"Sugarbabies" / "Arrangements" Amateurs or Not?

[FarFarAway]

Guy did an excellent job, here's my effort. IDK why this is any better place to ask this question than any other, but here goes. Girls obsess about all kinds of appearance stuff, one is thigh gap. The distance between the thighs right at the pussy. Obviously, they have none if the thighs rub together (chubby), and most girls with it are skinny. Is there any correlation between thigh gap and sex quality anyone has discerned? One might imagine easier DATY, for example.

[GuyInTheCorner]

The discussion over the past week is completely appropriate but understandable. Still, it's bumming me out, so I thought I might share the outcome of my most recent dalliances in the bowl. For the most part, experience is as wonderful as ever. Just keep your wits about you. Highlights and amusements of the past three weeks (four including the first week of searches and chatting to tee it up) include:

— the unicorn: 23 year old who absolutely loves sex, is completely wild, lives ten minutes away in her own apartment, is a little rich girl so only into it for the thrill, and matches every one of my major kinks. Super curvy with huge ass and tits (some of you would say she's fat but I think she's sexy as hell), loves it rough, and squirts so much she makes Cytherea look like an amateur.

— the reason why we do this: 23 year old who is getting out of a long and abusive but very vanilla sex relationship. Wants a good man to help her explore her sexuality and try new things. I DPed her with a toy last weekend that made her cum so hard she passed out. On a more serious note hoping to help her move out and get herself settled.

— the "just in it for the sex": late 20's woman who discovered her love of sex later and is making up for lost time. Yet another profilic squirter, sweet as hell. Also lives by herself but unfortunately further away and supplanted by her younger, closer, and sexier counterpart.

— the blonde divorcee: 30 something tall busty Blonde who is a former swinger and just wants good ol' fashioned sweaty workout sex. The type that will throw you down and ride you so hard you see a bruise through your pubic hair.

There are also the amusing ones:

— the Lolita: 30 something sex-positive spinner type with a major DDlg fetish. Somewhat unreasonable expectations given her lack of logistical convenience but able to reach an agreement after an extraordinarily hot M&G that crossed all sorts of lines while in role play. Follow up meeting a week later cut unfortunately short when her period starts during a vigorous round of fingering (which I unfortunately discovered as I went to demonstrably lick what I thought was her wetness off my fingers. ! Given the role play the inconvenience was actually far hotter than it should have been.

— the GPS: 30 yo married woman who is in an open relationship with Hubbie but doesn't act on it. Only one sex partner in the past decade but desperate to try more and explore her serious sub side. Fantastic M&G and clicking on all levels but brings down the hammer. Expectation of 3500/ mo plus gifts.

— the novice: 18 yo girl who lives with parents but is desperate for pleasure. Wants to have you over at all times of day and night even when others are home. Unfortunately her eyes are bigger than her pussy — when it comes to actual play she is in need of some serious baby stepping to bring her up to speed.

Many other nibbles but a lot of catch and release this time. So little time, so many potential matches. Business trip this week should yield some additional stories.

[JZLizard]

Prostitution is not illegal by federal law, only state laws, and the states are not party to this FOSTA crap from what I'm reading. I'm no legal expert, but for the life of me, I can't understand how the feds can criminalize online posting or discussion for an activity that is otherwise legal.

For all of this, sex trafficking is the primary crime being targeted, which is a federal matter (especially since it crosses state borders more often than not). It falls under the Dept of Homeland Security.

[JZLizard]

Attached from prev post.

Foibles of scammers are part of the fun! You mean those fingernails weren't enough to make you want to get all in that, at any price? LOL.

I don't understand the white blotch, an attempt at a lighting flaw I guess, but why?

[NeoDude]

Attached from prev post.

[NeoDude]

So while we obsess over political bs.

Don't get side tracked.

Scammers are out in force.

Check out the fingers. Nice try.

[CantWinLosin]

Prostitution is not illegal by federal law, only state laws, and the states are not party to this FOSTA crap from what I'm reading. I'm no legal expert, but for the life of me, I can't understand how the feds can criminalize online posting or discussion for an activity that is otherwise legal.

The Communications Decency Act was what prevented states from pursuing these sites in this way. SESTA / FOSTA removes that block and lets states as well as victims pursue the operators.

[Assaholic]

Can any confirm if an unverified PP account is still a viable option for SA?

[Assaholic]

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).

Prostitution is not illegal by federal law, only state laws, and the states are not party to this FOSTA crap from what I'm reading. I'm no legal expert, but for the life of me, I can't understand how the feds can criminalize online posting or discussion for an activity that is otherwise legal.

[JZLizard]

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.

They only pay for Premium accounts, which I think are like $20/ mo. I think that lets them contact the SD first instead of just favorite him, and some other things, and I think they occasionally run specials that are below full price.

But most SBs don't have premium, only free accounts.

I may be mistaken but I think an email address at a valid university gets them the same level of access as premium. Student discount..lol

[John HandCock]

Been quite a while since I was active in this section. Still actively work SA and a couple of the other sites, though.

SESTA / FOSTA is incredibly badly written law. It was intentionally written as ambiguously as possible, so that not only sites like BP that allowed direct advertising can be held to it, but more ambiguously-targeted sites like SA and even discussion-only sites like this one can be held to it. Both civil and criminal liability are possible, since SESTA / FOSTA remove the criminal and civil protections for aggregators from the Comm. Decency Act, and allow "victims" to sue for civil damages. It very specifically makes no distinction between private sex workers and human trafficking victims; if it involves, promotes or even just discusses commercialized sex, it's considered trafficking (nevermind that far more people are trafficked as labor than for commercial sex, and that many if not most sex workers do so of their own choice.).

It's not been signed into law yet, and I have to wonder why Trump hasn't signed it. Maybe he has personal reasons for not wanting this to go forward....

Constitutional challenges will likely come quickly, and everything I've seen so far from across the ideological spectrum indicates that the chances of it getting thrown out are solid (when both the anti-trafficking groups and the sexworkers groups are up in arms together, it's got problems.) But many (most?) of the sites we've depended on for years can't survive even a few weeks of waiting, much less the years it will take to wind through all the courts. Which may be the author's goal in the first place. BP will *never* be back, as their problems are much bigger than this.

Offshoring of existing / new sites is not as much an escape as it sounds. The US has extradition treaties and reciprocity agreements with a most of the other countries where hosting could occur, and in those cases a request from the DOJ could cut off access to the site from the US. They'd have to host in places where those treaties / agreements don't exist or aren't followed (places like the Caribbean financial havens), and thanks to the fact that we no longer have net neutrality, even then we could see the DOJ demand that US ISPs block access to those sites. (Yes, you may be able to get around this with a private VPN. Show of hands: how many of you know how to set up a VPN and are willing to mess with it regularly?

Great posting. Well written and explained. It will take years for it to be settled in court and like you said probably tossed out but again years down the road. Most do2 have the deep pockets for years of litigation so someone like the ACLU will need to step up.

[CantWinLosin]

Been quite a while since I was active in this section. Still actively work SA and a couple of the other sites, though.

SESTA / FOSTA is incredibly badly written law. It was intentionally written as ambiguously as possible, so that not only sites like BP that allowed direct advertising can be held to it, but more ambiguously-targeted sites like SA and even discussion-only sites like this one can be held to it. Both civil and criminal liability are possible, since SESTA / FOSTA remove the criminal and civil protections for aggregators from the Comm. Decency Act, and allow "victims" to sue for civil damages. It very specifically makes no distinction between private sex workers and human trafficking victims; if it involves, promotes or even just discusses commercialized sex, it's considered trafficking (nevermind that far more people are trafficked as labor than for commercial sex, and that many if not most sex workers do so of their own choice.).

It's not been signed into law yet, and I have to wonder why Trump hasn't signed it. Maybe he has personal reasons for not wanting this to go forward....

Constitutional challenges will likely come quickly, and everything I've seen so far from across the ideological spectrum indicates that the chances of it getting thrown out are solid (when both the anti-trafficking groups and the sexworkers groups are up in arms together, it's got problems.) But many (most?) of the sites we've depended on for years can't survive even a few weeks of waiting, much less the years it will take to wind through all the courts. Which may be the author's goal in the first place. BP will *never* be back, as their problems are much bigger than this.

Offshoring of existing / new sites is not as much an escape as it sounds. The US has extradition treaties and reciprocity agreements with a most of the other countries where hosting could occur, and in those cases a request from the DOJ could cut off access to the site from the US. They'd have to host in places where those treaties / agreements don't exist or aren't followed (places like the Caribbean financial havens), and thanks to the fact that we no longer have net neutrality, even then we could see the DOJ demand that US ISPs block access to those sites. (Yes, you may be able to get around this with a private VPN. Show of hands: how many of you know how to set up a VPN and are willing to mess with it regularly?

[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.