Skip to content


Just 1.44 per cent of the website’s lusty users were women who actually attempted to interact with other people via the site, it seems. All the rest created an account, and then walked away unfulfilled, it appears. Perhaps they were never real in the first place. This explains why so many people believed the website was awash with fake profiles.

That’s for accounts created between January 2002 and mid-2015 when the databases were siphoned off by Impact Team. If we take just the accounts active in 2014 as a snapshot, 375 out of 946,919 women checked their website inboxes at least once out of 9,438,298 total profiles. By active, we mean users who updated their profile in some way.

Journalist Annalee Newitz also crunched through the data, and claims about 12,000 women were real active users on the adultery website versus 20 million men.

22 thoughts on “Hmm”

  1. Seems like there’s a mismatch between supply and demand here. I wonder if some loon will declare this a market failure and demand the introduction of state-arranged marriage?

  2. But the failure is marriage itself, John, it is the availability of the desired type and amount of sex within the marriage.

    So we actually need state-arranged bonking. Which, if there is a bright side to it, might at least kill off some of the feminazi harridans when their chitties were issued.

  3. @Surruptitious Evil
    “So we actually need state-arranged bonking.”

    If state provision is anything like the NHS, can I go private?


  4. bloke (not) in spain

    Exactly which figures are they using here?
    It’s the same with any contact site. The vast majority of “users” create an account to perv at the other users. Some of the accounts will even be women profiling as men & visa versa. Curiosity, if nothing else.
    Never been to AM, but I’d presume they’re running the standard model Non payers get limited access. Restriction on access to account holders’ piccies & no access to messaging*
    As women get free total access, the only way you’ll know what’s going on on their side is by outgoing messaging frequency*
    And you won’t learn a lot from the men’s side either. AM’s gross profits should give you the numbers of paid sign-ups out of that 20 million. The cost of the software for a dating site, web design costs & server capacity are trivial if successful. Does AM actually have any staff? You could get away with two. So just divide the subscription into gross.
    *The scams & others.
    Every male user could be getting messages. If there’s a “tell other users I’m here” tickbox in the registration (usually defaulted to yes) there’ll be messages arriving purporting to be from “X”. Pay the subscription, enabling you to open the message & it’ll say “Hey! I’m X! Go look at my profile” & users will also get “X wants to hear from you” They’re software generated off of that tickbox approval.
    Gullible users will have credit carded on to read those messages. The only messages they’ll ever get. But now they can send messages.
    And being free for the chics,, there’ll be the wind up merchants – some of them blokes profiling as bints – amusing themselves. They could be high frequency messagers.
    And of course the hookers.
    How the hell you sort out anything meaningful,from that lot, heaven alone knows.

  5. I used AM about eight years ago – my details are in the dump – and shagged the attractive wife of a local landowner. No scams, no hookers, no timewasters.

  6. bloke (not) in spain

    She doesn’t know, Rob but she does like to think there’s 20 million men lusting after 375 women. Oh yes, she really does like to think that. Why there could be 50km of queuing rampancy of her very own, outside her door, right now…
    Or she knows there’s a lot of women with faces like a box of frogs, in outsize dresses, who get damp reading it.

  7. “By active, we mean users who updated their profile in some way.”

    Dubious. I don’t know the site but if the ‘profile’ is like most other website profiles, you tend to update it when you create the account and then barely look at it, let alone update it. it may not be a good indicator of real ‘activity’.

  8. @anon

    ‘I used AM about eight years ago – my details are in the dump – and shagged the attractive wife of a local landowner. No scams, no hookers, no timewasters.’

    Yep, that definitely happened.

  9. I signed up for AM a couple of years ago and subsequently spent dozens of nights engaged in rampant erotic congress with leggy models and busty aristocrats.

    I only stopped because my Brazilian volleyball-playing fiancee found out…

  10. interested

    Yes, it did happen. I had tried other sites, like Adult Friend Finder, Plenty of Fish etc, but they were full of timewasters. When I briefly used it, AM was OK, and I got laid. Subsequently, I found Illicit Encounters was a happier hunting ground.

  11. bloke (not) in spain

    AFF !?!?

    Sounds like someone’s a connoisseur of pr0n sites.

    You know this isn’t one, don’t you? The clue’s in the lack of images.

  12. Anon

    Are there any Forrestry Commission sites near you? I’ve heard their car parks offer opportunities after sunset for the adventurous.

  13. I can see that there’s a strong wish here to disbelieve what anon says: but on the basis of my own experience, it’s not at all implausible. I have met several entirely normal, well educated, emphatically non-professional ladies that way – so either my seductiveness is many times greater than I think (know) it is, or these journos are making grossly ill-founded assumptions.

    Which might that be, do you think? And why, considering that that the whole thrust of their argument is to belittle the ability/willingness of women to be sexual actors in their own right?

  14. Nemo – it seems to me that they are belittling (or questioning) the need for women to use arrangements such as AM to be “sexual actors in their own right”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *