Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Females Outnumber Males Online

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Apr 15, 2007 09:31 AM
from the once-again-slashdot-is-abnormal dept.
westcoaster004 writes "In news which may surprise some Slashdot users, females have been found to outnumber males online in the U.S. according to a report, and for some time. The statistics for Canadians show a slightly greater number of male users."

Related Stories

[+] Games: Games Less Engrossing Than Other Media? 93 comments
The British Board of Film Classification recently released a study describing players' reactions to videogames. The synopsis of their findings makes for fascinating reading. "Gamers are starting to play at a younger age, even as the average age of gamers is increasing. Males and females differ greatly in taste in games, how long they play, and how involved they are in the gameplay. Negative press about a game significantly increases it's sales and many young gamers choose games based on word of mouth. Games provide a sense of achievement, unlike passive mediums like television. Active participation decreases the tendency to 'forget' your experiencing a fantasy vs. non-interactive visual mediums. Gamers find violence in television and movies more upsetting than violence in games. While parents agree that games should be regulated, some still consider the whole genre as 'kid's toys', even games that may include adult content." One of the most controversial findings is the assertion that games are less engrossing than other media, with players having less of an emotional connection to in-game events than the events in a book or movie. The Wonderland blog offers up the full report as well as commentary on their findings.
[+] Science: Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone 293 comments
mikesd81 writes "The Washington Post has an article about a team of American and Irish researchers that have discovered that some female sharks can reproduce without having sex, the first time that scientists have found the unusual capacity in such an ancient vertebrate species. Their report concludes that sharks can reproduce asexually through the process known as parthenogenesis (the growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male). Scientists started investigating after a female hammerhead shark was mysteriously born at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in a tank that housed 3 female sharks. It was originally thought one had stored sperm from a male shark before fertilizing an egg. However, baby shark's genetic makeup perfectly matched one of the females in the tank, with no sign of a male parent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Females Outnumber Males Online | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 299 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • first male post (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:34AM (#18741081)
    It wasn't the first, and it definately won't be the last.
  • What this actually means... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:34AM (#18741091)
    Males lying about being females outnumbers males telling the truth online.
  • Definition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsa (15680) on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:37AM (#18741111)
    (http://www.tjerkstra.org/)
    Before I believe any of that I want to see what they define as 'female' and 'online'.
  • Age distribution? (Score:5, Funny)

    by b1t r0t (216468) on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:39AM (#18741127)
    I don't see any age distribution in TFA (just "over 3"), but I have a sneaking suspicion that 2/3 of those are over the age of 50. In other words, granny discovered e-mail and how to order knitting needles online.
    • Re:Age distribution? by Elsan (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @09:54AM
      • Re:Age distribution? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fourchannel (946359) on Sunday April 15 2007, @12:28PM (#18742461)
        (http://lith.ath.cx/)
        Should there be a race distribution? Does it help us out to always take everything and split it up and see how the blacks are different, how the hispanics are different, how the whites are different, etc? In your effort to try to split something up by race, you will subconsciously start to perceive differences simply because you are imposing a condition that requires you to find a difference. Take that away, and you might find that you don't start thinking of people in terms of race. You no longer have a need to discern their skin color for anything they do. Take it further and you could try to eliminate a gender bias as well. =D

        When you no longer feel compelled to assign a gender and race to a person for anything about that person, you also might find yourself not assuming things about this person. For anything about a specific person that you do not know, would you subconsciously start to fill the knowledge gap by drawing what you don't know from a stereotype?

        Try this...(and only as an experiment), for people you don't know that you come across in your day (people on the street, customers at your business, customers over the phone, etc), try and guess what kind of music they like. Use whatever information you have about them to discern their music tastes (obviously without clueing them in that your doing this). But after you've made your guess, write down their seen (or perceived over the phone) skin color, gender, and music preference you came up with. You will probably want to keep this list of yours out of sight, or in a password protected word document or something. Spreadsheet maybe?

        At the end of a few days, go through your list and first divide people up by gender, and group the males together, and the female together. For each gender, make a subgroup for each race (whites, blacks, asians, etc.). After that, go through and write down the different kinds of music you assigned (Country, rap, gospel, etc), and then after that, go back and tally up how many black males like X, or how many white females like Y, and so on. I'm almost certain that one music taste in particular will have a majority in each group. Like you might see that you have far more black females listening to gospel than any other kind of music in that group.

        You now have a successfully stereotyped gender and race bias for music tastes. You have asked no one what they actually like, just what you think they would like to listen to. Since you didn't actually ask anyone what they liked, your list is probably highly inaccurate. But because you took the time to classify these people according to their gender and race, and then see what music they liked, you have willfully imposed a condition that requires you to discriminate based on race and gender. Should you do this test, you might conclude that had you not first identified their race and gender, your assumptions about their music tastes would be absolutely anyone's wild guess, because without their race and gender, you know nothing about that person, including their music tastes.

        Since you didn't have any actual information, how did you have any faith in your guess even being remotely close to accurate? What gave you any confidence in your judgment? Since you had no information about a person, you had to have taken some of your guesswork from a preconceived notion of what you learned in life. For example, you probably were not consciously aware of it, but you limited all the possible types of music a person could enjoy, from what people of that race and gender you know already like. I bet your list will not have these entries...
        1. asian female -- salsa
        2. black male -- yodeling
        3. hispanic male -- polish folk
        And you are probably thinking that those music tastes are absurd for those people, but do you think this because you have never heard or known an asian female to like salsa, a black male to like yodeling, or a hispanic male to like polish folk? Or do
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Age distribution? by xerxesVII (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @01:14PM
        • Re:Age distribution? by Mercedes308 (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:27PM
        • Re:Age distribution? by Sassinak (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:51PM
          • Re:Age distribution? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by fourchannel (946359) on Sunday April 15 2007, @04:52PM (#18744417)
            (http://lith.ath.cx/)
            You fit in whatever category you believe yourself to belong to. I don't see it fit to label you.

            My aim in my previous post, was not "these kinds of people won't like this kind of music." That would be stereotypical of me, and I don't believe it to be true. My aim was to show that given no information, someone who was trying to guess another person's music tastes using only their race and gender would likely avoid linking, for example, a hispanic male with Polish folk.

            I was trying to point out that since this made up list of ours is complete conjecture, we only have our stereotypes to look to when we try to label people. Because we are drawing our guesses from a stereotype, we're not going to put on the list something that doesn't match a stereotype.

            I wrote what I did in my previous post, not to encourage, but to show the huge flaw in trying to categorize people when you don't actually know anything about them. I posted what I did to help people realize that labeling people is a bad practice, and I understand that the great grandparent post might have been sarcastic, but I think that if my reply helps just one person avoid prejudices, then it was worth my time to write it.

            I must also say, that I'm not perfect and sometimes I find myself being prejudiced too. I try to stop myself when I catch it, but I make mistakes as well. I don't want anyone to feel that I'm trying to talk down to them. I don't want anyone to feel that I believe myself to be better than them.

            I hope that better explains my post :)
            [ Parent ]
          • Re:Age distribution? by AeroIllini (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @02:51PM
        • Re:Age distribution? by mazarin5 (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @05:10PM
        • Asian females and Salsa by Mal-2 (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @06:09PM
        • Re:Age distribution? by Sandcastle (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @08:21PM
        • Re:Age distribution? by wordsthatendinq (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @08:26PM
        • Re:Age distribution? by Garrett Fox (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @07:17AM
        • Re:Age distribution? by CaptDeuce (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @09:03AM
        • Re:Age distribution? by VShael (Score:1) Monday April 16 2007, @10:43AM
        • Re:Age distribution? by cayenne8 (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @11:21AM
        • PMT by oliverthered (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @11:47AM
        • Re:Age distribution? by Elsan (Score:1) Sunday April 22 2007, @12:53PM
      • Re:Age distribution? by maxwell demon (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:25PM
      • Re:Age distribution? by Elsan (Score:1) Sunday April 22 2007, @12:50PM
    • Re:Age distribution? by ClaraBow (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @09:56AM
    • Re:Age distribution? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nwbvt (768631) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:14AM (#18741401)
      You obviously don't know any teenage/pre-teen girls who have suddenly found out how easy it is to spread gossip using things like AIM, myspace, blogs, YouTube, fansites, etc. I have a sixteen year old sister who the net all the time. The Internet is becoming an increasingly social place, meaning its no longer all geeks downloading blueprints of the Enterprise.
      [ Parent ]
    • I don't see any age distribution in TFA (just "over 3"), but I have a sneaking suspicion that 2/3 of those are over the age of 50. In other words, granny discovered e-mail and how to order knitting needles online.

      And just how is this funny? Granny is no less a woman with her knitting needles than the young, hot, smoking blond of the average slashdotter's hopeless fantasies and probably has more sex than the average slashdotter anyway (with any being more than none).

      And why isn't Granpa online and Granny is? Is Granny smarter than Granpa? Was Granny more able to adapt to online culture better? Why? Isn't it enough that she is able to search, navigate, compare, order and pay for her purchases? Isn't it enough that now she talks to her grandchildren every week through IM or email than never with snail mail and not being able to afford cross-country visits?

      The fact that she is able to make use of the internet to improve or enjoy her life isn't enough? Granny has to be a programer, 3l33t haxor, network admin and security expert too? Does Granny have to be Uber Elder Geek to be counted as an online personage?

      For people who are supposed to be geeks, you and the people who modded you up seem to be awfully narrow minded. Tech is not for just the people you think are worthy enough to be counted.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Age distribution? (Score:5, Informative)

        by MollyB (162595) * <sysoptional@@@yahoo...com> on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:43AM (#18741629)
        (Last Journal: Sunday February 04 2007, @03:47PM)
        Thank You, Dear. I'm not a granny but old enough to qualify, and I just switched to Ubuntu 'cause SuSE just didn't work right. I'm a former Windows NT-era sysop who detests Microsoft, with just enough Unix (Solaris and Sun OS) experience to have done some C-shell scripting and a tad of VB Script in the .ASP days (which I have all forgotten). Many other slashdotters wish that me (specifically) and boomers (in general) would hurry up and croak. Thanks again for your patience and humanity. May your goodwill redound to you thrice over, someday...
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Age distribution? by quixote9 (Score:3) Sunday April 15 2007, @12:34PM
      • Re:Age distribution? by wagadog (Score:3) Sunday April 15 2007, @02:21PM
      • Re:Age distribution? by penguin_dance (Score:3) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:45PM
      • Re:Age distribution? by NocturnalCritter (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @05:38PM
      • Re:Age distribution? by lysse (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @05:39PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Age distribution? by Tatisimo (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @04:01PM
    • Re:Age distribution? by mapkinase (Score:1) Monday April 16 2007, @03:36AM
    • If you're going to be asking, do it right... by abb3w (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @11:00AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Don't worry! by bogaboga (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @09:39AM
  • If this is true... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mangu (126918) on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:40AM (#18741137)
    I, for one, welcome our new online female overladies!
  • Baaaa... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:40AM (#18741145)

    "The statistics for Canadians show a slightly greater number of male users."

    THis is compensated by a surprising number of sheep.

  • Did they mean..... (Score:4, Funny)

    Males Pretending to be Females Outnumber Males Online

    Fixed

    Why does this remind me of an old IRC saying.....

    "Welcome to IRC, where the Men are Men, the Women are Men, and the 14 Year Old Girls are FBI Agents"

  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by pavon (30274) on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:45AM (#18741187)
    I didn't know the FBI had that many agents.
    • Re:Wow by QCompson (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @10:06AM
  • Not supprising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ozamosi (615254) on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:48AM (#18741201)
    (http://flukkost.nu/blog/)
    I don't think this is supprising. Females are more social creatures than males. I won't say wheather this is biologic or social, but right here, right now, most of them are. Females in their teens are known to talk on the phone FOREVER. Females are known to sit around and gossip all the time. Computers are now straightforward enough to use so that a new user don't have to figure out how it works (typical male behaviour), but instead, can go straight to $chat_network or $social_website and start to gossip. They use internet because it helps them do what they like to do outside of computers.

    Males, on the other hand, like to play with stuff, build stuff, etc. Maybe the internet isn't that appealing to that crowd in the same way. Or maybe it is, but males actually get "done" with the internet, just like we usually finish a phone call in one minute, and go on to do something else instead.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that there are more female hackers than male - hackers are people who use internet (and computers in general) to build stuff, and more males want to build stuff than females, and thus, there should be more male hackers than females.
  • "females have been found... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:53AM (#18741237)
    ...to outnumber males online"

    And I still can't find a date!

    Posting as AC because I'm embarrased as hell.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2007, @09:53AM (#18741241)
    Females outnumber males online. Night elves outnumber Orcs and Dwarves, but Goblins received an unexpected surge in popularity after Draenei were nerfed in the last update. Figures for Tauren have remained more or less stable, and no figures for Trolls are available as they ate the census-takers.
  • Balancing Act by Chief Wongoller (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @10:01AM
  • Hopefully... (Score:5, Funny)

    by alexhs (877055) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:03AM (#18741329)
    (http://dr-tools.sourceforge.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:27AM)
    on Slashdot we're still between real men !

    OMG ponies !
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:04AM (#18741337)
    (http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
    Not a slam on 'stay at home moms' in the least, but there are more of those then 'stay at home dads', so just purely by the #'s there is a better chance of them finding some time to be online during the day then the males of the population.
  • My own super accurate study: (Score:4, Funny)

    by UnRDJ (712762) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:04AM (#18741341)
    Percentage of female internet population on myspace.com: 99%
    Everywhere else: 1%
  • I knew it.... by Refelian (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @10:05AM
  • Additional stats: (Score:5, Funny)

    by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:09AM (#18741379)
    (http://horsies.co.uk/)
    Figures also show that 90% of females online are 18, horny and want to sex you up.
  • Why is this surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ogemaniac (841129) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:16AM (#18741413)
    1: There are more females than males

    2: Women are more likely to attend college than men. Virtually all college students are required to use the internet while they are there, and at least some will keep up the habit later.

    3: Women are more likely to have desk jobs or other indoor jobs, which again often exposes them to the internet.

    That being said, I think time spent on the internet is a much greater measure. I bet men spend far more time on the internet than women, despite the apparent data that says women dabble with it more often.
    • Re:Why is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @10:32AM
    • Re:Why is this surprising? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tal0n (695067) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:34AM (#18741567)
      Agreed

      Yeah, jokes aside, I don't know about you guys(girls?) but I probably have as many, if not more female friends online than males. Obviously, all of the male geeks are online, but not all of the rest of the guys. On the other side, almost all of the females are online.

      TFA doesn't say what "online" means (unless I'm dumb and missed it), so that kind of makes this entire discussion moot. Online gaming? Social Networking? Email? Internet Browsing? Voip? Online shopping? Without breaking that down by activity, that's kinda almost like a really, really expensive way to find out that there are more women then men.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Why is this surprising? by epine (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:05PM
    • Re:Why is this surprising? by g-doo (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @05:18PM
    • Re:Why is this surprising? by red314159 (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @08:26PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jeevesbond (1066726) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:18AM (#18741419)
    (http://www.apaddedcell.com/)

    "For girls who have grown up with technology, there is no significant gender gap in internet usage," said eMarketer senior analyst Debra Aho Williamson. "The rise of activities that are particularly appealing to young females, such as social networking, will result in even greater usage."

    This reminds me of my 12 year old neice who sites on MSN for hours at a time jibba-jabbin to her friends, whilst her brother would rather watch Hockey on TV.

    This is good news for those people who've recently been ranting about there not being enough [meganmcdermott.com] women [mezzoblue.com] in web design [burningbird.net], and trying to work out the reasons why. With more women now online than men, the balance will hopefully be redressed (when that generation gets off MSN and wants to do something useful with their lives).

    • Re:Hmmm by prelelat (Score:3) Sunday April 15 2007, @10:52AM
    • Re:Hmmm by phantomcircuit (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @10:58AM
    • Re:Hmmm by bogjobber (Score:3) Sunday April 15 2007, @08:08PM
  • Facebook/Myspace's fault (Score:4, Funny)

    by ZeeExSixAre (790130) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:30AM (#18741525)
    The reason for this is likely Facebook and Myspace. These social networking sites make is really easy to simply log onto one site, do all the chit-chat with 10-20 people that would normally take 5 minutes per person, and then log off. When I go to the computer lab at my university, a quick peek at women's computer screens shows that 7 out of 10 computer screens are of Facebook, and 2 out of 10 are of Myspace. The remaining 10% are of actual class webpages. On the other hand, 6 out of 10 male computer screens are of ESPN, NCAA, or Facebook/Myspace. Okay I didn't really look at the guys at all.
  • duh. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by artjunk (1088603) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:31AM (#18741537)
    um, hello? This is news? One word - "shopping."
    • Re:duh. by kinglink (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @01:34AM
    • Re:duh. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @12:12PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by NinjaNoh (968664) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:40AM (#18741609)
    There may be more women than men online, however they all come in the .jpg format.
  • Where did they take the survey? by gitarman (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @10:45AM
  • As a Canadian... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mr. Flibble (12943) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:52AM (#18741693)
    (http://www.walford.ca/)
    As a Canadian I am infurated by this article. This was classifed Canadian government information. As such, only Canadians were supposed to know that more women were online - and the fact that more Canadian men were aware of this, as the data shows is no excuse for giving away our secrets!

    Still, the cat is out of the bag. We have large and sparsely populated country. By government mandate we are attempting to increase our populace by going online and luring the ladies to our glacial climate via online dating services!

    This throws a wrench into our grand plan of luring the likes of nubile young women like "cuteie332" "betty22" and "chicky_54" here so we can increase our populace and dominate the earth with our floppy heads!

    --- I need more coffee...
  • 'women online' on web sites by radarsat1 (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @11:04AM
  • Simple (Score:4, Funny)

    by cadeon (977561) on Sunday April 15 2007, @11:19AM (#18741889)
    Tits or GTFO.
  • Quick! by TheVelvetFlamebait (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @11:20AM
    • Re:Quick! by BertieBaggio (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @12:44PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Quick! by heinousjay (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:46PM
    • Pickup line by TerranFury (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @04:04PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Nerdy ones by TerranFury (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @04:19PM
    • Re:Quick! by Lorgalis (Score:1) Monday April 16 2007, @08:46AM
  • I know why... by DragonTHC (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @11:21AM
  • female what? male what? (Score:3, Funny)

    by EllynGeek (824747) on Sunday April 15 2007, @11:23AM (#18741937)
    Typical sloppy journalism, not specifying the species.
  • Measured by uids, logins or hours? by redelm (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @11:32AM
    • wheresthebeef by Falladir (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @11:48AM
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15 2007, @11:36AM (#18742035)
    ... It's because Americans are a bunch of girls

    Sorry couldn't resist :p
  • Not only that but... (Score:4, Funny)

    by wenchmagnet (745079) on Sunday April 15 2007, @11:51AM (#18742143)
    With the typical women who spend most of their time online, they probably outweigh online males too...
  • Lies!! by dave562 (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @11:55AM
  • OMG girlz do not exist on teh intraweb by dhardisty (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @12:22PM
  • To be more relevant by shish (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @01:20PM
  • it makes sense... by Jazz-o-matic (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @01:43PM
  • by Organic Brain Damage (863655) on Sunday April 15 2007, @01:49PM (#18743079)
    Women on-line out-number men? Of course...look at any of the pictures, you'll see two, sometimes three or four women in the picutre with just one guy. What? You weren't talking about the pictures? Oh...nevermind.
  • Lots of Forums For Girls by chromozone (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @02:14PM
  • In related news.. by nFriedly (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:06PM
  • What is the surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hepneck (876605) on Sunday April 15 2007, @03:18PM (#18743723)
    The article does not explain by what going online means (i.e.- Is it checking email, doing research, shopping, charring, or /.ing?). I am surprised at the number of responses that assume that women are only online to chat or use Facebook. Consider that more women than men earn high school, associates, bachelors, masters, law, medical, and PhD degrees. And while more men than women are still university department chairs, more women tahn men are now the editors of academic journals. Who then is going to naturally be using the web for research (Other than for pictures of Milla Jovovich)? Women are the ones that are beginning to contol the direction of research and ideas. We men should hope that they nice to us, have a good sense of humor, and that they do not hold a grudge for our behavior. _____________________ You may all go to hell, I am going to Texas - Davy Crockett
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Wow! by LibrarianAvenger (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:24PM
  • happy now? by mapkinase (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:26PM
  • Violation by PPH (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @03:37PM
  • of course they do! by porky_pig_jr (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @04:28PM
  • by antdude (79039) on Sunday April 15 2007, @05:39PM (#18744775)
    (http://aqfl.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 09 2003, @01:16AM)
    ... and I am a worker ant that is classified females. [grin]
  • i'm sure by smash (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @06:10PM
  • Out numbered and Still can't Score by egommer (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @06:42PM
  • Not so fun, either... by DuranDuran (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @09:42PM
  • Outnumber != Outsmart by VitaminB52 (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @01:51AM
  • surprised nobody has posted this... by blurker (Score:1) Monday April 16 2007, @09:09AM
  • So, according to the tags... by kalirion (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @09:22AM
  • That is good by garaged (Score:1) Monday April 16 2007, @10:02AM
  • This topic begs this statement by Beau6183 (Score:1) Monday April 16 2007, @10:33AM
  • Granny online... and MMORPG! by Jogar the Barbarian (Score:1) Monday April 16 2007, @10:41AM
  • Millions and millions of women online by br0d (Score:1) Monday April 16 2007, @11:27AM
  • Online, maybe programming for years, too. by A_Non_Moose (Score:2) Monday April 16 2007, @12:51PM
  • Re:Mmmmm...Goood... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ettlz (639203) on Sunday April 15 2007, @10:26AM (#18741493)
    (http://ettlz.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 12 2006, @06:53PM)
    Just what we need, eh? A blocked Series of Boob-Tubes.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:and online pr0n... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @10:32AM
  • Re:Oh yeah... by RFaulder (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @11:12AM
    • Re:Oh yeah... by JasonTik (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @11:55AM
      • Re:Oh yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rayor (975326) <pennybag2003@gmail.com> on Sunday April 15 2007, @05:12PM (#18744581)
        The rules of the internet. Give arbitrary numbers. The fad started after the infamous "Rule #34" image macro started circulating.
        A few choice ones:
        #24: Pics or it never happened.
        #26: Nobody knows the answer to "What is love?".
        #29: Barrel Rolls can evade anything.
        #32: There is a market for any kind of porn.
        #34: There is porn of it, no exceptions.
        #37: There are no girls on the internet.
        #50: If you die in the game, you die for real.
        #52: Developers, developers, developers, developers.
        #54: Snape killed dumbledore.
        #55: "Winner" is actually spelled "WinRar"
        #65: You will be reported to AOL if you steal pictures.
        #71: If you fap to it and acheive orgasm, you must tell everyone.
        #72: Everything on eBaumsworld is stolen. No exceptions.
        #73: Believe everything you read on the internet.
        #75: There is always a female version of a male character. No exceptions.
        #76: Duke Nukem Forever must never be released or the whole of the interent will collapse.
        #78: It's been cracked and pirated. No exceptions.
        #82: Upgrading someone's RAM is a sign of goodwill.
        #87: If you would have sex with it, let everyone know.

        God damn I spend too much time on 4chan.
        [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Oh yeah... by webmistressrachel (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @12:24PM
      • Re:Oh yeah... by RFaulder (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @12:32PM
      • Re:Oh yeah... by Heembo (Score:2) Sunday April 15 2007, @04:36PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Male & female porn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chmcginn (201645) <agburanar@gmail.c3.14om minus pi> on Sunday April 15 2007, @11:43AM (#18742081)
    (Last Journal: Saturday November 03, @10:54PM)

    ...is still around 99.97% targeted towards the male.

    I disagree. Most visual porn (an overwhelming majority) is targeted towards straight men, this is true. But to most women, good porn is a trashy romance novel, not a playboy. And if you've ever looked at the "romantic fiction" online, you'll see a pretty good number written by women.

    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Mmmmm...Goood... by Paradigm_Complex (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @11:55AM
  • Re:First Female Post by bobby1066 (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @12:06PM
  • Re:and online pr0n... by hkmarks (Score:1) Sunday April 15 2007, @01:24PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 21 replies beneath your current threshold.