"Sugarbabies" / "Arrangements" Amateurs or Not?

[TomDickNHarry]

As I understand it, it creates a new potential financial liability via civil action but also a criminal one. Depending on how profitable this is for Wade, it may very well be worth legal bills and even settlements of the eventual plaintiff suits to continue to operate. However, the criminal liability is another matter and may eventually force his hand. It would be a risk I wouldn't take personally.

Something will spring up for this idea located offshore or the like to take its place if / when that happens. However, it will be much more under the radar and I doubt the true sugar newbies that I do this for will be nearly as plentiful as it will lack the exposure.

I already got my first ever message from the site from someone quoting prices in "hhr and hr" just like like she was no doubt doing in her backpage ad a few days ago. Not good.

[DavidS78]

I agree with JZLizard in most everything here. As he has suggested in the past, it is up to those of us who want SA and sites like it to continue to take our own steps. If I contact a girl and she proposes an allowance discussion on the site, I immediately say it's not permitted. If she did it b / c she's an escort and I lose out, well, that's good for me (saves my time), and it's good for SA if she can't ply her trade there. If I get a $ amount proposal in a PM, I immediately report them. The evidence is right there in their message. I presume the girl can get back on with another email of course. I haven't personally seen them though. I contacted a girl through a CL ad a few months ago, approaching her as a SD. After a little messaging, she just says 'my place, $500', so I know she's an escort. I have no interest. Then I get my paid SA membership, and there she is, under the Featured profiles. I was tempted to try to resurrect her old ad and report her to SA also, but it's a little vigilante, and just too time-consuming.

One wonders about a serial process of new sites springing up that do the same thing, by different people in similar ways. The Secret Benefits site is advertised heavily here. There's no reason in principle it could not become a successor or competitor for SA. I got a profile, but have not been able to figure out a safe way to pay for messaging. As was mentioned, that is the key to the castle for any such site. Enabling those of us w / SOs to pay discreetly. At this stage it doesn't have anything like the scope of women SA does, at least in my area.

Would making the women pay some token amount help or hurt the integrity of SA? Maybe escorts have more $ and it would encourage them?

I've been told by 3 POTs they pay for their accounts too, met one recently that was sharing account with her roommate because of it. Probably why some come and go frequently.

[JZLizard]

While I agree that premium members can help SA get rid of the escorts by reporting them, SA management has to step up and take some actions to clean the site. Some of the profiles now on SA clearly indicate prostitution, some public photos are too revealing, they are doing nothing to clean them up. In some cases when I reported, nothing happened. If Mr. Wade wants to stay in business he has to make some drastic changes to the site so that SA is viewed as a dating site not sex site. Otherwise, the days of SA are numbered under SESTA / FOSTA. For example, he can get rid of the "Lifestyle Expectation" choices for girls so that money is not connected to the dating.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.

I do think getting rid of the lifestyle expectation amount might be a good idea (because it is useless anyway), but he would simultaneously need to find a way to attract female members to replace it, because this method of self-evaluation of their worth is part of what gets them interested in creating an account. They see the numbers, imagine how much more secure they will be if they supplemented their lifestyle by that amount, and it gives them motivation to proceed into waters they might otherwise have too many reservations about.

I don't see the connection to money as the primary issue here. If girls are advertising "companionship" by the hour and posting "quickie" discount rates, that's one thing. However, the exchange of money or gifts for companionship is NOT illegal, and that's the point that always seems to get lost. This is the sole legal fact that gives sites like SA survival potential (as long as they manage it well, facilitating the legal lifestyle of sugar dating while also battling the illegal practice of prostitution).

One thing to keep in mind is that the lawyers, judges, politicians that would be needed to launch a campaign also often partake in the practice of having a younger kept woman (SB) on the side, even the ones that wouldn't be caught dead taking a risk with a per-hour escort. Why? Because one of them jeopardizes their career and puts everything they've worked their whole life for at risk, while the other one does not. Or maybe they are just like and don't like the challenge-less practice of paying a girl to fuck who happens to be willing to fuck just about anyone that walks through the door with some green in their hand.

[FarFarAway]

While I agree that premium members can help SA get rid of the escorts by reporting them, SA management has to step up and take some actions to clean the site. Some of the profiles now on SA clearly indicate prostitution, some public photos are too revealing, they are doing nothing to clean them up. In some cases when I reported, nothing happened. If Mr. Wade wants to stay in business he has to make some drastic changes to the site so that SA is viewed as a dating site not sex site. Otherwise, the days of SA are numbered under SESTA / FOSTA. For example, he can get rid of the "Lifestyle Expectation" choices for girls so that money is not connected to the dating.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.

I endorse that last idea. I routinely ignore it, even more so w / the younger SBs, because the record is that some just are reacting to how the words sound and not to the site definitions. TBH, I even had a search that plays this angle. I call it clueless. Figuring that many guys may steer away from a girl who says High or Substantial, I filter for those who do and are <23.

BTW, generally, I have thought that the 30's women might be a better match for me since I am 60+, and I have contacted many in my 2+ years on SA. Mostly, though, I have found them to be mercenary bitches. They seem to calculate the allowance based on those descriptors w / a flinty eye. The definition of GPS. They likely have greater needs than the 20's girls, and expect them to be fulfilled. The SB we all want is one for whom this is all new and they want to add an adventure to their young lives.

[SugaFoot]

Raising membership fees would scare away lower or average income "fake" SDs. Not all of them, but some. I've known a lot of girls who tell me about the vast number of fakes that have very little actual career achievement, and really couldn't afford to support an SB even if they wanted to. They are able to muster up enough of their paycheck to try to get a girl in a hotel room for a couple of hours, but aside from the willingness to do that, they have nothing else going for them that would qualify them as an SD.

Again, there's no method to eliminate all the fakes, but higher membership fees would weed out quite a few and would put the female to male ratio even more in favor of the SD. This would also have the effect of weeding out the girls who are also not qualified to be SBs due to being ugly, overweight, drug-addled, or just too old -- because they would be receiving much less attention and deem it a waste of their time, exiting the site.

I see stricter verification of members as being one of the last things Wade would reach for, because it would weed out a lot qualified SDs who just happen to be married, and also SBs that are particularly concerned about privacy in their personal life. Lessening either of those numbers is not good for business. Weeding out lower income riff-raff would be, especially for a lifestyle that is based on the premise of successful older men meeting beautiful younger women.

I just hope he finds a way to weed out the folks that do not understand the difference between a dating site versus a prostitution site. Some level of prostitution probably takes place on all dating sites, and no doubt sugar sites draw more of that, but it's those that don't understand the difference that are the biggest problem plaguing the lifestyle.

That's the point I was trying to make. Upping the membership will suck but it would help to level things out some. Or, he could make guys put skin in the game by doing away with monthly memberships. Go three months min or something.

[DrSummer]

While I agree that premium members can help SA get rid of the escorts by reporting them, SA management has to step up and take some actions to clean the site. Some of the profiles now on SA clearly indicate prostitution, some public photos are too revealing, they are doing nothing to clean them up. In some cases when I reported, nothing happened. If Mr. Wade wants to stay in business he has to make some drastic changes to the site so that SA is viewed as a dating site not sex site. Otherwise, the days of SA are numbered under SESTA / FOSTA. For example, he can get rid of the "Lifestyle Expectation" choices for girls so that money is not connected to the dating.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.

I agree with JZLizard in most everything here. As he has suggested in the past, it is up to those of us who want SA and sites like it to continue to take our own steps. If I contact a girl and she proposes an allowance discussion on the site, I immediately say it's not permitted. If she did it b / c she's an escort and I lose out, well, that's good for me (saves my time), and it's good for SA if she can't ply her trade there. If I get a $ amount proposal in a PM, I immediately report them. The evidence is right there in their message. I presume the girl can get back on with another email of course. I haven't personally seen them though. I contacted a girl through a CL ad a few months ago, approaching her as a SD. After a little messaging, she just says 'my place, $500', so I know she's an escort. I have no interest. Then I get my paid SA membership, and there she is, under the Featured profiles. I was tempted to try to resurrect her old ad and report her to SA also, but it's a little vigilante, and just too time-consuming.

One wonders about a serial process of new sites springing up that do the same thing, by different people in similar ways. The Secret Benefits site is advertised heavily here. There's no reason in principle it could not become a successor or competitor for SA. I got a profile, but have not been able to figure out a safe way to pay for messaging. As was mentioned, that is the key to the castle for any such site. Enabling those of us w / SOs to pay discreetly. At this stage it doesn't have anything like the scope of women SA does, at least in my area.

Would making the women pay some token amount help or hurt the integrity of SA? Maybe escorts have more $ and it would encourage them?

[FarFarAway]

I agree with JZLizard in most everything here. As he has suggested in the past, it is up to those of us who want SA and sites like it to continue to take our own steps. If I contact a girl and she proposes an allowance discussion on the site, I immediately say it's not permitted. If she did it b / c she's an escort and I lose out, well, that's good for me (saves my time), and it's good for SA if she can't ply her trade there. If I get a $ amount proposal in a PM, I immediately report them. The evidence is right there in their message. I presume the girl can get back on with another email of course. I haven't personally seen them though. I contacted a girl through a CL ad a few months ago, approaching her as a SD. After a little messaging, she just says 'my place, $500', so I know she's an escort. I have no interest. Then I get my paid SA membership, and there she is, under the Featured profiles. I was tempted to try to resurrect her old ad and report her to SA also, but it's a little vigilante, and just too time-consuming.

One wonders about a serial process of new sites springing up that do the same thing, by different people in similar ways. The Secret Benefits site is advertised heavily here. There's no reason in principle it could not become a successor or competitor for SA. I got a profile, but have not been able to figure out a safe way to pay for messaging. As was mentioned, that is the key to the castle for any such site. Enabling those of us w / SOs to pay discreetly. At this stage it doesn't have anything like the scope of women SA does, at least in my area.

Would making the women pay some token amount help or hurt the integrity of SA? Maybe escorts have more $ and it would encourage them?

[JZLizard]

LOL how does raising the premiums help weed out anything? Higher priced hookers to higher paying johns? The horse is out of the barn, to latevto close the door. Sa is a sex site pure and simple. He will probably raise premiums, suckers will pay and wake up one morning to find its closed. He had a great run, , and made a ton of money which he is not going to risk losing by continuing to operate a sex site.

Raising membership fees would scare away lower or average income "fake" SDs. Not all of them, but some. I've known a lot of girls who tell me about the vast number of fakes that have very little actual career achievement, and really couldn't afford to support an SB even if they wanted to. They are able to muster up enough of their paycheck to try to get a girl in a hotel room for a couple of hours, but aside from the willingness to do that, they have nothing else going for them that would qualify them as an SD.

Again, there's no method to eliminate all the fakes, but higher membership fees would weed out quite a few and would put the female to male ratio even more in favor of the SD. This would also have the effect of weeding out the girls who are also not qualified to be SBs due to being ugly, overweight, drug-addled, or just too old -- because they would be receiving much less attention and deem it a waste of their time, exiting the site.

I see stricter verification of members as being one of the last things Wade would reach for, because it would weed out a lot qualified SDs who just happen to be married, and also SBs that are particularly concerned about privacy in their personal life. Lessening either of those numbers is not good for business. Weeding out lower income riff-raff would be, especially for a lifestyle that is based on the premise of successful older men meeting beautiful younger women.

I just hope he finds a way to weed out the folks that do not understand the difference between a dating site versus a prostitution site. Some level of prostitution probably takes place on all dating sites, and no doubt sugar sites draw more of that, but it's those that don't understand the difference that are the biggest problem plaguing the lifestyle.

[JZLizard]

If Google and Facebook can't be trusted with your personal data then why in the world would you trust a sex site. Yes, S. A is a sex site. Let's stop fooling ourselves. 99% of the men on there are looking for pussy is some form or another. S. A. Is a less crude sex site but that doesn't change the underlying purpose. I think he started trying to weed the less sophsitcated mongers by upping the membership price so that's a start. I do agree that going all premium will help too.

There is a tremendous difference. Facebook and Google are in the advertising business -- all of their revenue source revolve around targeted ads, profiling their customers and selling data about them. They do not charge membership fees, they operate on a business model that involves giving access to the service itself away free, in exchange for the user agreeing to forgo their privacy.

SA's profit comes, plain and simply, from membership fees (as do most dating sites). What's more, Brandon Wade is smart enough to know that the dating site business and the advertising business are two very different industries. A dating site (of any type) that ever intentionally puts the privacy of its member base at risk will be out of business in a few months. This is even more true with SA or any other site where a huge portion of its members need even more privacy. Wade knows that if married men can no longer trust his site, 80%+ of his current member base will vanish overnight.

In other words, Google / Facebook maximize profits by compromising their users privacy. SA maximize profits by protecting their users privacy. The profit motive drives everything. I can never understand why folks lump businesses together that have such opposite business models.

As far as SA being a sex site. As someone with extensive experience with regular dating sites, I can tell you 99% of men are looking for sex on those sites as well. In that regard, match.com would be a sex site too and by the time you get to Tinder, 99% of everyone on there is looking for casual sex (whether male or female). Let's not forget this is a primary motivation for men and women getting together on line in the first place.

[John HandCock]

If Google and Facebook can't be trusted with your personal data then why in the world would you trust a sex site. Yes, S. A is a sex site. Let's stop fooling ourselves. 99% of the men on there are looking for pussy is some form or another. S. A. Is a less crude sex site but that doesn't change the underlying purpose. I think he started trying to weed the less sophsitcated mongers by upping the membership price so that's a start. I do agree that going all premium will help too.

LOL how does raising the premiums help weed out anything? Higher priced hookers to higher paying johns? The horse is out of the barn, to latevto close the door. Sa is a sex site pure and simple. He will probably raise premiums, suckers will pay and wake up one morning to find its closed. He had a great run, , and made a ton of money which he is not going to risk losing by continuing to operate a sex site.

[SugaFoot]

I completely agree the future of SA depends on how Mr. Wade is going to play his cards and how fast he does it. The new SESTA is so broad and overreaching on digital content, SA is not out of the hook. Mr. Wade has a business to run, and make profit, I hope he makes some smart choices. For the SB end he can weed out girls to make a distinction between sugaring and escorting. Also on SD side, will he go only premium paid membership and collect some personal information from joining members? I am sure we will have to give away some of our anonymity to play the game in the future. Personally I would rather give some of my information if SA becomes a cleaner site than what it is now (I don't have a SO, I have the luxury of doing that, most others may not have that luxary). But, the sugar bowl is definitely going to change its complexion.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.

If Google and Facebook can't be trusted with your personal data then why in the world would you trust a sex site. Yes, S. A is a sex site. Let's stop fooling ourselves. 99% of the men on there are looking for pussy is some form or another. S. A. Is a less crude sex site but that doesn't change the underlying purpose. I think he started trying to weed the less sophsitcated mongers by upping the membership price so that's a start. I do agree that going all premium will help too.

[DrSummer]

I completely agree the future of SA depends on how Mr. Wade is going to play his cards and how fast he does it. The new SESTA is so broad and overreaching on digital content, SA is not out of the hook. Mr. Wade has a business to run, and make profit, I hope he makes some smart choices. For the SB end he can weed out girls to make a distinction between sugaring and escorting. Also on SD side, will he go only premium paid membership and collect some personal information from joining members? I am sure we will have to give away some of our anonymity to play the game in the future. Personally I would rather give some of my information if SA becomes a cleaner site than what it is now (I don't have a SO, I have the luxury of doing that, most others may not have that luxary). But, the sugar bowl is definitely going to change its complexion.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.

If you do an advanced search on my posts from around the mid 2015 time frame, using "trafficking" as a keyword, you can read some of my thoughts about threats to the hobby (sugaring hobby that is, not mongering). Some of those predictions are showing signs of coming full circle, even though at the time some folks said it would never happen.

I do think the sugaring lifestyle as we've come to know it (enjoying on line conveniences) is in danger, and I hope the SD sites find a clever way to deal with the issue.

The bright side for sugaring is that unlike prostitution, it's not illegal. The risks mostly revolve around the idiots that don't know the difference. I don't see how the seizure of BP domains could not lead to more riff-raff trying to convert to the sugar scene, and unfortunately there will be mongers seeking same there, and it's that sort of activity that creates ambiguity around the differences between mongering and sugaring.

So there is a definitely a risk looming, and may seem shallow to summarize it this way, but the short-term outcome is probably going to hinge almost completely on how Brandon Wade plays his cards. Will he try to implement AI algorithms to weed out mongers and escorts? Will he approach preserving SA through legal tactics? As long as online dating sites exist, there will always be sugaring opportunity for those who know how to find it. But whether it stays as easy and convenient as it is today is going to be the result of pretty much one man's decisions.

[JZLizard]

It was a matter of time. You guys may already know BP has been shut down as of this morning. Also TER has decided to block its content to US users. What effects will this have on SA?

1. Will all the escorts in BP try to get into SA and make it a further mess?

2. Will SA be the next target?

3. Will SA take stern actions to clean up and make sure escorts don't get in so that they can stay in business? That would be good for us who are tired of the mess in SA now.

4. How will the SBs on SA react knowing that BP is not an option anymore?

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.

If you do an advanced search on my posts from around the mid 2015 time frame, using "trafficking" as a keyword, you can read some of my thoughts about threats to the hobby (sugaring hobby that is, not mongering). Some of those predictions are showing signs of coming full circle, even though at the time some folks said it would never happen.

I do think the sugaring lifestyle as we've come to know it (enjoying on line conveniences) is in danger, and I hope the SD sites find a clever way to deal with the issue.

The bright side for sugaring is that unlike prostitution, it's not illegal. The risks mostly revolve around the idiots that don't know the difference. I don't see how the seizure of BP domains could not lead to more riff-raff trying to convert to the sugar scene, and unfortunately there will be mongers seeking same there, and it's that sort of activity that creates ambiguity around the differences between mongering and sugaring.

So there is a definitely a risk looming, and may seem shallow to summarize it this way, but the short-term outcome is probably going to hinge almost completely on how Brandon Wade plays his cards. Will he try to implement AI algorithms to weed out mongers and escorts? Will he approach preserving SA through legal tactics? As long as online dating sites exist, there will always be sugaring opportunity for those who know how to find it. But whether it stays as easy and convenient as it is today is going to be the result of pretty much one man's decisions.

[RVASpider]

Heh. No offense, but I never share info on girls, or ask for it from others. I know some are into it, but I operate so far away from the UTR / Pro end of the spectrum, that I really cannot think of one of my SBs that would be anything other than horrified that I tried to pass her off to someone. Now, many of them would likely be open to me bringing in another girl or maybe a buddy for a threesome, but I'm not really into that so I never ask.

I can't explain the recent decline in camera shyness. As recent as just a few years ago I used to have a hell of a time getting them to do this on the first date, yet more and more I find them saying yes.

I have no interest in a threesome either! I met a girl for drinks last night and she let me videotape. No face shots though.

[JZLizard]

Good information here. I've never done the calcs but I do fairly well. My target is 18-21. The thing I've found is that you have to strike fast. If you give them to much time they are gone to the next guy.

For me, the kink is in filming them before and during the first fuck. For some reason, filming them after I've fucked them prior doesn't hold the same adrenaline rush. I think part of it may be the elevated risk of them saying no on the first date.

I have learned one thing for sure -- it's never a good idea to test the waters prior to the first actual FC visit. I believe I've scared a few off that way.