Slashdot Mirror
Analysis Reveals Almost No Real Women On Ashley Madison
gurps_npc writes: Ashley Madison claimed to have about 31 million men and 5.5 million woman enrolled. Those odds are not good for the men, 6:1. But unfortunately, most of those 'women' were fake. This researcher analyzed the data and found only 12,000 actual, real women using Ashley Madison. That means for every 7750 men, there were 3 women. There are reports that Ashley Madison paid people to create fake female profiles. Their website admits that 'some of the users may be there for "entertainment purposes."' The article itself is well written, including a description of the analysis. A charitable person would say that Ashley Madison was selling a fantasy, not reality. But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.
Nothing wrong with sucking a feminine penis here and there.
But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.
But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just cheating men cheating on their wives.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Some?
On a site like that - the only real women would be women that are either desperate or looking for other women.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
That doesn't sound right. I expect that the men completely outnumber the women, and that the 'women' are largely fake, but only 12,000?
With all the advertising that AM has done, and with the huge number of women online (consider pinterest for heavens sake), and the huge number of women that have affairs, it seems unlikely to me that only 12,000 actual women signed up.
Even if there are huge numbers of women interested in having affairs, that doesn't mean that they want to have random internet hookups from a cheating website. All online dating sites are the same -- the men far outnumber the women.
The data dump apparently contained ~5 million accounts marked as "female" with IP and email addresses. Strange that they would include that information, but scrub the fields indicating when said user had last checked their inbox
A fair point. Plus, one has to consider that if harming AM was their primary aim here, releasing the data is bad, but releasing a subset of the data that demonstrates that kind of male-to-female ratio is perhaps far worse (for AM). If the ratio was 10:1, they're providing a fair service and just not having much luck attracting women; look at all those scumbags who are trying to cheat on their wives! If the ratio is 8000:1 though, look at all those scumbags running the site who are cheating people out of money! If you wanted to put a nail in their coffin, this is a great way to do it -- out the men, embarrass them, give them call to sue AM. Then doubly embarrass them as chumps; surely that'll push a few fence-sitters over the edge.
It does make me wonder. The only way we could verify this is if a bunch of women who had accounts looked themselves up, didn't find themselves, and then self-reported. So we may never know either way on this.
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
I have to disagree with the numbers.
Unlike others, I insulated myself well, using prepaid Amex registered to a bogus name and address.
As for the reasons, well there are a number, primarily the person I married is no longer the person I married. That aside, call me a coward if you want, but it is what it is.
Now I did joy spend much, about $200. That equates to 400 credits, at 5 credits for initial contact (after which further communications are free). I never used the overpriced gifts and chat functions.
That amounts to about 80 contact attempts. Response rate was about 15 actual females. That's not to say I jumped into bed with all of them, there does need to be a connection, so it's not always about just fucking. I was also very acutely aware of the fakes, one time curiousity profiles, and such. There are patterns you can see, and you avoid contacting new profiles for a while till you see them around a few times. I'm guessing the area you're in makes a difference too, major metro areas have the most fakes. Also way too many woman looking for a free ride, so basically prostitution.
So yes, it is possible to connect with an actual female. If I had to guess, poor coding resulted in the fields the researcher used to generate the stats, where not actually being used reliably.
' Their website admits that 'some of the users may be there for "entertainment purposes."'
Not to confuse those with the 'professional' cheaters.
Actually, I'd have more respect for the "professional cheaters". Not only do they get paid, but it is less likely that they're hiding it from their spouse.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
On a site like that - the only real women would be women that are either desperate or looking for other women.
I had heard that most the women on AM were call girls. Now I doubt that, as I'd think there'd have been a lot more, but still, there's a third category for your list.
They're women who know they're facilitating cheating and quite possibly destroying families - ever seen what divorce does to kids? Even the amicable divorces do a lot of damage, and divorces due to infidelity tend not to be amicable. A woman who understands she's doing that and is okay with that can't be trusted. These are the kinds of women who poke holes in condoms to get that child support money. If the cheating guy has any sort of standing in the community, like holding some sort of local office or operating any significant business, he can now be blackmailed - and that was before the data was breached. There's already been some suicides over this, in fact.
A call girl would be an improvement.
I'm no prude. I'm all for consenting adult people screwing around if that's what they want to do. When I was younger, I did my own share of that. But I didn't have to lie and cheat to do it, and neither do they. I was not married and I openly told the women I was seeing, up front, "hey I'm not looking for a commitment at this time, in fact I am going to see other people, if you want to do the same, be my guest". It was never an issue and they appreciated the honesty. But to marry someone and claim to make an exclusive commitment, and then abuse their trust like that, it's just plain fucked up. No "puritannical morality" is necessary to see how fucked up that really is. Ask anyone who's ever had it done to them.
Sure they do. It's called facebook. More women use facebook than anything else. You're more likely to find a cheating partner on facebook than anywhere else without having to pay anything. And facebook would protect your damn privacy from your spouse more so than Ashley Madison ever would. So what's the point of Ashley Madison?
Eh, one point of order.
I do not condone infidelity, yadda yadda yadda, but purely as a practical matter if one is looking to cheat on their spouse and wants things kept discrete, a better choice of partner is someone else who is already married. They have more skin in the game and are more likely to keep things hush hush, because they don't want to be exposed, either. If things go poorly, you can be less afraid of someone threatening to tell your husband, when you can also tell their wife.
That said, yeah, I'm not convinced a website would be the best method of finding such a partner.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It's okay, when it's in a 3 way.
With a honey in the middle there's some leeway.
Combination of several things, probably. One can crawl the AM data for patterns for people who do cheat (or are interested in cheating) via a website, but no such database exists for those who do so without use of a site like AM. So, we can only speculate.
My completely wild speculation is that this method does not appeal to women.
A man who wants to have an affair just wants someone fuck, and goes looking for it. A woman who is unhappy does not think "I'm going to have an affair!" and starts shopping around. She gets interested in a specific guy and decides to sleep with him. The man goes to the bar to find a woman to fuck. The woman goes to the bar for a good time, sees somebody she'd like to fuck, and does it. The premeditation required to use a website like AM is a more masculine trait.
A man cheating on his wife has to take more risks. Back to the bar, the guy is more likely to have to strike up conversations with many women before he can find one who's interested. Every attempt is a risk. Learning he's married, she might expose him. He's seen talking to her, and one of her friends might expose him. "Hell hath no fury" and all that. I think a woman is more likely to inform another woman that her husband is fucking around than a man is likely to inform another man that his wife is unfaithful. And I don't think it's a secret that it's a lot easier for a woman to walk up to a guy she doesn't know and say "wanna fuck" and succeed, than it is for a man to walk up to a woman and do the same thing. So the whole discretion thing of AM is a much more enticing lure for a man than it is a woman.
And finally...women in general are not as interested in technological solutions to problems as men are. And remember AM has been operating since 2001. So think about the changing demographic of those who are "tech savvy" across that entire time period. When someone thinks "I want to have an affair," I think it's far more likely the person who thinks "I know, I'll go look on the internet!" is going to be a man than a woman.
So, there's a bunch of wild speculation with extreme generalizations that in no way reflect the opinions of Major League Baseball, or anything else, really.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The difference between a woman getting ready for a date and a man getting ready for a date is this: the man looks in his mirror and wonders if he'll get lucky; the woman looks in her mirror and doesn't have to wonder.
'Tis far, far easier for a woman to get a date than a man.
This has been true for all of human history. It's what makes the world go round. Don't you love it?
"'Tis far, far easier for a woman to get a date than a man."
True.
Any woman can get up in the morning and say, "I'm gonna get laid tonight" with 100% accuracy.
The only men that can say this are rapists.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons...
In the city I live in (one of the top 10 for population in the US), there were real women on AM who would respond and meet in person. I met two of them for drinks. Of course, the reality of AM is that for me and the women I met it was just a form of marriage counseling where we needed someone to talk through some issues with. In both cases we talked openly about the challenges that arise at different points in marriages and how sex can suffer. We never talked fantasies and, despite obvious chemistry in one of the meetings, never thought of going further than casual conversation. Finding someone to talk to seemed to be what we were after.
Of course, they may have gone on to do more with other men. But, the only reason they said they responded was because mine one of the only non-creepy messages they received. Apparently even married guys think dick pics and very forward sexual comments are the best way to get a woman's attention (tip: no).
Mostly true, but it's not that much more difficult for men. Those women are having sex with someone, after all, and I'm pretty sure it's not all the same guy. Be confident, but not a dick, a good listener, semi-romantic, don't waste time on girls who aren't interested, and you'll get more than enough. Most guys are their own biggest obstacle, particularly those who get hung up on "the one."
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
There are reasons to fake male profiles. Having lots of male profiles with nice pictures and soothing, non psychopathic text helps with recruiting females and maybe getting them to stick around.
Any woman can get up in the morning and say, "I'm gonna get laid tonight" with 100% accuracy.
Are you implying that 100% of women on the world are so gorgeous and desirable that most men would simply fall at their feet at the prospect of getting laid?
You have either a very over inflated view of women or a truly sad view of your fellow men.
I've met plenty of women who've bemoaned their ability to get laid.
Of course, that's because they have standards, and aren't willing to sleep with just anyone.
A man who's willing to sleep with just anyone, including women he finds from attractive, can get laid with the same frequency as women with those same standards.
Seriously, go find a lonely ugly fat girl somewhere, don't call her a lonely ugly fat girl, and insinuate that you would like to have sex with her. Pretty sure shot at getting laid.
That's about what a woman has to do to guarantee she gets laid too. Just drop all standards and be open to fucking anything with a pulse, and bam, boorish contemptible assholes will be all over her, terrible people she hates, but at least she's getting laid right?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
It is all supply and demand. If a women wants to get an affair, she goes to a pub and she can get laid. Not so much for a man. The ugly fat girl can still be not interested in sex (at that moment).
And the ugly fat girl can still get laid if she wants to. Not so much for the ugly fat boy.
Now if you want a relationship, it is almost the other way around.
Many years ago I knew a person who owned a dating agency. There were so many women and so few man he often pretended to be a potential candidate. This was not for a fling, but for a relationship.
Women at that time were much more willing to look for a relationship that way. This was all before the Internet.
It is a bit of a standard that men want to have sex and women want to have a relationship. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.