5 ms·

I'm amazed at how few women there are on AM. I knew there wouldn't be many, but the numbers seem to be ridiculously low.

by drpgq 11y ago

Killswitch 11y ago
Let me tell you this, I worked in the adult industry and I absolutely despised working with dating sites. Ashley Madison, Adult Friend Finder, etc because of this issue. They employed hundreds of staff who's main job was to pretend to be interested women messaging non-paying members enticing them to upgrade their free memberships to be able to respond back or what-have-you-not and then once the customer was paying, they stopped and moved onto the next. That's shady business no matter what you think. I personally have zero empathy for Ashley Madison and for what's happening to them. Edit:// Adult Friend Finder actually pays an absurdly higher payout for referrals whom happen to be women, because they don't get many women signing up.
- wmeredith 11y ago
  How is this not considered fraud?
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Proving it would require the cooperation of witnesses and aggrieved parties who would be publicly embarrassed if they were to provide testimony. So it's usually safer to cheat someone if you can do so in a manner that would also humiliate them if their role in the con was exposed. They discount what they lost by the price of their own dignity and reputation.
    - reagency 11y ago
      That is true, but the world is big and there are people who (1) wouldn't be ashamed, (2) could do it as an intentional investigation. And the crooks can't detect those people in advance.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > How is this not considered fraud? It's in the fine print usually that some accounts are there for "entertainment purposes". I think it would be naive to not suspect these sites of having a very skewed male subscribership in addition to using chat bots or paid people to engage customers.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Placing some text in tiny print does not absolve you of fraud. It may actually be evidence of fraud.
      - Alupis 11y ago
        > Placing some text in tiny print does not absolve you of fraud. It may actually be evidence of fraud. You agree to the terms and conditions upon account creation, even if you don't read them. A person's ignorance and naivety is not evidence of fraud.
        byset 11y ago
        The T&C did not say or imply that ~100% of the womens' accounts were fake. Plus you can't rely on fine print in the T&C to absolve you of engaging in a fraudulent business relationship, that's not how contracts are enforced.
        Alupis 11y ago
        > The T&C did not say or imply that ~100% of the womens' accounts were fake. Nor did the T&C say or imply that any percent of the account will be genuine, or that there would be plenty of male and female accounts. The customers paid for the ability to read messages sent to them by anyone (employee, bot or real person), nothing more. Assuming something when you've been explicitly told otherwise but chose to ignore it does not equate to fraud. A person's naivety and ignorance don't equate to being defrauded.
        11y ago
  - adevine 11y ago
    Note the Ashley Madison wiki page says that these BS accounts are actually presented in the terms and conditions. I'm kind of impressed with the hutzpah of even giving these fake accounts the name "Ashley's Angels": Several aspects of Ashley Madison are described in the Terms and Conditions as "For Your Entertainment."[19] This included Ashley's Angels, a feature that generated fictitious profiles to simulate communication with real members and perform market research. According to the site, Ashley's Angels accounts "are NOT conspicuously identified as such."[20] Ashley's Angels profiles were limited to messaging only guest accounts and users could opt out of the feature via their profile management page. Users were charged the standard rate to read messages from and chat with these fictitious profiles.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      Actually, I can sort of accept that. I'm sure people would be upset to find they were chatting with a fictitious account, but I'm also sure AM made the chats entertaining and flattering. The question is whether they actively lead the men to believe there was a real chance of a hookup, and how much leading is bad and how much is normal and how a flirtatious women would act? I guess AM would actually have stats on that based on real female profiles.
      - byset 11y ago
        The highest paid tier, for $249, includes an "Affair Guarantee." You could still claim that even so, men are just paying for a fantasy, but at those prices, and with the supposed "guarantee," they seem to venturing into fraud territory.
        anaptdemise 11y ago
        This is the study of human nature in all this that I find most amusing. For $249, there are much more straight forward and guaranteed ways to have an affair. Even if affair is not insinuating sex, which I'm pretty sure most guys would assume, how is this not paying for sex in their mind? One would also assume the few real women are most likely prostitutes/escorts anyways.
kbenson 11y ago
I think the social and cultural dynamic in most western countries means that women who want extramarital affairs have an easier time finding men than vice-versa.
emidln 11y ago
It's easier to fake users than to attract real users.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
Well in general an imbalance in dating websites exists. It's not because women aren't as interested in dating but because I'd think women have an easier time hooking up than men. If a woman wants to meet men all she has to do is visit a pub and you've got the attention of 5 outgoing, more chatty than usual men for every 1 woman. The opposite probably isn't quite as true. The 5:1 ratio surely exists the other way around but a yoga class isn't exactly a place to hook up and most would be really bothered by an advance at a yoga class. So unless you happen to have a certain social circle, as a man you'd be more desperate to try to meet women online than a woman, who has various opportunities to meet men in the real world. But then AM adds a whole extra layer ontop, which is marketed for affairs. And there I feel the disposition towards cheating also differs between sexes. At least, intentional, planned cheating. i.e. woman probably cheat just as often, but it's probably very much a male thing to register on a website specific for dating guys who cheat (and being comfortable then, with the notion that whoever you're meeting is also a cheater), pay a whole load of money for this, and then hook up with guys you know are cheating on their wives. Whereas a man who's looking to cheat probably doesn't care much that the woman he's hooking up with is cheating on her husband. There's this whole layer of 'family wrecking' and notions about sex that men and women probably, on average, think differently about. Most women who are comfortable with such relationships are probably part of a swinger couple anyway which isn't cheating and not part of AM's market. The combination of the two is such that you get ridiculous ratios. But yeah even I was surprised to hear it was apparently something like 1:2000 right? That's just hilariously pathetic if you think about it.

I'm amazed at how few women there are on AM. I knew there wouldn't be many, but the numbers seem to be ridiculously low.

by drpgq 11y ago

I'm amazed at how few women there are on AM. I knew there wouldn't be many, but the numbers seem to be ridiculously low.

Killswitch 11y ago

Let me tell you this, I worked in the adult industry and I absolutely despised working with dating sites. Ashley Madison, Adult Friend Finder, etc because of this issue. They employed hundreds of staff who's main job was to pretend to be interested women messaging non-paying members enticing them to upgrade their free memberships to be able to respond back or what-have-you-not and then once the customer was paying, they stopped and moved onto the next. That's shady business no matter what you think. I personally have zero empathy for Ashley Madison and for what's happening to them. Edit:// Adult Friend Finder actually pays an absurdly higher payout for referrals whom happen to be women, because they don't get many women signing up.

wmeredith 11y ago
How is this not considered fraud?
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Proving it would require the cooperation of witnesses and aggrieved parties who would be publicly embarrassed if they were to provide testimony. So it's usually safer to cheat someone if you can do so in a manner that would also humiliate them if their role in the con was exposed. They discount what they lost by the price of their own dignity and reputation.
  - reagency 11y ago
    That is true, but the world is big and there are people who (1) wouldn't be ashamed, (2) could do it as an intentional investigation. And the crooks can't detect those people in advance.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > How is this not considered fraud? It's in the fine print usually that some accounts are there for "entertainment purposes". I think it would be naive to not suspect these sites of having a very skewed male subscribership in addition to using chat bots or paid people to engage customers.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Placing some text in tiny print does not absolve you of fraud. It may actually be evidence of fraud.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      > Placing some text in tiny print does not absolve you of fraud. It may actually be evidence of fraud. You agree to the terms and conditions upon account creation, even if you don't read them. A person's ignorance and naivety is not evidence of fraud.
      - byset 11y ago
        The T&C did not say or imply that ~100% of the womens' accounts were fake. Plus you can't rely on fine print in the T&C to absolve you of engaging in a fraudulent business relationship, that's not how contracts are enforced.
        Alupis 11y ago
        > The T&C did not say or imply that ~100% of the womens' accounts were fake. Nor did the T&C say or imply that any percent of the account will be genuine, or that there would be plenty of male and female accounts. The customers paid for the ability to read messages sent to them by anyone (employee, bot or real person), nothing more. Assuming something when you've been explicitly told otherwise but chose to ignore it does not equate to fraud. A person's naivety and ignorance don't equate to being defrauded.
        11y ago
- adevine 11y ago
  Note the Ashley Madison wiki page says that these BS accounts are actually presented in the terms and conditions. I'm kind of impressed with the hutzpah of even giving these fake accounts the name "Ashley's Angels": Several aspects of Ashley Madison are described in the Terms and Conditions as "For Your Entertainment."[19] This included Ashley's Angels, a feature that generated fictitious profiles to simulate communication with real members and perform market research. According to the site, Ashley's Angels accounts "are NOT conspicuously identified as such."[20] Ashley's Angels profiles were limited to messaging only guest accounts and users could opt out of the feature via their profile management page. Users were charged the standard rate to read messages from and chat with these fictitious profiles.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Actually, I can sort of accept that. I'm sure people would be upset to find they were chatting with a fictitious account, but I'm also sure AM made the chats entertaining and flattering. The question is whether they actively lead the men to believe there was a real chance of a hookup, and how much leading is bad and how much is normal and how a flirtatious women would act? I guess AM would actually have stats on that based on real female profiles.
    - byset 11y ago
      The highest paid tier, for $249, includes an "Affair Guarantee." You could still claim that even so, men are just paying for a fantasy, but at those prices, and with the supposed "guarantee," they seem to venturing into fraud territory.
      - anaptdemise 11y ago
        This is the study of human nature in all this that I find most amusing. For $249, there are much more straight forward and guaranteed ways to have an affair. Even if affair is not insinuating sex, which I'm pretty sure most guys would assume, how is this not paying for sex in their mind? One would also assume the few real women are most likely prostitutes/escorts anyways.

kbenson 11y ago

I think the social and cultural dynamic in most western countries means that women who want extramarital affairs have an easier time finding men than vice-versa.

emidln 11y ago

It's easier to fake users than to attract real users.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

Well in general an imbalance in dating websites exists. It's not because women aren't as interested in dating but because I'd think women have an easier time hooking up than men. If a woman wants to meet men all she has to do is visit a pub and you've got the attention of 5 outgoing, more chatty than usual men for every 1 woman. The opposite probably isn't quite as true. The 5:1 ratio surely exists the other way around but a yoga class isn't exactly a place to hook up and most would be really bothered by an advance at a yoga class. So unless you happen to have a certain social circle, as a man you'd be more desperate to try to meet women online than a woman, who has various opportunities to meet men in the real world. But then AM adds a whole extra layer ontop, which is marketed for affairs. And there I feel the disposition towards cheating also differs between sexes. At least, intentional, planned cheating. i.e. woman probably cheat just as often, but it's probably very much a male thing to register on a website specific for dating guys who cheat (and being comfortable then, with the notion that whoever you're meeting is also a cheater), pay a whole load of money for this, and then hook up with guys you know are cheating on their wives. Whereas a man who's looking to cheat probably doesn't care much that the woman he's hooking up with is cheating on her husband. There's this whole layer of 'family wrecking' and notions about sex that men and women probably, on average, think differently about. Most women who are comfortable with such relationships are probably part of a swinger couple anyway which isn't cheating and not part of AM's market. The combination of the two is such that you get ridiculous ratios. But yeah even I was surprised to hear it was apparently something like 1:2000 right? That's just hilariously pathetic if you think about it.