[jariel]

Quote:

The Ashley Madison hack proves men are dogs. But the Ashley Madison service itself proves men are suckers.

Not simply because millions of men who were trying hide from their wives decided to use their real names and e-mail addresses in signing up for an adultery website — though that wasn’t exactly the mark of genius. It’s because they thought that there were millions of halfway attractive, married women out there just waiting for a hot proposition from a married man so they could be unfaithful.

There aren’t. And chances are there won’t ever be. It’s hard to know how many people were users of the site are real (it sounds as if some were signed up by friends or enemies as practical jokes). But even taking the numbers at face value, the ratio is abysmal. There were about 28 million men and 5 million women in the account list, while the credit-card information belongs almost entirely to men.

Ashley Madison confirms what we already know about infidelity. Men are much more likely to engage in it than women. And men are much more interested in casual sex than women.

To suggest otherwise is either a male fantasy or a feminist one.

Consider, for instance, the movie “Unfaithful” (2002), in which we are supposed to believe that Connie (Diane Lane) is in a satisfactory marriage with Edward (Richard Gere), has a nice house, good kids, a decent sex life and yet one day she upends it all for the chance at better sex with a man she met while trying to hail a taxi. Come on, people. Who does this? Only about 14% of ever-married women have had an extramarital affair during their lifetime, compared with 22% of ever-married men.

Feminists remain convinced that if only our “gender norms” were different and there weren’t such a “double standard,” that women could enjoy casual sex the way men can.

But in article after article and book after book in which women who engage in casual sex are interviewed — take the Vanity Fair article about Tinder earlier this month — the women are not happy. They don’t like the lack of relationship, and they don’t even like the sex. They are always desperately hoping that casual sex or even drunken sex will turn into something more.

Plenty of married men lament that they are no longer able to go after anything with nice legs. But women are much more prone to saying, “I’m so glad I’m not on the dating scene anymore.”

It’s not that women don’t commit adultery as often because they are happier in their marriages than men are. In fact, women are more likely to be the ones initiating divorce nowadays. But women know that casual (or anonymous) sex is not going to make them any happier. Research shows that women who have multiple partners are more likely to be depressed. And cheating on their husbands with a guy they met online is certainly not going to fill the hole of whatever was missing from their marriages.

The men on Ashley Madison may have been living in a fantasyland, but if they read the media’s messages on women and sex, they might have had good reason to do so. Since the “expert” view is now that gender is a social construct, men might wonder why women don’t act more like them. They are told it’s because of society’s backward patriarchal views that women don’t want to be seen as slutty.

So voilá! We have a website that will allow women to cheat without all those judgmental eyes on them. And behind those closed doors . . . women aren’t interested.

Sorry, guys. The Internet can do a lot of things, but it’s not going to change human nature.

http://nypost.com/2015/08/22/ashley-madi...asual-sex/

[Menace]

I think it's worse than that. Ashley Madison appears to be an essentially fraudulent enterprise. For all intents and purposes, there were no women on there.

[Hedonistic Traveler]

Not so sure.

I think it proves that women don't need to go online to get fucked though.

Cheating online is a big risk. Guys are desperate enough to take it, women aren't. They have other ways of getting fucked.

[Sade]

Even worse than that, according to Gizmodo which conduct extensive data analysis there wher roughly 1500 active women profiles on AM (against 20m men profiles).
AM was a fantasy cash machine.


http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/201...8996.html#

[zaqan]

The website is named Ashley Madison and was geared towards men. Why would women go on it? I am sure if there were a site named Mr Right that promised strong confident rich men, women would flock to it in droves.

Wait a minute, the New York Post published this crap?!

Quote:

The Ashley Madison hack proves men are dogs.

You can tell that a millennial female wrote this just based on that statement.

Quote:

To suggest otherwise is either a male fantasy or a feminist one.

...

Feminists remain convinced that if only our “gender norms” were different and there weren’t such a “double standard,” that women could enjoy casual sex the way men can.

Nevermind, my hope is restored.

[Parlay44]

Quote:

They are always desperately hoping that casual sex or even drunken sex will turn into something more.

That's the female condition.

Here's the male version: Men are always desperately hoping that friendship will turn into casual sex or even drunken sex.

So when we divide both sides by X the equation simplifies to:

Men want sex = Women want relationships

[Rutting Elephant]

(08-27-2015 09:55 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

Men want sex = Women want relationships

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-48454.html

[Days of Broken Arrows]

This CAN'T be true!!!!!

How do we know? Because back in 2013, Hugo Schwyzer told us in an Atlantic article that "Turns Out Women Have Really, Really Strong Sex Drives: Can Men Handle It?"

Below are the opening paragraphs he wrote in review of a book that came to this conclusion.

OK, so the whole Ashley Madison thing proved both the reviewer and the book wrong. But that hardly matters! What matters is they questioned conventional wisdom. And isn't that what it's really all about? I mean, conventional wisdom must be wrong because it's, like, so conventional. As if!

"Women want sex far more than we've been allowed to believe. So suggests a new book that shatters many of our most cherished myths about desire, including the widespread assumption that women's lust is inextricably bound up with emotional connection. Are men ready to cope with the reality of heterosexual women's horniness? The evidence suggests we aren't, at least not yet.

In his just-released What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire journalist Daniel Bergner suggests that when it comes to acknowledging just how much women lust, we've passed the point of no return. Bergner profiles the work of a series of sexologists, all of whom have, after a series of fascinating studies with animal and human subjects, come to what is essentially the same conclusion. Women want sex just as much as men do, and this drive is "not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety." When it comes to the craving for sexual variety, the research Bergner assembles suggests that women may be "even less well-suited for monogamy than men."

Tell that last sentence to the guys on Ashley Madison, guys.

If I remember correctly, several other Web sites reviewed this book and spouted the same party line. I assume no corrections or mea culpas will be forthcoming. Being a SJW means never having to say you're sorry.

[CH-Toronto]

Some thing to keep in mind:

Ashley Madison is a website you have to pay for.

Women do not need to pay for 'casual' sex

[Nonpareil]

Ashley Madison always from day one seemed scammy and sketchy to me...because as if women need help having an affair? Accounting for the differences between the sexes - sex drives, work-to-return etc,. - a female 5 has about the same amount and quality of sexual options as a male 7 (probably even more).

Women don't want casual sex? Any man who's been around enough women knows that they love to fuck and knows what they can be like.

Women do want casual sex...they just don't want evidence, a paper trail - credit card statements, logs, private messages that can be discovered. Women are extremely protective of their image (I'm sure we've all met a raging slut who's fucked 50+ guys who seemed 'nice and wholesome'). That doesn't mean they don't want to get fucked, just that they want discretion, REAL discretion - ignorant as most of them are, Women still know that things like hackers and spyware exist.

Men don't really even give a fuck about any of that if there's a shot at sex.

[kosko]

All digital sites have just as bad ratios to a extent. You could argue Tinder is worse than AM. From the profit model the only barrier you have to keep *some* men away from even the slightest hope of casual sex is price. This is why thirst is commodified and a heavy price is paid for men who want to attempt to quench it (p4p, you name it). So it can't be out of this world to think that a platform that has no little to no barrier to entry such as Tinder or OKC is not worse than AM in regards to ratios of attractive women.


AM gets a bad rap because it marketed purely for infidelity which will in-fact scare some women off and as noted above women will just seek other avenues to get what they want. But there is indeed a market for married and attached men as the truth is that women, even single women, would rather fuck a married man then a single man. All the hard work is done for her as a woman as already vetted and proofed the man as being worthy for long term commitment and to raise kids with.

Here in godless Toronto with one of the highest rates of usage per capita for AM, women will still just fuck a married man they meet in real life, but I just am now sure how that all gets started because you need some level of cover. Your aren't going around fucking married folks within your social circle so there has to be some type of smoke screen going on here. My rabid ginger friend prefers to fuck married men in "open relationships" because she is basically a whore, but can't decide between relationships and shot flings. She is lucky she still looks good for being 30, she could smash into her wall any week now. But she drops hints why she continually does it. It provides attachment without attachment with a quality man. She can have a "open fling" with the married man and get all the stuff she wants with less effort on her part in trying to change the dude or navigate if he is any good. It all sounds bizarre but you would be surprised how many women are open to it. I know many married men on RVF can vouch for the different type of attention they get from women if they have their band on the finger.

So don't discount totally the desire of women to fuck with married men. AM was a scam profit model but it was built here in Toronto of a perverse and real market that was (still is) taboo and underground. The locals here who started it saw a market that needed to be served in acting as the middle man in it and the smoke screen and make bank doing it. The ideas for the AM site did not come out of thin air is what I am trying to say..

[zombiejimmorrison]

*Women don't want casual sex from married beta men online.

You need to switch the stakes into something more female orientated than just casual sex to entice the hamster.

[TheSlayer]

I just find it hilarious that the whole website was a scam and millions of thirsty betas paid to join for the privilege of messaging fake female accounts. Gotta acknowledge the scam of the AM owners to make money running a dating website on which no one was getting laid.

[Parzival]

(08-27-2015 10:17 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

This CAN'T be true!!!!!

How do we know? Because back in 2013, Hugo Schwyzer told us in an Atlantic article that "Turns Out Women Have Really, Really Strong Sex Drives: Can Men Handle It?"

The urge of the men is mostly create by the physical needs. Women are more in control of their sex drive, thats how they gain power. When you stimulate the mind of the women, fuck her mind, then yes her sex drive can go crazy and it can get hard to keep track.
Also lock about all those stories from women, its mostly novels. Men are more driven by porn. 50 shades of grey and all the other ones are fiction books. How many men buy sexual books with no pictures?

It also match with the quote that there are no good men out there. Women just don't see the ordinary guys because they are looking for the top 10 or 15 % that match their fantasies.

Also read an other article, women would either abstain from sex then give away their smartphone. Attention whoring inside.
As long as a man cant pull the trigger in the mind of the women, she will mostly refuse causal sex with you.

[DarkTriad]

(08-27-2015 10:40 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

I just find it hilarious that the whole website was a scam and millions of thirsty betas paid to join for the privilege of messaging fake female accounts. Gotta acknowledge the scam of the AM owners to make money running a dating website on which no one was getting laid.

And nobody could complain about either. To complain, you have to admit you were on Ashley Madison.

[Lizard King]

Statistics can prove anything you want them to prove.

We know women DO like casual sex.

We know most men are thirsty, that's what is really proven by the uneven ratio.

[Hardy Daytona]

If women really did love sex as much as men, then the oldest profession in the world wouldn't exist.

[Grange]

My two cents: most men looking for side action are not that picky and are willing to find it on the internet, while most women that want to get some side action want it with a specific man that they know. Women don't want side action as much anyway, and they usually wouldn't get what they want from AM.

[Grodin]

(08-27-2015 10:20 AM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

Some thing to keep in mind:

Ashley Madison is a website you have to pay for.

Women do not need to pay for 'casual' sex

They also don't have to pay for Ashley Madison.

Which, I'm thinking, is related to all the credit cards belonging to men. But above all, it's because if she wants to cheat she doesn't need a website. She already has one or more beta orbiter ready on the sidelines.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/back-plan-ha...way-305186

[Grodin]

(08-27-2015 10:17 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Hugo Schwyzer

lol that guy is the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you god, for creating Hugo Schwyzer to help the feminists troll themselves.

[kaotic]

There is no way the ratio is a low 5.5 to 1.

From what I read is exponentially higher than that, not to mention dudes were talking other dudes.

There were plenty of fake women, of the women who signed up not many of them confirmed their emails or even used the site.

The whole thing was just one big scam and circle jerk of dudes.

Now it doesn't mean that women were hard to find on there, but the hilarious facts that people paid for this, and their data STILL didn't get deleted.

[jariel]

(08-27-2015 12:20 PM)Grodin Wrote:  

But above all, it's because if she wants to cheat she doesn't need a website. She already has one or more beta orbiter ready on the sidelines.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/back-plan-ha...way-305186

That article deserves its own conversation.

[Bad Hussar]

(08-27-2015 09:29 AM)Menace Wrote:  

I think it's worse than that. Ashley Madison appears to be an essentially fraudulent enterprise. For all intents and purposes, there were no women on there.

Never even looked at that site, but from the description I'd guess that many of the women who are on there are under cover prostitutes. At some point they are going to be asking for money. Not to say that there aren't any married women wanting some on the side. There are plenty. But there are much more agreeable and less dangerous ways to go about it than a hook-up site. They could just go to a hotel bar and hook-up with a travelling businessman who catches their eye.

About the only hook-up site that I'd expect to have (real) strong numbers is Grindr - for obvious biological reasons. Otherwise you're going to get sites with bad ratio's and probably pro's (Ashley Madison), or women who are more seeking free attention than actual hook-ups (Tinder).

[DamienCasanova]

(08-27-2015 12:54 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:20 PM)Grodin Wrote:  

But above all, it's because if she wants to cheat she doesn't need a website. She already has one or more beta orbiter ready on the sidelines.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/back-plan-ha...way-305186

That article deserves its own conversation.

CH Commandment VII: Always keep 2 in the kitty

[Col. Tigh]

(08-27-2015 10:30 AM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  

*Women don't want casual sex from married beta men online.

You need to switch the stakes into something more female orientated than just casual sex to entice the hamster.

This. As a man who has sex with multiple married women, it is my experience that when married women cheat, they want an edgy, exciting man who pushes all their emotional buttons and stimulates their hamster-brains. To find these women is not hard, but it does involve a certain degree of risk, because they are wont to repudiate you at the first whiff of discovery. Nonetheless I can say confidently that when married women cheat, what they are NOT looking for is a man who reminds them of their unexciting, overly-emotionally-available, beta-provider schlub of a husband. Quite the opposite.