HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ashley Madison Demographi...

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:42 PM

 

Ashley Madison Demographics: Gender 1 made up 13.9% of users and Gender 2 was 86.1%.

Gender was very skewed, though the database only identified users as either belonging to Gender 1 and Gender 2. Gender 1 made up 13.9% of users and Gender 2 was 86.1%.

"I'm no genius, but I would say I am pretty sure gender 2 is male," Jonsson said in her analysis,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/08/20/ashley-madison-database-hack-cheating-vatican/32052195/

16 replies, 1962 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ashley Madison Demographics: Gender 1 made up 13.9% of users and Gender 2 was 86.1%. (Original post)
Liberal_in_LA Aug 2015 OP
LittleBlue Aug 2015 #1
Liberal_in_LA Aug 2015 #2
Sen. Walter Sobchak Aug 2015 #3
Liberal_in_LA Aug 2015 #4
herding cats Aug 2015 #5
bettyellen Aug 2015 #6
bettyellen Aug 2015 #7
Sen. Walter Sobchak Aug 2015 #8
bettyellen Aug 2015 #12
Sen. Walter Sobchak Aug 2015 #13
bettyellen Aug 2015 #14
Sen. Walter Sobchak Aug 2015 #16
lame54 Aug 2015 #9
JI7 Aug 2015 #10
bettyellen Aug 2015 #11
JI7 Aug 2015 #15

Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:44 PM

1. Yeah lol that gender 2 looks male

 

86% though ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:46 PM

2. ..

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:46 PM

3. Lets shake it down further, how many of Gender 1 are prostitutes?

 

Something tells me the horny housewife representation is probably under 0.1%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:59 PM

4. not prostitutes but Ashley Madison created fake female profiles.. that's what the hackers are saying

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:04 PM

5. There was a woman in Canada who sued AM for damages related to creating fake accounts for them

She claimed she was injured (her hands) due to a contract she'd accepted with them to create 20K fake female accounts in Portuguese. Let me look and see if I can find something on it real quick.

Found it! It was only 1,000 accounts, but she sued for $20 million!

Ashley Madison Lawsuit: Woman Damaged Wrists Writing 'Fake Female Profiles

Which still seems to imply they were hiring out the creation of fake female profiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:08 PM

6. I wonder if the 13 % is how many profiles- or how many paying customers with credit cards?

 

But yeah, I am sure there were lots of fake profiles, LOL. I'm sure they felt cheating the cheaters was only fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:08 PM

7. stay classy, Walter.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:12 PM

8. Huh?

 

Is the suggestion that the sex trade might be highly represented in an online service for men looking to cheat on their wives scandalous to you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11616901/Prostitute-pleads-guilty-in-Google-executive-heroin-overdose-death-on-yacht.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:09 PM

12. I think you are thinking of other sites where that is more common whether

 

by the day or long term sugar daddy affairs- because those lay out expectations of compensation up front and would more commonly have prostitution of sugar daddy arrangements. But, if you're going to see whores everywhere you turn, i can't stop you.
Ultimately, it seems most of these women do not even exist except as clickbait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 04:47 PM

13. I doubt there are terribly rigid boundaries here

 

And while I probably don't know anyone who would fess up to participating here, I do know men who conversed with women on dating sites who did turn out to be prostitutes trying to drum up business.

I stand by my guesstimate that the number of living, breathing women seeking affairs on this type of site is probably imperceptibly low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 05:08 PM

14. nope, it's a totally different animal. I understand your confusion because the model you're thinking

 

pretty much dominates the whole market. Escorts and Sugar Daddy sites. But AM was for suckers who thought they wouldn't have to pay because they found horny housewives who valued discretion as much as they did. The novelty of that was why it had gotten so much press. You're right the percentage of real women on there was almost nil. I'm sure women like that do not need to go online- where shit is always 10X creepier than real life.

What they got instead of women was bots replying to their emails, draining their credits, stringing them along and trying to upsell them to other sites (for more crazy expensive video chats) the AM company owns. Most reviewers report never getting more than short little stock replies from the "women". A few admit it took a full year to meet one or two women. It seems like what they were selling was an illusion that you wouldn't have to "pay for it". I guess that illusion must be very appealing ego wise- or wallet wise? What a perfect scam- what are the chances any of these guys will do anything about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 21, 2015, 12:48 AM

16. Confusiuon?

 

If there are any living breathing women participating in this freak show, what is implausible about the possibility that some or even a significant number might be prostitutes?

As I said, I know men who discovered the women they were communicating with on legitimate and mainstream dating sites were prostitutes looking for business, this is a service explicitly for men looking to cheat on their wives. Well that, that is clearly impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:14 PM

9. gender 1 was...

Busy busy busy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:18 PM

10. at first i thought this was like most dating sites

But reading from the Josh duggar thing they pay for hookups or something but it mostly gives access to other profiles which are mostly fake and taken from porn sites.

And it's not something most people would dispute if they are unable to actually meet someone in person.

And I wondered what the point was. Why not just go to some bar or club and find someone for one night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 03:50 PM

11. It's actually a pretty slick scam- you pay credits for every email you read, and again, everyone you

 

reply to. I was reading some reviews, and men discovered that they were getting emails from profiles who hadn't even looked at their profiles at all. And that the same names were always "on line" and would give generic replies and then disappear when you responded to them. And that as soon as their credits were low, a new flock of emails would suddenly appear- to waste more of your credits. Most women who wanted to "take it further" would ask them to video chat on other pay sites - that AM owns- and never agree to FaceTime. Way to string people along! From two reports I read that didn't complain about it, it seemed they hooked up with 1-2 women over the course of a year. Ouch- that had to be expensive and time consuming.

Peppered in the reviews seem to be a lot of fake women saying how fabulous it is, and how they are so sorry they are flooded with replies that they don't have time to respond to all of them, ha ha.
It is a pretty funny scam, given that the victims are not likely to file lawsuits or whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 20, 2015, 11:34 PM

15. that sounds obviously like a scam to me

they probably think they are getting some higher level of secrecy by paying more.

but this makes sense with how they are always trying to make the news with doing things like endorsing gingrich. and how their name is more well known than many other sites.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread