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.
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.
' 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.
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.
"'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...
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
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."