RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison

RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

tj444 -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/14/2015 1:57:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Honestly, y'all want the FTC to investigate a website for being sleazy and lying to men that are being sleazy and lying (to their wives/gfs).. omg... [8\|] Imo, the dudes got no cause to complain.. That's an interesting point, that I had not considered prior, so, thanks for bringing it up. If a guy is cheating on his wife by going to a pimp, and then, the pimp cheats the guy by showing him his "ladies" who don't really exist, and, if the guy falls for the ruse, and pays the pimp, does the guy have a right to have that pimp arrested for fraud? Fraud, as we all know from college business-law, requires all five elements to exist. quote: 1. The fraud must have been committed by a party to the contract or with his connivance or by his agent. fraud by a stranger to contract does not affect its validity. 2. There must be anyone of the above mentioned in last post in act of fraud. 3. The act of fraud must have been committed with the intent to deceive and must actually deceive. A deceit which does not deceive is not fraud. No cause of action arises where there is fraud without damage or damage without fraud. An action lies where these two occur together. 4. The representation must have been aimed at the other party ti contract or his agent or with a view to induce the other party to enter into the contract, Such representation must have been made before the conclusion of the contract. 5. The other party must have suffered a loss. If all five exist, it's fraud. If one or more is missing, it's not fraud. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 as far as the website being hacked/hackable.. just look at all the other hacks, even the govt/IRS has been hacked! it really becomes a case of who hasnt been hacked (YET).. Yeah, but this hack allowed us to ANALYZE the data dump, which is a boon because we finally have at least one set of reasonably reliable Male:Female ratio data points. yeah.. about that.. seriously?.. what sleazy, cheatin' dude in his right mind is gonna go public (with a lawsuit or fraud charges) on this, huh???? You dont think his wife/gf/relatives/boss/friends are gonna find out? [:D] How many people really care about analyzing the data dump?.. Most would be wanting to know if their name, CC, address, etc is out on the net for everyone (including the wifey/gf/relatives/boss/friends) to see? [&:] But you go ahead and analyze all you want.. what difference in this huge universe does it make? maybe it makes some of those dudes that couldnt get laid for love nor money something else to blame! [:D]

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/14/2015 2:59:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 How many people really care about analyzing the data dump?.. Wasn't the male:female ratio the point of this thread? quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Most would be wanting to know if their name, CC, address, etc is out on the net for everyone (including the wifey/gf/relatives/boss/friends) to see? oh. Yes. Sure. I'm not on AM, but, if it were Collarspace, I'd be worried about personally identifiable information floating around the net for a boss or a neighbor or a relative to see. Normally, as the old adage goes (I forget the exact words), if you see a boss/neighbor/relative in a kink situation (e.g., at a dungeon party), the old adage is both that they're there too, and that what happens there, stays there. However, when you open your personal proclivities for inspection by the entire universe, well then, that starts to get a bit embarrassing. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 But you go ahead and analyze all you want.. what difference in this huge universe does it make? Um. Did you ever notice what the subject line of the thread you are posting to is titled? And, did you notice that it was created, in context, given that there was a similar thread on the male:female ratios on Collarspace? Or, did you miss all of that (whoooosh!). Now, there's nothing wrong with tangents, but, what you're posting to is a thread that you're saying you don't care to post to. I guess that makes sense to you (in as much as anything else you said does) - but - I think the only reason we have these other tangents is that we've exhausted what there is to glean from the AM numbers. quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 maybe it makes some of those dudes that couldnt get laid for love nor money something else to blame! I don't generally look up profiles, so, I don't know if you claim to be a man or a woman, but, in general, it's only women who throw that lame taunt around (as men at least are clever enough to come up with taunts that have some effect behind them). There's this assumption going around, but only by the women folk, that any "dude" who discusses anything, is actually "blaming", instead of discerning. You don't seem to know the difference. Look up some words before you next post, so that you won't come across as the same as all the rest. What you just implied, which, if I infer correctly, that simply discussing the topic at hand (namely the male:female ratio on AM), is, of all things, a substitute for "blame for not getting laid". Your logical thought process, isn't.

longwayhome -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/14/2015 6:45:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets While you're tossing about all these childish personal insults, why don't you stop for a moment, and simply engage a few long-dormant neurons, deep inside your cerebral cortex, to add VALUE to the conversation, like longwayhome just did? quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady Consider it a backhanded compliment that he sees you as a rival and feels threatened by the competition.[/color] Heh heh heh ... more personal insults from you - so - clearly YOU will never be a rival. I give longwayhome the benefit of the doubt because he UNDERSTOOD exactly where I was coming from, and, like a man, he admitted that he understood. Oh dear. I think the subtleties of what I said some posts ago may have been completely missed. It is true, I think I do understand where crumpets is coming from, however understanding it and "feeling" it are two different things. In other words I profoundly disagree. What I see here on this thread are some thoughtful contributions from people with different views, some of which I agree with and some I do not. Many of them have given me pause for thought. I also see most participants engaging in a positive spirit sharing their experiences and what they felt about them and learned from them. What I've just said may be so much motherhood and apple pie, but it is so different from one participant's constant barracking about other people's IQ, and then misquoting or quoting out of context to make tendentious or personally undermining comments. My attempt to remain studiedly good-natured is not internet naivety. It's just the way I try (and sometimes fail) to do things. I am all too often over-insistent and opinionated. I also sometimes get the wrong end of the stick (profound apologies to Wayward5oul for waving my stick around in the first place!). quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome Oh and crumpets, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I really appreciate it. I don't know whether to assume that you missed the lack of sincerity in that comment, crumpets, or found it served your purpose better to ignore it. It certainly fell favourably in your attempt to portray me as a lesser male member of your camp who had just admitted to your masculine superiority while you crafted your attack on dreamlady. I really shouldn't have strayed into sarcasm. It's never that attractive (although sometimes quite funny and/or psychologically satisfying) and whether you missed it or misused it, it clearly didn't communicate the right message. Anyway crumpets, would the ability to be self-critical and show humility once in a while not be admirable human traits, let alone valuable qualities for someone professing to be a submissive?

Wayward5oul -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/14/2015 8:32:24 PM)
From earlier in this thread... quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets The funny thing is that sometimes, idiots do answer the rhetorical questions - which simply proves they are idiots. 1. For example, yesterday I satirically responded to a kid who warned us about a pro-domme scam in which he lost $100. 2. Wholly (and obviously) facetiously, I posted a satirical thank-you note, ironically concluding that the scamming Dommes were "clever dommes". 3. Wouldn't you know it - the idiot AGREED with me! He felt that not only did he SAVE us from the peril that befell him, but, that we were, somehow, edified by his warning And from the most recent post prior to this one: quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Heh heh heh ... more personal insults from you - so - clearly YOU will never be a rival. I give longwayhome the benefit of the doubt because he UNDERSTOOD exactly where I was coming from, and, like a man, he admitted that he understood. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome Oh dear. I think the subtleties of what I said some posts ago may have been completely missed. That grabbed my attention. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome I don't know whether to assume that you missed the lack of sincerity in that comment, crumpets, or found it served your purpose better to ignore it. It certainly fell favourably in your attempt to portray me as a lesser male member of your camp who had just admitted to your masculine superiority while you crafted your attack on dreamlady. I really shouldn't have strayed into sarcasm. It's never that attractive (although sometimes quite funny and/or psychologically satisfying) and whether you missed it or misused it, it clearly didn't communicate the right message. You can't make this shit up.

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/14/2015 8:40:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome I think I do understand where crumpets is coming from, however understanding it and "feeling" it are two different things. In other words I profoundly disagree. I give you a lot of credit for simply UNDERSTANDING, as that skill is not a forte of most posters here. Full and complete agreement is never going to happen, in toto, so, that's where we leave the sleeping dogs to lie. If we absolutely needed to agree (e.g., if this were a diplomatic mission), then our adroitness or artfulness in securing advantages without arousing hostility would come to the fore. Clearly - this isn't a diplomatic mission! :) quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome My attempt to remain studiedly good-natured is not internet naivety. I recognize this in you, however belatedly, and I appreciate your candor. I'm sure you're well aware of the old saying on the Usenet about never arguing with idiots, as the idiots will bring you down to their level, and then win, in the end, due to their experience down there. I appreciate that you decided to keep your head above the muck. Sometimes, I get frustrated that so many people can't understand the simplest of concepts. You seem to be above that. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome while you crafted your attack on dreamlady. Rest assured I do not strike first. If I do, I should apologize. I merely step on and squish the worthless comments from those that make them. On the other hand, I give kudos and appreciation where it is deserved. It's a level playing field, and anyone can elevate themselves above the fray. quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome would the ability to be self-critical and show humility once in a while not be admirable human traits, let alone valuable qualities for someone professing to be a submissive? The submissive tendencies have nothing about showing humility; they are about service (isn't my profile clear about that?). Nonetheless, your point is well taken. It's not humility so much that I need to show, but I need to NOT show my sheer frustration with how dumb the vast majority of people are. The frustration is killing me, in fact, since I try to "fix" them, yet, it's impossible. You can't fix stupid.

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/14/2015 8:48:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul You can't make this shit up. Do realize that I decided not to belabor the issue that still holds, which was the ignorance versus playing-to-the-crowd conundrum. That I chose to flatter longwayhome should be amply clear, don't you think? (ahem ... read exactly what I wrote please ... in its entirety) I have no interest in beating the dead horse. I made my point with just the simple question that longwayhome couldn't answer honestly. Yet you seem to want to revive the original question I had asked, which I gracefully allowed longwayhome a pass on. Why do you persist when we're past that issue - as the answer was clear before I even asked the question?

dreamlady -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/14/2015 9:37:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Wasn't the male:female ratio the point of this thread? So is Ashley Madison, but for someone who claims you've never belonged to that site, you seem to know an awful lot about the (inner) workings there. It's your business, but you've washed enough of your dirty laundry in public already, I scarcely see the point of putting up a pretense now. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets I'm a little confused by that diatribe. While I don't remember all the posts I've made (heck, I probably remember about 5% of them), . . . Your posts are all a matter of public record, and I don't have the time nor the inclination to dig them up. The statistical stick up your [anatomical part] as you've recounted and provided long lists of links to porn sites you frequent, the other thread on CS male to female ratios, your habitual referrals to Craigslist ads and price lists, etc., etc. quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets "misogynistic rhetoric", doesn't make "me" misogynistic'. No, that might have been a little over the top [no pun intended]. I don't believe that you resent all women, just the ones who won't put out, which is a form of misogyny (or comes across that way). Frankly, I suspect you may have the opposite problem. You need the attention, approval and affection of women so strongly that you don't know how to get a handle on your unmet needs. Do you not see that it is this kind of overriding[ly selfish] neediness/greediness in itself which turns many women away? quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Aw. Now you're trying to hurt my feelings. If the shoe fits. . . [:D] I'll admit that saying you're "Unfit for Ownership" was hitting below the belt [no pun, again]. There must be a Mistress match for you somewhere, out in the wild blue yonder. As for the point of this thread, what's the deal with insulting tj444 with your condescendingly puerile remarks (as well as most every other poster on several threads), when you're the one tossing about the insults like a garden mix salad, acting all butthurt when other posters don't agree with you. You can dish out the personal attacks, but you can't take them, even when they're not directly levied at you by name and therefore not technically personal attacks. DreamLady P.S. Spiritedsub2, big ass black high-heeled shoe with man kneeling in the distance suggestive of CFNM, man kissing female lifted foot in kaleidoscope, crouching nude sub covering his genitals, lots of 98-pound weakling hairless bare chest shots, close-up of inside of fleshy palm, wrists thrust out ready to be bound, silhouette of dog getting ready to fetch, cartoon pic of ginger cat getting pet, throw in a Renaissance couple with a man prone near the woman's lap, and an ancient civilization orgy-esque scene, for starters; not always in or around the Silicon Valley area, not always middle-aged, and not always sub or switch. Edit - punctuation

longwayhome -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/14/2015 11:02:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets That I chose to flatter longwayhome should be amply clear, don't you think? quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets Yet you seem to want to revive the original question I had asked, which I gracefully allowed longwayhome a pass on. You "chose to flatter me" and "gracefully allowed" me a pass? I would say "Well thank you, kind sir" but you would miss the point and actually take that literally. Then you would quote it to others as my thanking you. So I will be literal. From your last few posts, which I am not going to take time to cut and paste, you have clearly demonstrated an entirely undeserved innate sense of superiority over me, and to most of the rest of the human race. Your assertions are full of "everyone knows that . . .", which is the weakest intellectual excuse I have ever heard. When you assert that "all men know . . .", what it boils down to is you believe something, and any man who doesn't admit it is lying for effect (the precise reason your version of reality comes up with being to get in with the women). You have an enormous problem with the fact that you perceive me to be agreeing with women on a number of issues about male and female sexuality. I may or may not precisely agree with them. What I actually mainly share with them is the fact that I disagree with you. I don't need their approval, or yours for that matter. What is really telling about your underlying philosophy is that you clearly cannot let that a man get away with being that kind of gender traitor, which is when you just revert to being directly insulting, in the place of any thoughtful argument. When I have not insulted you back, you have become increasingly patronising and superior towards me, and are now misconstruing what I am saying, as if I have been "man enough" to conceded some key point to you. For the avoidance of doubt, let me be clear. My lack of desire to engage with you on your level does not indicate my acceptance of anything you say. I am not a fellow man, whose only reason for disagreeing with your self evident truths is to suck up to women or play to the gallery. I just disagree with you, period. Frankly you seem a bit bitter towards women, which isn't attractive, but that's your problem. I am not your opponent or rival. I am interested in other people, and what is important to them, and not in scoring points with someone like you. I am certainly not going to respond every time you try to make me justify my position on one of your "every man knows that . . . " statements. I am not here to measure my intellectual or actual phallus with you. Not because I think I don't measure up, but because, get this, I don't care. In my short time here, I have conceded points and supported the contentions of a number of other posters, even apologised for not properly understanding what they have said, but not you. If I am polite at times that does not constitute concession or agreement. With all your self proclaimed sophistication and intelligence, you might have grasped that. I have not conceded anything to you at any point. Not because of competitiveness, or on point of principle, or even because I have some kind of problem with you. Just one reason and one reason only - I don't agree with you.

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/15/2015 3:29:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 maybe it makes some of those dudes that couldnt get laid for love nor money something else to blame! I don't generally look up profiles, so, I don't know if you claim to be a man or a woman, but, in general, it's only women who throw that lame taunt around (as men at least are clever enough to come up with taunts that have some effect behind them). Bold, color and size mine, to highlight even more misogyny. smiles quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome I have not conceded anything to you at any point. Not because of competitiveness, or on point of principle, or even because I have some kind of problem with you. Just one reason and one reason only - I don't agree with you. applause

crumpets -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/15/2015 5:52:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Bold, color and size mine, to highlight even more misogyny. Why do you persist in shouting? Can't you make your point with mere words, like the rest of us do?

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/15/2015 6:02:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Bold, color and size mine, to highlight even more misogyny. Why do you persist in shouting? Can't you make your point with mere words, like the rest of us do? I like making your points shouting, in case someone misses it. Whatsa matter, don't you like that your words are so moving to me that I repeat them in big red letters for everyone to see? smiles

Lucylastic -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/15/2015 6:37:52 AM)
I honestly think we have an arpig situation going on here...

LadyPact -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/16/2015 4:58:34 PM)
Oh, please, God, no. I'll be out of here faster than most folks can blink. The fussing aside, I thought the AM thing was quite interesting.

Lucylastic -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/16/2015 6:41:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Oh, please, God, no. I'll be out of here faster than most folks can blink. The fussing aside, I thought the AM thing was quite interesting. yeah, I have probably got the wrong end of the stick, but the troll about the 3 gorgeous dommes who didnt show up, got me a little cynical.

dcnovice -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/16/2015 8:51:36 PM)
FR Best comment I've seen on Ashley Madison: [image]http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Ashley+madison_392b8e_5658374.jpg[/image]

dcnovice -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/16/2015 8:54:06 PM)
And a very close second: [image]http://40.media.tumblr.com/91bec048a5878edee2d93fafbb31295b/tumblr_ntdttr8z9P1qba1hho1_540.png[/image]

sexyred1 -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/16/2015 9:17:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I agree. I love seeing her destroy his arguments in such a logical way. NookieNotes is one of the rare 5% here who can OPEN MY EYES to ideas that I had not previously completely understood nor fully considered. Unfortunately, the other 19 out of 20 posters don't have half the capacity of NookieNotes to even UNDERSTAND, let alone to ADD ADDITIONAL VALUE to the conversation. For example, look with an open eye at the previous post by dreamlady, which was merely a childish scrum of insults, piled one on top of another in long-run-on sentences. There's no value to be had from her; but NookieNotes has the basic level of intelligence to UNDERSTAND and EDIFY. And here I was thinking you were just sucking up to her....but now realize you just need to have someone engage with you. Although, you actually just insulted Nookie. "Basic level of intelligence"? I find it interesting that you continuously post on so many threads when you have stated we are all just too stupid to understand what you say. I would guess that you need attention. Even negative attention is better than none, right?

NookieNotes -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/17/2015 3:09:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I agree. I love seeing her destroy his arguments in such a logical way. NookieNotes is one of the rare 5% here who can OPEN MY EYES to ideas that I had not previously completely understood nor fully considered. Unfortunately, the other 19 out of 20 posters don't have half the capacity of NookieNotes to even UNDERSTAND, let alone to ADD ADDITIONAL VALUE to the conversation. For example, look with an open eye at the previous post by dreamlady, which was merely a childish scrum of insults, piled one on top of another in long-run-on sentences. There's no value to be had from her; but NookieNotes has the basic level of intelligence to UNDERSTAND and EDIFY. And here I was thinking you were just sucking up to her....but now realize you just need to have someone engage with you. Although, you actually just insulted Nookie. "Basic level of intelligence"? I find it interesting that you continuously post on so many threads when you have stated we are all just too stupid to understand what you say. I would guess that you need attention. Even negative attention is better than none, right? crumpets is a misogynist, bless his heart. It's like a crippling disease. He can't help it. We should start a fund.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/17/2015 10:03:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crumpets The only thing that hurts me is realizing that the vast majority of people on this forum are of below average IQ. This hurts because they have the most idiotic of ideas - almost all borne of sheer ignorance, like yours. I find it interesting that you would steep to the level of attacking other people's intelligence. Not because the point that a significant portion of people have a below average IQ isn't true (statistically speaking it is true, by definition, for half of the population) but because in my experience, people who actually are of noteworthy intelligence1 understand that most other people naturally capable of the same things they are, and aren't naturally capable of the same leaps2 in logic they are. Instead of blaming this naturally born lack of capacity on the person in question, and calling it stuff like "sheer ignorance", which blames the person in question, they're more than willing to slow down, back up and actually talk through their thinking process in a manner that makes it comphrehencible to those less capable2. In fact, the very essence of high intelligence is the capability to break down complex ideas into smaller parts. Somebody of lesser intelligence might be able to grasp complex ideas with a lot of effort, but they'll never be able to grasp the ideas enough to break them down in less complex parts in order to share/spread it to others. Those who resort to calling others 'dumb' (or equivalent) usually do so because they perceive themselves to have mastered complex ideas, yet are unable to grasp the intricacies of the concepts they're dealing with with enough mastery to break down the idea into its smaller parts so that it may become comprehensible to the masses. Sometimes this is because the idea they think they've grasped is wrong and faulty to begin with, other times this is due to the fact that they simple lack the intellect themselves to be able to break down the idea into smaller concepts. Either way, these people usually suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect where they vastly overestimate their own level of intellect, precisely because of their own insufficiency in the area. People with actual noteworthy intelligence1 don't blame people who don't have this for being dumb (or equivalent), instead they grasp other's limitations and are capable of presenting important ideas with enough ease so that others may also be able to understand them. Resorting to calling others dumb (or equivalent) when one is unable to make their point, actually is one of the strongest indicators out there that one lacks the intelligence necessary to grasp the point one is attempting to make with enough easy to claim to have achieved mastery of the idea one is presenting... _______ 1 For the context of this post "noteworthy intelligence" is defined as "anybody whose IQ is high enough so that the 'average person' is closer in IQ to a bonobo than they are to them". 2 By "leaps in logic" I mean intelligent people's tendency to be able to make jumps such as A -> D -> M, whereas most people need to go A -> B -> C -> D -> ... to follow the same train of thought, not "leaps in logic" as in "drawing unfounded conclusions".

Wayward5oul -> RE: Male to Female Ratios -- Look at Ashley Madison (9/17/2015 10:22:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome My attempt to remain studiedly good-natured is not internet naivety. It's just the way I try (and sometimes fail) to do things. I am all too often over-insistent and opinionated. I also sometimes get the wrong end of the stick (profound apologies to Wayward5oul for waving my stick around in the first place!). No apologies needed. As far as I remember, all you did was misinterpret one post, but even then you were not an ass like some people. You simply stated your perspective, and did so civilly. That's what discussion is. I would prefer that any day over passive-aggressive posters who take every opportunity to slight others, in ways they think are clever. Wait, I shouldn't have responded positively to you. It might make it look like you were pandering. Fuck it. Welcome to the boards. [:D]

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02