We’ve all heard the story by now: Ashley Madison, the website that claimed to help cheating spouses hook up with each other in complete discretion, was hacked. The hackers released a huge user data dump and it was revealed that 90-95% of AM’s actual users were male, and the remaining were mostly fake female profiles.
Ashley Madison was a scam. But anyone who has the least understanding of sex differences would not be so gullible to think that there are just as many married women interested in anonymous internet sexual liaisons as there are married men interested in the same. Apparently, there are so few married women willing to go online specifically to find an extramarital lover that Ashley Madison could barely crack the 1,000 men:1 real woman ratio.
This is not to say that married women aren’t infidelity risks. But when women, legally taken or otherwise, want to have an illicit affair, their preferred method of target acquisition is a logged-off, face-to-face whirlwind romance, not a lifeless keyboard hunt for a collaborator who will make her feel like the whore she’d rather forget about herself.
A reader writes,
Can hypergamy explain [Ashley Madison’s fake female profiles]? One way to interpret that is, “women have no qualms about leaving their husbands”.
That’s one reason. The dearth of live wives seeking extramarital affairs on Ashley Madison is a consequence of:
- the nature of women to prefer their seduction be veiled behind flirtatious feints and parries (as opposed to arid, conspicuous match-ups with equally debased men)
- the disposition of wives to simply leave their husbands when they want to start new romances (husbands — and single men in relationships — can better tolerate balancing illicit lovers with a wife or steady girlfriend, even over long periods of time).
- the fact that women are not as promiscuous as men.
These are the big three explanations for AM’s 95% man/4.9% fake woman ratio. A fourth explanation — that going online for the explicit purpose of finding a sex partner in crime — is too much for most women’s anti-slut defenses. I suspect the Ashley Madison creators knew this, and figured that the male urge for poosy variety is so strong they could get away with scamming millions of men with impunity. They were right.
One didn’t have to be married to join Ashley Madison. It wasn’t married-seeking-married; it was married-seeking-anybody else.
[CH: the explanations for the missing AM women are still valid for unmarrieds.]
LikeLike
it was anybody-seeking-nobody effectively. guys i think on the whole imagined attached and discreet married women waiting on the site, which are a great demographic to plow through, but they aren’t online.
they need their imagination sparked before they even begin to open up, they’re not going to sign up and wait for someone to reach out
as for the single girls, ashley madison had no benefit for them, those sluts gotta get PAID like on seekingarrangement or some other like that
so… no girls
LikeLike
It was nobody seeking nobody. If the number of female accounts were exaggerated, why would we believe the overall 37 million figure either? Cyberdata is easily multiplied.
A dose of appropriate skepticism:
http://jonathanlast.com/the-ashley-madison-hack/
It’s even less plausible than Last says, as the news of the fake female accounts had not broken yet. We are being asked to believe that of the 65 million married men in the U.S. under 55, well over half had an account on Ashley Madison. More men were on the site than weren’t. No.
Matt
LikeLike
I imagine single women would be even less likely to join the site than married ones. Although granted the married women hardly ever joined, the single ones have the extra factor of worrying about being left an alpha widow by an unavailable man.
LikeLike
In all likelihood this is not going to be a primary or substantial factor on such a site, in addition females go out with people who aren’t alpha all the time, and non-alphas can cheat for various reasons including their own undeveloped femininity. In any case, it seems unlikely for that to be the case for single females exclusively but not for married ones.
LikeLike
The link says nothing about 95% male/female ratios. The other source I saw was from gizmodo. (a part of gawker).
[CH:
“Keep in mind the site is a scam with thousands of fake female profiles. See ashley madison fake profile lawsuit; 90-95% of actual users are male. Chances are your man signed up on the world’s biggest affair site, but never had one. He just tried to. If that distinction matters.”
it’s not verified, but it’s a number drawn from the doxxed data dump.]
LikeLike
My bad.
LikeLike
The tone there comes across as slightly suspect, it might be that there could be a degree of exaggeration in one way or another. At a certain point AM was a bit like a social networking site, so on the one hand they would probably want some amount of fake male profiles in order to stimulate any actual interaction, and secondly they might have issues if interaction is merely or basically one-way if such interaction is possible. There’s a certain level on which such a surplus of fake female profiles denies one the ability to regulate the interaction going on on the site, and as such it might be complex to have the females come off as at all attractive when not real.
LikeLike
What about seeking arrangement? Is it probably a scam too?
LikeLike
i mentioned that above, but it’s totally different. seeking arrangement and others like whatsyourprice are young girls looking for money in exchange for as little as they can give up. guys are on there looking to pay as little as possible to extract sex. i’m sure there are scammers all over the sites but at least the basic setup makes some sense, girls love money and guys love girls. and i have seen girls in real life from the sites that my buddy paid. young single mom city but also some hotties.
LikeLike
Makes sense.
So SA is like a prostitution site?
LikeLike
I’ve used sugar daddy sites a lot, without paying and with a lot of success (although recently stopped because I want to focus on other aspects of my Game).
The male/female ratio is fantastic for guys and the girls are generally young and hot. But of course, most of them are gold diggers.
There’s a whole range from outright prostitutes quoting hourly rates to younger women who find older men attractive but figure they may as well get paid to date guys they’d have dated anyway, to girls who do not want any money but just want to date a successful guy.
It’s perfectly possible to filter out girls who want cash and bang girls without paying. There is some work involved, but given that the sex ratio is in your favour, it’s no harder than chasing girls on OKC or POF (you just focus your energy on filtering, where on other sites you will be messaging more girls just to get replies)
LikeLike
Gold diggers, I’ve found, are as unable to conceal their venality as betas are to conceal their thirstiness. They all chant the same hackneyed phrases almost robotically (finer things in life, travel, dining, etc). Likewise go to a BDSM site and every one of them says “show me the ropes” (and clearly chortling at their own wittiness).
LikeLike
Prostitute/John is the most honest and natural relationship a man and a woman can have. Wife/husband is merely a more sophisticated “version 2.0” of this.
LikeLike
Prostitute-John is merely the most basic relationship model. Marriage is a much richer experience and the sex is usually far better. Most hookers don’t put a lot of effort into the trade unless you pay for it. A married man with hand has a much better deal if he has a good wife. I say this as a man who likes hookers and has no issues about them in general.
LikeLike
There’s a certain level at which girls do have feelings. ‘Obviously’ the most organic relationship a girl could have would be with a nice guy. Is that the usual accepted wisdom around here.
LikeLike
There is currently online dot connection taking place along the lines of that the A M and the Clinton hack all tie in to the dead MI6 guy in the bag thing. It seems the spook while on secondment to the NSA may have handed over some kind of Clinton Event guest list that was not supposed to be savvy over to another agent. The Ashley Maddison hack makes me think or the old tradesman adage; The sweet taste of a low price(low personal investment in getting cheap sex) fades much more quickly than the bitter taste of poor workmanship(consequences to the non-alpha trying to get consequence free pussy without bothering to learn Game and the mechanics of the sexual market).
LikeLike
What is sad about this whole AM data dump is how many stupid men there still are out there….95% male???…and then a whole shit load of fake female accounts….the fucking Jew who started this site should be punched the fuck out. Cocksucking JEW!!!
It is sad how fucking embarrassing and blue pill so may men still are in this day and age.
Millions of men chasing 17 fat married chicks who hate their lives…what a joke!
LikeLike
You can’t just slap “blue pill” on anything you don’t like.
LikeLike
[…] By CH […]
LikeLike
The website marketed itself with adds featuring hot young women. Takes more emotional effort to catfish a woman.
LikeLike
I am shocked, shocked, that the site was created by a member of the Tribe! They have such strong family values due to their religion, every cuckservative will tell you.
Anyway. Let’s not get all holier-than-thou about the 31 million men who have at one point or another signed up at Ashley Madison. First, if you look at the site you don’t have to be in a relationship to sign up. Second, many – perhaps most – probably just sign up for the thrill of it. To have a look around, and maybe to flirt but not do more.
Third, if you know anything about life you know it can’t be explained by the tut-tuting finger wagging found in an advise column in a women’s magazine, or by a celibate professional religionist. Life is long. Many relationships suck. Many find themselves stuck in a situation they don’t want to be in but can’t get out of because years have passed and they have kids and homes and cars and bills and social circles together. If you hear of a man who had an affair, you don’t know anything about his home situation. We have commenters at the Chateau who have wives, and who still look for something else – who are you to say you know they are wrong in doing so? Only they know their own lives.
Third, many who flirt, or date, or have an affair while in a relationship, do so as the first step to get out of the relationship. Sometimes that is what you need, the knowledge that you can indeed find someone else.
As for why there mostly men and so few women signed up for the site, I thought the answer was pretty obvious: it’s a huge risk where you put your picture online while in a relationship, and men are far bigger risk takers than women.
LikeLike
The 37 million figure is as exaggerated as the number of women they also originally claimed, you egregious jew-directed atheist polack.
LikeLike
LOL What an idiot this Matt King/King Matt/Matt K/King/Matt/whatever is. “Polack”? Why would I be from Poland, idiot? Let’s hear it. This will be interesting I’m sure.
Nope, the number, 31 million men, comes from the paying accounts. Too bad your IQ is so low and you are so lazy that you can’t follow a simple news story that has been everywhere lately. But we shouldn’t be surprised.
“jew-directed”? This comes from the guy who says CH is a “metrosexual” “faggot” and whatever for – get this – basing his blog posts on verifiable facts instead of “the gospel”. (LOL) Matty is anti-manosphere, that much is clear. He is just here to babble about his religious fantasies, he has nothing else.
That, and he worships the neocons and their wars. The neocons are Jews. Their wars are against the Jews’ targets in the Middle East. And Matty masturbates while watching those wars on his teevee, in between watching niggerball. This Jew lackey calls me “jew-directed”? That’s hilarious. Let’s hear him defend the wars for Israel one more time.
LikeLike
First, if you look at the site you don’t have to be in a relationship to sign up.
True. A large number were probably single betas who’ve noticed that married women seem to be more aggressive and flirty with them than single ones, so they figure it might be a good place to get easy sex.
LikeLike
So, Arbiter composes and posts a thoughtful, well-worded comment, and somebody called King tries shooting it down using some shockingly ugly language. Classy.
Arbiter, I like your helpful comments. If you have a blog, I’d read it.
Actually, there’s still a vacancy on Twitter if you’d consider…
LikeLike
There’s a bit of history between the two…
King, if that’s the true Matt King, was just returning the favor, I imagine, in one of his more irascible moments.
LikeLike
Bit of a coincidence but, last week, got pointed in the direction of yet another dating site by a mate. He knows the girl behind it. Russian living in… let’s just say an EU country. Site’s targeting ex-pats.
And he’s answered the question’s always fascinated me. How do you start up a dating site? You can’t have a dating site with only one person on it, can you? So where do you get the profiles to kick it off?
Well you could just invent them. (Didn’t the guy started AM do this?)
But, apparently, you can also buy a “white label” site. It’s a set of profiles with all the site ID stripped off. but doesn’t contain any direct links to the users. You incorporate these into you’re new site, as your own users. Then, if one of your users wants to contact them, the contact routes through the donor site & you split the contact charge, whatever, with them.
LikeLike
It is possible that the severity of the male/female imbalance was exaggerated to fit the agenda of the hackers. See comments by Mr Falcon at this link-
http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944
The other nugget in this story that merits mention is that some coverage of the hack suggest that the hackers were vengeful ex-users of the site, and wanted to expose it as a sham filled with fake female profiles. If true, this would be an epic case of bitter betas throwing thousands of other betas under the bus in a fit of rage.
LikeLike
Noel Biderman, the CEO of Avid Life Media, the parent company of extra-marital affairs site Ashley Madison, is stepping down, the company announced on Friday. He is no longer with the company.
LikeLike
Ashley Madison; brought to you by the same tribe that sold you the moon landing.
[CH: hoo boy.]
LikeLike
“Sold you the moon landing”? Why, yes, my parents and grandparents “bought” the moon landing with all those taxes they paid back in the ’60s. Some of the best money ever spent.
What is that money being spent on in these days of Title IX, EBT, and bank bailouts, where the kind of inspiration that landing on the moon generates can no longer be had at any price?
LikeLike
I have a different take on the Ashley Madison debacle. Its possible that it was a giant Zio / Eskimo “honey pot” operation setup for the purpose of blackmail at some later point. Its also plausible that it was taken down by a counter-intelligence group, and not some hacker group.
LikeLike
You have an interesting point.
LikeLike
As a blackmail database, Ashley Madison could have been very dangerous.
[CH: when men are thinking with their dicks, risk assessment goes out the window.]
LikeLike
Especially for married beta males. Married alphas and single men (especially if they’re alpha too) probably don’t have as much to worry about.
LikeLike
Which is also a great excuse. I set these things up just to create dread game. I never use them. I have a couple of whore houses on my favorites list too, just to keep the wife on her toes.
LikeLike
[CH: when men are thinking with their dicks, risk assessment goes out the window.]
Too Effing True.
And anyone who didn’t see Ashley Madison as a scam from the get go was a fool, as well as horny.
LikeLike
I always thought it was kind of funny that Ashley Madison seemed to be a sponsor of the Sean Hannity Show.
LikeLike
Married women hit Tinder.
LikeLike
>>Married women hit Tinder.
And you found that out how?
LikeLike
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3070746/A-people-hookup-app-Tinder-married-WOMEN-likely-cheat.html
LikeLike
So the jew said there was 6 000 000 women on his website where in fact there was only 4000, and these 4000 were professional liars ?
Damn it really makes you wonder about the veracity of some historical events.
LikeLike
Okay, I LOLed.
LikeLike
Touche’
LikeLike
[…] Source: Heartiste […]
LikeLike
Met a married girl, 27 at a party a few weeks back. I gamed her, invited her for drinks. We met, I escalated, invited her back and banged her all night long. She was up for everything. The next morning she took a shower and I walked her to a taxi. We chatted a bit after that. She flaked on me for drinks. I saw her at the next party a week or so later. I could sense she was feeling guilty and not giving off IOI’s. I ignored her and she left early.
Point here is that she had very specific needs that she wanted addressed and that was basically it. Seemed quite opportunistic on her part. She was waiting for the right guy to come along and take her. Now her hamster is spinning when she sees me and her body and mind are in conflict.
It taught me or solidified for me that women who give IOI’s want to be gamed. I went to another party this weekend and there was a girl I had gamed before weeks prior and hadn’t seen. She picked up right where she left off.
Women don’t “Forget”….if they’re not giving IOI’s it’s because some other dude is on their minds.
[CH: it could be because some other dude is on their minds, or they had the guy slotted as a one time fun time and didn’t want to risk leaving him with the impression that they wanted a relationship. it happens. not often, though. my girls aren’t that mercenary about their cock carouseling.]
LikeLike
@CH good insight. I hadn’t seen this prospect of “didn’t want to risk leaving him with the impression that they wanted a relationship”. Doesn’t happen often. Usually the girl is texting manically after a night like that. Here she’s a bit …aloof. I didn’t care since I’d banged her, not like I’m going to keep chasing her after that. But every so often something happens that is unusual.
LikeLike
“I could sense she was feeling guilty and not giving off IOI’s. ”
She was probably looking/hoping for you to engage/chase her Wala and give her validation. Seems to be a pattern in social circle game – strong IOI’s/attraction, acted upon – then followed by withdrawal…
Of course if you had chased, then you get BB slotted. When in doubt – ignore, move on always a good choice, right?
LikeLike
@Sentient I think ignoring can’t ever hurt. The girl will always make a move if she’s attracted. This is the dilemma. How much interest do you show? I think you have to demonstrate interest or a response. If that’s unmet, then ignore. They always come back at some point.
LikeLike
It seems to be at the point where you have to ignore them. If they so much as sense, rightly or wrongly, that you’re more invested than they are, the game’s over.
LikeLike
Very few gender realists are surprised that there are more men who want to commit adultery than women who want to do the same. But I thought it was going to be like 60-40, or 70-30. What surprises even people who acknowledge gender differences is the *magnitude* of the difference. But now we all know what is really going on.
LikeLike
Adultry is a secret society thing as much as anything else. Hot wives who want to cheat usually do it randomly and pick the man up by making themselves available and the usual IOIs. They need AM as much as Craig’s List.
LikeLike
Considering the humiliation (& apparently a couple suicides) wrought by revealing the customer lists, it boggles the mind that 99%+ of the male customers probably got nothing more than some contrived email replies from those managing the fake female profiles…
LikeLike
It’s only humiliating if you let it be.
LikeLike
Maybe it was the New York mag article on it but I recall a recent report that the real women looking for fast ‘n’ bulbous action just used Tinder. Which makes sense, Tinder is much faster, less clunky. Consistent with the maxim that any (reasonably presentable) woman who wants action from a man can get it, no problem, in a jiffy, so long as she’s not too picky.
LikeLike
I could have sworn, some threads/months ago, that the big-time Lotharios at the chateau were quoting the existence of an Ashley Madison as proof-positive that pretty much all women were untrustworthy sluts merely looking for the tingles.
I believe I, for the sake of debate, took the opposite view.
You know who you are, self-styled Lochinvars of the Boudoir… I’ll be awaiting my owed apologies with the usual modicum of told-ya-so relish.
LikeLike
just read this after submitting – see my comments below. AM is (or at least was) a quality source of “love” at one point. admittedly its slim out there now, all this nonsense has scared off the few real profiles left on there…
LikeLike
An aspect of Ashley Madison story I’ve found interesting is how sympathetic the MSM and the police spokesmen were to the ((((((woeful proprietor)))))).
First we have a website that, on the face of it, made no bones about openly promoting marital infidelity for profit (we’ll always have adultery, but having to work at in real life was always a better way). Then it turns out to be just a scam, but one that nervertheless promoted social corrosion. Then, people representing power in our society – big media, big law – tell us how serious the hack was, portraying the company as ((((((victim)))))). This last is particularly interesting in light of the blackmail issue raised here.
Now the ((((((woeful proprietor)))))) has resigned.
Jews all the way down.
LikeLike
this dismissiveness of AM as a “scam” is really ridiculous. I jumped on AM a few years ago to see what it was about, and to tinker w my “online Game.” in short – i had an awesome experience. in fact several times i’ve kicked around the idea of doing some sort of blog or write-up on it. it would be a brilliant, massive shiv to all the white knights out there who are under the illusion that their sweet little wife/girlfriend would NEVER find herself in a cheap hotel shower, on her knees frantically attempting to coax the jizz out of some exciting stranger’s dick (for the 3rd time in 90 minutes). true story, BTW.
in any case, i met literally dozens of broads on there over the course of about 4 years. i’ll be honest – none were 10s, but all were solid 7-8s. many of them were your typical cute soccer mom who was dying to get into all sorts of depraved recreational activities with a dude man enough to bend them over, yank on a fistful of their hair, and pound them like the whores that they fantasized themselves to be. don’t underestimate how many of these there are out there – it got to the point where i wondered if ANY women out there are truly “sweet” anymore.
there were obviously fakes – alot of them – but if you weren’t a retard and could spot the fakes by the broken english, photo stock pics, etc. you could clean up. you also needed tight “online Game” – an alpha tone to your messages and solid pics to share.
the data doesn’t tell the whole story, because – again, if you weren’t a retard – there was no danger. only a fucking moron would use their real email address, and “credits” could be bought with gift cards from major brands that couldn’t be traced. which makes me wonder about the validity of the data that’s been “leaked.” AM is like any bar or club or college campus – initially inviting with the promise of tons of quality ass for all, but soon its realized that there is a small subgroup having a great time while the majority of the others mutter “this place sucks – i thought you said there were chicks here?!”
LikeLike
Not sure I believe that ratio. I was on there, paid a bunch under different accounts and meet many real women.
LikeLike
I took at look at Ashley Madison in 2008, and went so far as to create a user ID and password. When I discovered that the site wanted a hefty fee, I realized immediately that it was a scam. And, I’m single (actually widowed) and have no reason to apologize for trying the site out. I refused to put down my credit card, but my info is still there in the dB. So, there are some false positives in the dB.
LikeLike