"Sugarbabies" / "Arrangements" Amateurs or Not?

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?

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.

[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3793366]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?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3793092]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=DrSummer;3793732]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=DrSummer;3793732]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3793366]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?[/QUOTE]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.

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.

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?

[QUOTE=CantWinLosin;3795127]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?[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=DavidS78;3794695]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.[/QUOTE]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

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3794641] 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).[/QUOTE]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.

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

[QUOTE=Assaholic;3795539]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.[/QUOTE]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.

So while we obsess over political bs.

Don't get side tracked.

Scammers are out in force.

Check out the fingers. Nice try.

Attached from prev post.