"Sugar Babies" and "Arrangements"

[TylerDurden07]

She used to reside in Atlanta. Then moved to LA, now back to Atlanta, via Dallas, for vacation.

She contacted me also as we have had some prior business. Her recent msg, which really highlights her devolving 'tude: "You also know the power lies with the woman. That's why it's free for me to join, but you have to pay. I will never have to pay for s*x, but you do. "

Just for the record. Before she moved to LA, still residing in Atlanta. Met her 3 x for $200 ppm at her place. All bare, BBBJ and CIP. Was enjoyable as she is not unattractive or unskilled. But next she decided that CIP is off the table, so I called it quits.

LOL. "I will never have to pay for sex, but you do. " Like Bane said in The Dark Knight Rises: "And you think this gives you power over me? Does this girl need reminding that there are a LOT of girls on that site, & other sites, who will gladly take our money?

[Antioch]

https://members.seeking.com/messages...f-82364304bdb3

Wants a $200 advance for her pups sake so she can have them watched.

[LoverAtl]

She used to reside in Atlanta. Then moved to LA, now back to Atlanta, via Dallas, for vacation.

She contacted me also as we have had some prior business. Her recent msg, which really highlights her devolving 'tude: "You also know the power lies with the woman. That's why it's free for me to join, but you have to pay. I will never have to pay for s*x, but you do. "

Just for the record. Before she moved to LA, still residing in Atlanta. Met her 3 x for $200 ppm at her place. All bare, BBBJ and CIP. Was enjoyable as she is not unattractive or unskilled. But next she decided that CIP is off the table, so I called it quits.

Soundshennington's profile says Dallas, TX, but she said she recently moved to Atlanta. She reached out to me first and I asked her what she's looking for. She answered with a series of snotty messages about how I should have read her profile and she didn't spend her valuable time writing it to have her time wasted. Even when I wrote that I was just trying to make conversation she persisted with her onslaught. I wished her good luck in her search (because telling her that she's a beotch that I wouldn't see in a million years could get me reported) and she blocked me. YMMV, but I can't imagine trying to navigate an arrangement with an entitled, short tempered pain in the ass.

[TylerDurden07]

Soundshennington's profile says Dallas, TX, but she said she recently moved to Atlanta. She reached out to me first and I asked her what she's looking for. She answered with a series of snotty messages about how I should have read her profile and she didn't spend her valuable time writing it to have her time wasted. Even when I wrote that I was just trying to make conversation she persisted with her onslaught. I wished her good luck in her search (because telling her that she's a beotch that I wouldn't see in a million years could get me reported) and she blocked me. YMMV, but I can't imagine trying to navigate an arrangement with an entitled, short tempered pain in the ass.

I see those types occasionally. But I usually respond with a lot of attitude, & with a ton of sarcasm ("oh wow! You seem so nice!" right back at them. Don't take guff off these girls. You can respond in a way that won't get you banned. Just avoid profanity, ya know.

[Peter Pan]

https://members.seeking.com/member/c...f-25d64aae3186

Don't bother.

[Christian Troy]

I connected with these two Latinas on non-sugar dating apps and have sugar dates lined up. They both claim they've done this before but I've never seen them on any sugar sites (I did find their socials though). Anyone have any experience? I'll report back next week.

[NewAnonymousName]

Soundshennington's profile says Dallas, TX, but she said she recently moved to Atlanta. She reached out to me first and I asked her what she's looking for. She answered with a series of snotty messages about how I should have read her profile and she didn't spend her valuable time writing it to have her time wasted. Even when I wrote that I was just trying to make conversation she persisted with her onslaught. I wished her good luck in her search (because telling her that she's a beotch that I wouldn't see in a million years could get me reported) and she blocked me. YMMV, but I can't imagine trying to navigate an arrangement with an entitled, short tempered pain in the ass.

[NewAnonymousName]

You win. Nobody ever has security cameras aimed everywhere in their homes. There you go. Better? Ok good. Moving on.

I didn't say nobody does it. I said it's illegal because it is. But so is almost all of the "mongering" and SD / SB (at least PPM) being discussed on the boards. It's all good. I don't mean it as criticism of you. Each of us makes choices in this game that aren't necessarily the same choices everyone else would make.

[DaRiv]

Good luck arguing that a camera aimed at a bed or in a bathroom is for security purposes as opposed to ones aimed at the doors, windows and hallways. Don't forget that IT experts will tear through your devices to prove that you were using the feed to view clips for voyeuristic purposes. Also, even if you somehow win that argument, you still have no right under the statute to record someone, even for security purposes, where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy unless you have their consent. You'll need even better luck trying to argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a bedroom or bathroom and that signs at the entryways are somehow implied consent for the bedrooms and bathrooms. Finally, even if you somehow get acquitted, you would be publicly shamed.

This is my last post on the topic. It's illegal and it's a risk. Everyone else on the boards has gotten enough (probably more than enough, LOL) information to decide for themselves whether they agree with your misguided interpretation of the statute. And of course, as was said from the outset, lots of things are illegal (speeding, prostitution, etc.) that people regularly decide to do anyway. Everyone can evaluate whether to take that risk for themselves. I'm not telling them what to do, just laying out the legal background. Personally, I'm not risking a girlfriend or sugar baby discovering hidden cameras in my home.

You win. Nobody ever has security cameras aimed everywhere in their homes. There you go. Better? Ok good. Moving on.

[NewAnonymousName]

You actually made my point for me. It's lawful to do it for "security purposes". This is why it says it can be given to the district attorney or law enforcement if you needed to do so. Like with a nanny cam. So what if I'm paranoid and in have cameras everywhere in my home. That's perfectly legal. There was a story on this site I read about a guy who had a girl ubered over to his house. Turns out she had some thugs follow her in the uber. While he wasn't looking she unlocked the doors and just when we were about to get busy but thugs came inside, tied him up, and spent several hours robbing the entire house. Then left him there for 2 days until his family came home and found him tied to the chair. And if he had cameras in his home, it would have been perfectly legal for him to not only have them. But give them to the district attorney or the police so they can use them to try to catch and prosecute the criminals. And that those cameras inside his home happen to catch any other things going on, well it wouldn't matter because they were there for security purposes. The burden would lie on the state to try to prove that your cameras were not there for security purposes. And good luck doing that if you have terabytes of hard drive filled with security surveillance and everything else that happens in your home.

Good luck arguing that a camera aimed at a bed or in a bathroom is for security purposes as opposed to ones aimed at the doors, windows and hallways. Don't forget that IT experts will tear through your devices to prove that you were using the feed to view clips for voyeuristic purposes. Also, even if you somehow win that argument, you still have no right under the statute to record someone, even for security purposes, where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy unless you have their consent. You'll need even better luck trying to argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a bedroom or bathroom and that signs at the entryways are somehow implied consent for the bedrooms and bathrooms. Finally, even if you somehow get acquitted, you would be publicly shamed.

This is my last post on the topic. It's illegal and it's a risk. Everyone else on the boards has gotten enough (probably more than enough, LOL) information to decide for themselves whether they agree with your misguided interpretation of the statute. And of course, as was said from the outset, lots of things are illegal (speeding, prostitution, etc.) that people regularly decide to do anyway. Everyone can evaluate whether to take that risk for themselves. I'm not telling them what to do, just laying out the legal background. Personally, I'm not risking a girlfriend or sugar baby discovering hidden cameras in my home.

[DaRiv]

The actual Georgia statute (quoted in pertinent part below) says you're wrong. As I posted, if it's in an area of a "private place and out of public view," it is illegal to record unless the recording is for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection. Your sex recordings are not for any such purpose. Even if they were, they would still be illegal in an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. You apparently believe your signs are enough to provide implied consent or make it unreasonable for a visitor to expect privacy anywhere in your home, even in the bedroom while having sex or the bathroom. I disagree. I am confident that you will lose the criminal case if your hidden cameras are discovered by a girlfriend or sugar baby.

GA Code 16-11-62 (2020).

It shall be unlawful for:

(1) Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place;.

(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:

(A) To use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or other facility in which persons who are charged with or who have been convicted of the commission of a crime are incarcerated, provided that such equipment shall not be used while the prisoner is discussing his or her case with his or her attorney;.

(B) For an owner or occupier of real property to use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are on the property or an approach thereto in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy;.

(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded; or.

(D) For a law enforcement officer or his or her agent to use a device in the lawful performance of his or her official duties to observe, photograph, videotape, or record the activities of persons that occur in the presence of such officer or his or her agent;.

You actually made my point for me. It's lawful to do it for "security purposes". This is why it says it can be given to the district attorney or law enforcement if you needed to do so. Like with a nanny cam. So what if I'm paranoid and in have cameras everywhere in my home. That's perfectly legal. There was a story on this site I read about a guy who had a girl ubered over to his house. Turns out she had some thugs follow her in the uber. While he wasn't looking she unlocked the doors and just when we were about to get busy but thugs came inside, tied him up, and spent several hours robbing the entire house. Then left him there for 2 days until his family came home and found him tied to the chair. And if he had cameras in his home, it would have been perfectly legal for him to not only have them. But give them to the district attorney or the police so they can use them to try to catch and prosecute the criminals. And that those cameras inside his home happen to catch any other things going on, well it wouldn't matter because they were there for security purposes. The burden would lie on the state to try to prove that your cameras were not there for security purposes. And good luck doing that if you have terabytes of hard drive filled with security surveillance and everything else that happens in your home.

[NewAnonymousName]

Unfortunately you might think that's how it works. But it's not. Just like the sign I have in front of my house saying beware of dog. Removing me of accountability if Amazon driver decides to be an idiot and gets bitten. Having signs outside my home and stickers on my front door and rear doors inside doors saying that this home is being monitored my full circuit security systems covers me inside and outside my home. It's exact same reason I can have a nanny cam and not tell someone as well. Otherwise Nanny cams would be no good and would just get thrown out of court. Hire someone to watch your kid and they beat the shit out of them while your teddy bear with a camera built in watches it happen. Take it and give it to the police and then they would throw it out under the logic that most people think the law should be. But again, do your own research and find out the facts. You'd be surprised how many people think you have to have permission to film them in public or from a public place. And the same amount of people think you're not allowed to have cameras in your house recording them without their permission. It's just not true. When you're inside someone else's domicile all bets are off. Private business or private home. More people have cameras inside their homes than you think.

The actual Georgia statute (quoted in pertinent part below) says you're wrong. As I posted, if it's in an area of a "private place and out of public view," it is illegal to record unless the recording is for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection. Your sex recordings are not for any such purpose. Even if they were, they would still be illegal in an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. You apparently believe your signs are enough to provide implied consent or make it unreasonable for a visitor to expect privacy anywhere in your home, even in the bedroom while having sex or the bathroom. I disagree. I am confident that you will lose the criminal case if your hidden cameras are discovered by a girlfriend or sugar baby.

GA Code 16-11-62 (2020).

It shall be unlawful for:

(1) Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place;.

(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:

(A) To use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or other facility in which persons who are charged with or who have been convicted of the commission of a crime are incarcerated, provided that such equipment shall not be used while the prisoner is discussing his or her case with his or her attorney;.

(B) For an owner or occupier of real property to use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are on the property or an approach thereto in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy;.

(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded; or.

(D) For a law enforcement officer or his or her agent to use a device in the lawful performance of his or her official duties to observe, photograph, videotape, or record the activities of persons that occur in the presence of such officer or his or her agent;.

[DaRiv]

A business is privately owned but a public space. It's not the same expectation of privacy in Target, McDonald's, or a big office as in a private home. For example, no one expects to be able to strip naked in their cubicle or the produce aisle. Are signs in your home enough to make the private home space not private? If the signs are only at the front door, my guess is no. Reasonable people would assume they're being filmed out front, not inside. If the signs are prominently displayed in the bedroom or living room where the deed is going down, then maybe, maybe not. However, wouldn't that put a damper on the mood with most sugar babies? Maybe the hardened pros who use the site like backpage wouldn't care, but the soccer moms and divorcees probably would run for the hills after seeing prominent posters warning them of videotaping.

Unfortunately you might think that's how it works. But it's not. Just like the sign I have in front of my house saying beware of dog. Removing me of accountability if Amazon driver decides to be an idiot and gets bitten. Having signs outside my home and stickers on my front door and rear doors inside doors saying that this home is being monitored my full circuit security systems covers me inside and outside my home. It's exact same reason I can have a nanny cam and not tell someone as well. Otherwise Nanny cams would be no good and would just get thrown out of court. Hire someone to watch your kid and they beat the shit out of them while your teddy bear with a camera built in watches it happen. Take it and give it to the police and then they would throw it out under the logic that most people think the law should be. But again, do your own research and find out the facts. You'd be surprised how many people think you have to have permission to film them in public or from a public place. And the same amount of people think you're not allowed to have cameras in your house recording them without their permission. It's just not true. When you're inside someone else's domicile all bets are off. Private business or private home. More people have cameras inside their homes than you think.

[2me4Looking2]

Anyone have any experience with this one? She has been around for a bit, but I didn't find any mention of her on the board under her username.

https://members.seeking.com/member/f...d-6a52d299c2b0

[LoverAtl]

Here is the correct member link, https://members.seeking.com/member/d...2-542c9af647d0.

https://members.seeking.com/messages...2-bb7752a442a1