sites for failed romances and marriages is laughable, and so American. It’s hard to believe that the Wall Street Journal, of all newspapers, even lowered its standards enough to run a story about this depressing phenomenon. The next thing you know, illegal aliens will be sneaking into this country, refusing to learn English, and expecting amnesty and automatic citizenship — and the same unprincipled Americans will be demonstrating in the streets to rally them! Nah, that’ll never happen.

======================================================= 

Mism@tched.com

About two million Americans met their spouses online. Now the divorces are starting. How dating Websites are scrambling to make sure forever really is forever

By ELLEN GAMERMAN (ellen.gamerman@wsj.com) Wall Street Journal — April 1, 2006; Page P1

In 1995, Matt Frassica, tired of singles bars and set-ups by friends, tried his hand at dating online. There he met, and later married, a woman who also liked long walks in the rain and homemade lasagna. They were even featured in People magazine as a prototype of successful cyber-romance.

Then the fairy tale ended. Mr. Frassica said he realized he was gay, and the divorce was official last year. “We avoided getting to know the real person,” says the 34-year-old corporate recruiter in San Francisco. “All we knew was the profiles of each other.” (His ex-wife confirms that.)

More than a decade after the Internet revolutionized dating—about two million Americans met their spouses online, by one measure—the sites face a new challenge: keeping these couples together. While most sites started out focusing on dating, they are increasingly using their success in the marriage arena as a marketing tool—making the stakes higher if these unions start to go south.

While many happily married couples say they may never have found a mate offline, there are already indications that meeting a spouse on the Web comes with its own set of potential pitfalls. Some divorce cases, for example, highlight false claims made in the online profiles that led to the initial attraction. In addition, of course, there are the natural perils that can come with getting to know a person virtually instead of the old-fashioned way.

Now, sites are stepping up their efforts to ensure that matches last. EHarmony.com is opening a new “relationship lab” this summer where some couples who met through the site will be monitored for at least five years to see how the marriages fare. In an initiative dubbed “Project Moses” internally, JDate.com, a Jewish singles site, is contracting a dating coach to train customer-service representatives in relationship counseling for couples who call in. True.com pitches a compatibility test (patent pending) that it says follows standards set by the American Psychological Association; one aim is to reduce divorce.

The emphasis on marriage and marriage sustenance is what these sites say they need to do to continue to expand their business. After double- and triple-digit growth in some recent years, spending on online dating rose by just 7% last year, according to a report by the Online Publishers Association, a trade group. The report shows that for the first time since 2002, music and video downloads surpassed online dating as a top revenue-maker on the Web. (Adult entertainment probably trumps them all, according to some market researchers, though figures are difficult to track.) A recent survey by Jupiter Research says serious daters—those seeking long-term commitments—are 63% more likely to pay for online dating than other daters. Such statistics are one reason the sites are taking pains to demonstrate successful track records at the altar.

The quest by dating Web sites to keep passion alive is all the more urgent because demographic statistics would suggest that the first wave of divorces among online daters is just now beginning. The median length of a first marriage that ends in divorce is eight years, according to a Census Bureau survey released last year. Online dating took off in 1995, with Match.com celebrating its 150th wedding two years later. By 2002, this style of dating had become firmly entrenched in the cultural mainstream.

Touting marriage results is now a major part of many sites’ business strategies. Match boasts “twice as many marriages as any other site in the world” on its home page, a claim based on last year’s survey of 4,800 people on Weddingchannel.com, a Los Angeles-based online-registry and wedding-planning service. Yahoo Personals has a special section devoted to success stories, while eHarmony festoons the hallways of its Pasadena, CA, headquarters with photos of couples at their weddings, including one with “eHarmony” in icing on a computer-shaped cake.

Though there is no statistical evidence that the break-up rate among online daters is any different from the national average, some divorce lawyers point to anecdotal evidence. Eric Spevak, a New Jersey divorce lawyer, says that as many as one in five of his clients now comes from marriages that started on the Internet. “There’s no consequences online—people can promise you anything, so engagements are shorter and people are rushing in,” says Mr. Spevak.

New York divorce lawyer Raoul Felder says he is also seeing more Internet daters splitting up in his practice: “It’s usually a relationship based on fantasy or desperation, which doesn’t bode well.”

False claims on online dating profiles are showing up in court as lawyers use the early dating profiles—with their fibs about wealth and status—for character attacks later. Robert Hoover, a lawyer in San Jose, CA, says he was able to wrest child custody from his client’s ex-wife based partly on allegations that she had used her younger sister’s photograph in her dating profile to trick men, including her future husband, into emailing her. “If she’d misrepresented herself in that regard, maybe she misrepresents herself in the area of custody,” says Mr. Hoover. “That was just brought up to attack her credibility.”

Marriage counselors and divorce attorneys say they are often struck by how much of what brings people together online ultimately contributes to the undoing of the relationship.

One of the hallmarks of online dating, for example, is the quick intimacy driven by heartfelt profiles that can go on for pages and reveal everything from a person’s favorite food to a weakness for tattoos. Focusing on these attributes, some psychologists say, makes potential suitors more likely to overlook someone’s downsides. A 2004 Match study said 11% of its married couples were “in love prior to ever meeting face-to-face.”

Online courtships also take place initially via email, a notably misleading way of communicating that doesn’t take into account tone of voice or facial expressions. And experts say online daters as a group tend to be more interested in marriage and therefore more inclined to jump the gun.

It took Carolyn Fellwock and Charlie Watson only 11 months to tie the knot after meeting on Yahoo Personals—and three years more to call it quits. The couple’s shared appreciation for movie nights and homemade Irish stew turned out to be no match for their bickering over how to discipline their kids from previous marriages or the best way to spend the family savings.

“I can’t believe it’s over,” Ms. Watson now says. “I really did think I’d found a soul mate.”

A string of failed relationships can mean more subscriptions for an online dating site, of course, but many companies say they are more interested in building a brand name based on success. With several sites mulling plans to branch into services for other family issues, from child-rearing to troublesome in-laws, companies call a good marriage the foundation for customer loyalty. “If they appear to be happy in their marriage for the first couple of years but it doesn’t last, that doesn’t do anything for us,” says Ron Worthy, product manager for member revenue at BlackPlanet Love, an African American singles site. “We want to build families.”

For those relationships that do fail, dating sites have some built-in protections, primarily in the form of waivers members must agree to with the click of a mouse. Match, in language similar to that of other sites, declares itself not liable “for any damages whatsoever” from emotional distress to bodily injury. Sites with personality tests and quasi-counseling also include waivers saying such services are no substitute for professional help.

Match already has some publicity headaches stemming from a recent lawsuit over “date bait”—flirtatious emails from phony daters to keep subscribers coming back. Yahoo Personals also is being sued for allegedly posting false profiles. Both companies have denied those claims as fraudulent and are fighting the lawsuits, which seek class-action status.

Anna Murray, a 39-year-old New York technology executive, knows the pitfalls of online dating. Her solution: She ran her Match suitors by her therapist. “She’d read between the lines as only a good personality profiler can do,” says Ms. Murray, now married. When presented with her future husband’s profile, she recalls, her therapist delivered the verdict: “She said, ‘He’s not a creep.’”

While some sites track their marriage rate closely—eHarmony says 16,500 of its clients tied the knot in the year ending August 2005—others say it’s too hard to track accurately. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, a nonprofit research organization, an estimated two million married Internet users in America met their spouses online—that is about half the total number of people who married last year.

To maintain its success rate, eHarmony says it has rejected 1.4 million applicants it deems not marriage material—they are struggling with addiction, for example, or have more than three failed marriages under their belt. Through its relationship lab, the company hopes even unhappy couples can help the cause of lasting matches; by noticing patterns in failed couplings, eHarmony can tweak its “compatibility matching system” to fix the problem. For example, founder and chairman Neil Clark Warren says he has noticed grieving widows and widowers tend to move too quickly in rebound relationships, creating tensions down the road. “We have an enormous interest in all these couples,” says Dr. Warren.

Because the industry relies on subscriptions more than advertising, it isn’t surprising that dating sites do everything they can to retain their customers. Former retention specialists for Yahoo Personals describe working on “save teams” where they were paid for every lovelorn subscriber they persuaded to stay. “I’d tell them I was just talking to someone earlier who was getting married after using the service,” says Donnie Reibert, who last year left his job at West Corporation, contracted by Yahoo to provide customer service. “I’d tell them, ‘Just give it time.’” Yahoo Personals says it no longer offers advice when people call to cancel.

New tactics are being employed to reach out to married couples. At eHarmony, newlyweds can now pay $240 for a 12-session marriage program created by a team of in-house psychologists. JDate encourages couples who met on the site and married to write to its “Mazel Tov” section, but says it doesn’t track divorces because it would be logistically difficult.

At Match, a separate success-stories Website helps the company follow up with daters, and it recently started sending out media tip sheets to encourage newlyweds to tell their stories to the local press. But the company says it has no plans to keep a record of divorces. “A lot of people married, then divorced but remain very good friends. Is it a failure?” says Jim Safka, chief executive of Match. “Looking at divorce rates is a crude and dangerous way to measure things.” Mr. Safka adds that the site is for all kinds of relationships, not just marriage.

Says Herb Vest, founder of True.com: “The reason we go to work: to lower the divorce rate.” His site requires users to undergo criminal background checks and also analyzes public records to try to ensure that no one on the site is already married and looking for a fling.

Some people who met a spouse online and later divorced aren’t losing heart. Some even say they would date online again. Kelly Fleshman, 35, a Web developer from suburban Baltimore, says she doesn’t blame the medium for the problems in her marriage. “We got along better than anyone I have ever gotten along with in my life,” she says. They ended the marriage last year, and Ms. Fleshman says she’s relieved the love notes that started their relationship are nowhere to be found: “I don’t have those emails—that was, like, three or four computers ago.”