The 70:30 Ratio

A message from Jill Rhodes-Harvey, sent 03 June 2008 18:36:

I'm astonished at your blog, or I presume it's your blog, and ask you to remove my name, agency name and url link from it, and any other literature pertaining to my agency, including quote about the imbalance of data-base introductions agencies.

It is quite apparent from further reading this blog, that you, or whoever has written it has absolutely NO idea whatsoever about dating...Perhaps that is why you produced a blog? As for my agency suggesting same sex relationships to my clients..I am fuming that this has been posted on this so called blog!

I have copyright to ALL text on my website and YOU have copied it, if you do not remove it I shall report this matter to the relevant people for copyright in this country.

Jill Rhodes-Harvey

I must say I was a little taken aback by Jill's conclusion that I must know nothing of dating and romance just because I happen to have a blog, as if bloggers are by definition all date- and charm-deficient. My admirers, both male and female, are legion. I just haven't found the right one yet.

As for copyright about her revealing statistic that the male/female ratio is 30/70 in most introduction agencies, I would point her to the following link:


It is allowed to make single copies or take short extracts of works when used for research that you do not make any money from or from private studying, educational course or even as a hobby.

I will have Jill know that the subject human relationships is precisely what I am studying!

I see no commercial reason why Jill should not turn her introduction/search agency into one that recommends same-sex partnerships for women who don't manage to "pull" a man. After all, if the statistics are so apparently hopeless, then we women must be warned against our profligate practice of mislaying and discarding our male partners, or be faced, on the one hand, with the option of a lonely old age without a loving male partner and, on the other other, the option of embracing another woman just as difficult, critical and demanding as ourselves for the purposes sexual sustenance and companionship.

The Third Way is of course that of paying thousands of pounds to introduction agencies for the privilege of being one of the 70 women competing for the attentions of 30 men or else pay a search fee (which would be extra).

Surely Jill is not wishing to suppress this Ugly and Appalling Truth?

Under 40s women must be prepared for this bleak prospect if they do not appreciate their menfolk - however flawed - properly.

However, if they are that way inclined, they should then be in the fortunate position of anticipating the pleasures of being received into the intimate embrace of another woman ...

We women must, as Baden-Powell exhorted his boy scouts, be prepared!


Tim Pendry said…
This exchange is hilarious (especially the po-faced response of the other combatant). I will definitely subscribe to your site to get updates. But surely 'adult' (basically sex) sites have the reverse proportion so that all we are seeing is that the same numbers of people are 'in play' but then have different aspirations according to gender - the women generally towards some form of commitment and the men generally towards jollies.

If a woman is lonely and there are never any decent men around or they are already taken (the complaint of many women friends 'd'une certain age'), then a close loving friendship between two women strikes me as a nice solution and one not to be regarded negatively - with no need for it to turn into some girl-on-girl action for the delectation of the nearest predatory male.

Meanwhile, while I enjoy your determined rationalism and the attempt at the application of the market to just about everything that moves, I suspect your enthusiasm is working doggedly against the nature of things.

The day women and men truly understand each other is the day that the Rapture takes place and we are all taken into heaven in the blink of an eye - and pigs fly. Ask my tolerant wife! Best just enjoy the difference (which I do) and not expect too much. A little conservative pessimism can calm the nerves at such times.
redandwhite said…
Jill seems mighty paranoid doesn't she?
Jeff Marshall said…
Ms Rhodes-Harvey’s use of the phrase ‘your so-called blog’ reminds me of another Harvey (as in use of the phrase ‘your so-called party’). I wonder if by any chance they are related.

Second – a touch more seriously – I wonder if you plan to follow your own advice & obtain a female lover/companion/civil partner yourself. Or are you merely recommending it for other women?

A similar thought occurred to me the other day while reading an item on your blog about recycling corpses. Was it advice only for others - or intended for you too?

Whilst vultures may be few & far between in England - particularly in the south of the country - I daresay pigs might make quite a good meal of someone’s recent remains, thereby nourishing the animals & feeding other humans as well. What could be ‘greener’? Yet – would you follow your own advice? Your - presumably by then - female lover/companion/civil partner might wish for a more traditional send off than to have her last memory of you forever connected with the munching of carniverous animals.

Third - & more seriously – it scarcely needs pointing out that a woman might ‘lose’ her husband in ways other than mislaying him like a parcel. She might even perhaps find herself discarded for one of the ‘much younger women’, in whom you seem to believe decent over-40s men are solely interested. And on the basis that being dumped wasn’t exclusively her fault, she could probably join an online gay introduction agency if desired.

I think, however, it’s somewhat unlikely Ms Rhodes-Harvey would significantly augment her profits by trying to persuade her existing female client base to bat for the other side. Indeed, such an attempt could easily backfire & have the opposite effect.

Still - since you seem determined to try to put the likes of Ms R-H – as well as many hardworking funeral directors – out of business, well – I would imagine you might expect a rather bitter backlash from some aggrieved matchmakers & undertakers in the near future!
Andromeda said…
In response to Jeffrey Marshall’s comments, I would say that all my recommendations I would follow myself. If they are good enough for others, they are good enough for me!

In response to his comment on my post at, I will say that I have already donated my body to Dr Gunther von Hagens and will not be requiring a sky burial. The idea of being eaten by pigs (which do not fly and which will in turn be eaten by humans) is distasteful for health and hygiene reasons. SOYLENT GREEN gave me nightmares for a long time.

As for taking away the business funeral directors, I do not see that a policy of recycling corpses would necessarily cause that, for some ritual sending off would still be required, for which a fee would still be payable.

The idea of a same-sex partnership is not repugnant to me but as with all partnerships, the right person must be found. I believe the key is compatibility, whatever the gender of the couple concerned. I am not ruling anything out, particularly when there is such a dearth of decent men (and women) around.

With regard to the problem of wives who are unable to keep their husbands from escaping into the arms of younger and more pleasing women, it is arguably the wife’s inability to make this course of action inconvenient and undesirable to her husband that has caused his escape. If no children are involved, then it is just tough, isn’t it, if the man feels that his wife is no longer serving his purpose and has fallen in love with another?

On the other hand, if he cares at all for his progeny, he ought to realise that they would most probably be disadvantaged by not being with their father, or that their mother will be having to undergo the inconvenience of having a number of relationships with possibly unsuitable men who may turn out to be abusers of his children or in a position to exert a bad influence.

I do not see why Ms Rhodes-Harvey could not charge her female clients for introducing her other female clients for the purposes of a same-sex partnership. She could introduce them to this idea gently by referring to referring them to this blog and invite comments. There might even be an enthusiastic response from realistic women who are not averse to the idea, who can then be put in touch with each other.

I once applied for a vacancy at a similar introduction agency. The proprietor mentioned her previous experience running a gay dating agency and said the work was easier then, because there was no need to maintain a gender balance. I do assure you that I was only trying to be helpful to Ms Rhodes-Harvey and other women by raising the subject. Ruining her business was the furthest thing from my mind.

I see no disgrace in having to make do with a same-sex partnership after one is past child-bearing, where all the sex that could take place must be recreational rather than reproductive. That, at any rate, is my take on female homosexuality.

If one were to inveigh against homosexuality because it is sinful, unnatural and harmful to society because it reduces the birth rate, then arguably female homosexuality after a certain age is less sinful than persistent male homosexuality, since men do not have a biological clock that prevents them from becoming a father, even in their 80s.
Andromeda said…
Tim Pendry’s comments suggests that he is in the very fortunate position of being blessed with a happy marriage! This blog is really intended to serve the needs of the unhappily married contemplating divorce as well as those who are single and looking.

The idea is to get together a disparate group of men interested in politics and women interested in romance and to increase the sum of human happiness.

It is all part of my mission to make politics relevant and rewarding.

Alas, the comments I have had so far only come from men. It disappointing that even my attempt to attract women using the bait of gender politics has resulted in attracting only men!
Jeff Marshall said…
Do please reconsider bequeathing body when finished with to von Hagens. Thought of Andromeda filled with embalming fluid & chained to her rock for decades to come ought to induce nightmares even worse than Soylent Green. Or being placed on a skinny dead horse, perhaps, holding a sword aloft. with a ghastly fixed, fleshless expression like one of Dr Mengele's other exhibits would certainly make me think twice.

I once passed Mengele in Aldgate at the time of his Brick Lane exhibition. Such an eerie cold look he gives you - as though he’s sizing you up for his body show.
Andromeda said…
Dr von Hagens is in fact a charming and charismatic man once you get to know him.
Tim Pendry said…
I am indeed, albeit with the usual ups-and-downs. Of course, 'er indoors' cannot possibly understand me - but then who really ever understands anyone else ...

But I take the hint that my happy world view is not welcome. What outrage! Such discrimination against happy people clearly requires more government intervention.

But, nevertheless, I shall read the site with great and intense interest and if you ever want the secret of happiness, you know where to find me :-)
Andromeda said…
I am so glad Tim Pendry did not take it the wrong way when I said that this blog is meant to absorb the gender angst felt by the generality of society. I certainly did not mean to say that the views of happily married people are unwelcome! I am sure they are happily married because they have found another who loves them for themselves and they are people who clearly deserve the love of another likeminded person. Most of us are less fortunate, perhaps because we are less loveable, less loving, not good enough at communication, negotiation, do not give sufficient pleasure, are bad at problem-solving, are not attractive or wealthy enough, etc etc!

I suppose I am trying to suggest that we are less successful because we misunderstand our gender roles - women particularly - and could easily do better and be happier if only we would get rid of the burdensome baggage of feminism, perhaps ...

Tim Pendry said…
Why, thank you ma'am ...

I must confirm for the record that an aggressive feminism may be socially useful, even necessary in some respects, but, as with oafish self-absorbed masculinity (useful in business), it certainly tends to work against states of bliss.

But I promised not to interfere on this site and depress others with the good order of my life, so the secrets of sexual happiness must, perforce, remain a matter of private conversations.
Anonymous said…
Not to be pedantic or anything but this blog is caked in ads. This means that you are making money from it and therefore the writing you have here is in fact covered by the copywrite laws she talks of.

She also doesn't suggest that you know nothing of dating because you're a blogger, she suggests it based upon what she has read of your blog. The fact that you've made such an error so early on in this post sets a tone of you being pretty stupid. Perhaps you should read your mail properly?
Claire Khaw said…
I have never received a penny from these ads and I will have you know that I do receive quite a lot of interest and admiration from my male readers. My powers of seduction are considerable but I choose to use them only sparingly.

Popular posts from this blog

Divorced women who literally turn their sons into women

The easy and cheap availability of British women

Religion and Recreational Sex: sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?