Printable View
[QUOTE=BamBam;3896634]Am I wrong? I thought that SA used to delete profiles of women who wanted online only. Now it is a lifestyle choice from the drop down menu. [/QUOTE]That's weird, because it's still there as one of the options you can report a profile for (see attached).
I report girls for that whenever I see it mentioned in their profile.
[QUOTE=Zcochran00;3897209] If lots of people say "arrangements" can be platonic-only, then it's a mostly valid way to use the term.[/QUOTE]Speaking of that, did anyone else noticed the site's hostname has changed from [URL]seekingarrangement.com[/URL] to just [URL]seeking.com[/URL], and the logo at the top of the pages now just says "Seeking" also? They must've decided the word "arrangement" exposed them to legal risk.
I bet they're still paying AdWords for the term "seeking arrangement", though.
[QUOTE=YayaGogo;3897358]Hey all,
Is anyone else noticing an increase of 'older' women (by older I mean 30's and above) on SA treating this as a traditional dating site? My usual demographic is college age girls, but while waiting for the fall season to begin I've recently contacted (or been contacted by) several hot milfs and the last three I've met in as many weeks after a coffee and a little witty banter they have all led straight to the FC with Zero financial expectations. They have jobs and don't want / need the money, they either see it as Tinder (FWB) or Match (relationship) with an established guy.
Has it always been this way or did I just luck into a string of horny established milfs on SA? I'm still after the younger girls BTW haha.
Yaya.[/QUOTE]There has always been this subset in varying ages, and it could pick up if it morphs to a more traditional dating site. Just remember: you aren't paying for them to come. You're paying for them to leave.
[QUOTE=UKnowWho;3897512]Speaking of that, did anyone else noticed the site's hostname has changed from [URL]seekingarrangement.com[/URL] to just [URL]seeking.com[/URL], and the logo at the top of the pages now just says "Seeking" also? They must've decided the word "arrangement" exposed them to legal risk.
I bet they're still paying AdWords for the term "seeking arrangement", though.[/QUOTE]Yep, and the tagline is now "Dating on Your Terms" or something like that.
I recently reconnected with an SB. I guess I'm on her "Good" list. Chatting with her, we agree to $ For B. B. Fun at her place. Late 20's slim body. She has a roommate that wanted to watch. Fine with me! When we got together the next day, roommate is a bit older but still pretty. I decided to watch them first. Haha. Hot, hot, hot. I got the still bang my SB, but not the roommate. Daty, Mish, doggie. I still got to full access to roam the roommates body with my hands. It's a sight to have two gals go at it and jump in. Nothing will top this value.
[QUOTE=YayaGogo;3897358]Hey all,
Is anyone else noticing an increase of 'older' women (by older I mean 30's and above) on SA treating this as a traditional dating site? My usual demographic is college age girls, but while waiting for the fall season to begin I've recently contacted (or been contacted by) several hot milfs and the last three I've met in as many weeks after a coffee and a little witty banter they have all led straight to the FC with Zero financial expectations. They have jobs and don't want / need the money, they either see it as Tinder (FWB) or Match (relationship) with an established guy.
Has it always been this way or did I just luck into a string of horny established milfs on SA? I'm still after the younger girls BTW haha.
[/QUOTE]Unless SA starts releasing analytic data, measuring any trend uptick (milfs or otherwise) would be difficult. Aside from maybe patterns caused by cyclical university schedules as it applies to the 18-24 age group, I suspect observations of peaks and valleys are anecdotal, depend on what city you're in, and that mileage would vary greatly depending on who you ask. Also those of us who travel & play in multiple cities, we may not notice as many peaks and valleys as someone more focused on a specific city or area -- rather our perceptions of observable trends get distributed over a larger space.
Speaking overall, on SA there's never been a shortage of 30+ types in search of casual dating, or not so casual dating (relationships), often who already have a nice job, and while they are more attracted to successful men than deadbeats (duh), have no intention of seeking financial help from an SD. If I didn't have my SO, I would banging these like it was a factory assembly line. The observation I've made though is that after about 26-27 years old, they are a little too focused on the "boyfriend" aspect for my tastes, and that's one reason I prefer booking M&Gs with the younger crowd. Over 25+ they seem to get a little too curious about who I am as a person, and generally too close for comfort, considering my current LTR is important to me.
[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3893765]Does a new account on the app get the introductory offer of a week at small $? Still? I can't take a month, I get too immersed, but I am traveling to Boston, would love some company over my 3 nights away from the SO.[/QUOTE]Nope. Its one flat monthly price that they want to set up as a recurring charge. I was a huge fan of the 2-week price in the old iPhone app and also found it very easy to renew using iTunes gift cards loaded to a dummy iTunes account. Now full price and a real credit card are the only option, although some claim that the Vanilla Visa gift cards now work so I suppose one anonymous option remains.
[QUOTE=UKnowWho;3897512]Speaking of that, did anyone else noticed the site's hostname has changed from [URL]seekingarrangement.com[/URL] to just [URL]seeking.com[/URL], and the logo at the top of the pages now just says "Seeking" also? They must've decided the word "arrangement" exposed them to legal risk.[/QUOTE]I just logged in and got a pop-up notice about how they've combined the "lifestyle expectation" figures they used to publish (open, minimal, practical, etc.) into the "tag system." However, now, the tag system doesn't include "sugar daddy" or "sugar baby", and any and all references to, or that imply a sugar lifestyle have been removed.
I predict [URL]seeking.com[/URL] devolves into a standard dating site for girls looking for rich guys, rather than girls looking for a true sugar relationship where both parties trade the sugar they have for the sugar they're looking for.
It will be interesting to see if the site begins banning (or not approving) members for wording in their profiles that implies an openness to "generous behavior" or "offering support" or "accepting support and mentor-ship" and the like. It would make sense that they will do this eventually, as they're obviously making changes to accommodate FOSTA / SESTA.
If they continue on this path, it will become increasingly difficult or impossible for them to justify their exorbitant monthly fees. I think it's beginning already with the shift to recurring billing -- they're obviously attempting to make up for lost revenue by relying on those of us who forget or are too lazy to cancel billing once we've gotten a bunch of contact info to set up M&Gs.
They should just move the site offshore, as one other esteemed webmaster we all know has done.
[QUOTE=Kwagmire;3899778]I just logged in and got a pop-up notice about how they've combined the "lifestyle expectation" figures they used to publish (open, minimal, practical, etc.) into the "tag system." However, now, the tag system doesn't include "sugar daddy" or "sugar baby", and any and all references to, or that imply a sugar lifestyle have been removed.
I predict [URL]seeking.com[/URL] devolves into a standard dating site for girls looking for rich guys, rather than girls looking for a true sugar relationship where both parties trade the sugar they have for the sugar they're looking for.
It will be interesting to see if the site begins banning (or not approving) members for wording in their profiles that implies an openness to "generous behavior" or "offering support" or "accepting support and mentor-ship" and the like. It would make sense that they will do this eventually, as they're obviously making changes to accommodate FOSTA / SESTA.
If they continue on this path, it will become increasingly difficult or impossible for them to justify their exorbitant monthly fees. I think it's beginning already with the shift to recurring billing -- they're obviously attempting to make up for lost revenue by relying on those of us who forget or are too lazy to cancel billing once we've gotten a bunch of contact info to set up M&Gs.
[/QUOTE]The changes may not be a bad thing for us Splenda Daddies, since it may tilt a few things in our favor. It puts a big squeeze on the scourge of ruthless pro's / UTR's, and it gives us a little more plausible deniability "hey I'm just here for the dating, the benefits that can with that you'll just have to find out". The little ladies will adapt. The smarter ones, anyway. The more money hungry among them will have to walk on eggshells now or face exile. The rest can leap back into the shadows and sewers from whence they came.
My mission hasn't changed: to empty my balls into as many greedy 18-25 why / o's as I can until my legs collapse, in the shortest amount of time and lowest possible cost.
[blue]Those guys are dreaming, sugar babies are hookers and sugar daddies are johns. The ads on "seeking" are no different than BP. The chicks won't fuck unless they get paid so the johns pay. The cops are already running stings.
A2[/blue]
No cash no sax if you pay is no real date if you are lucky or really smart and you have good talk skills you can have puss for lower price with unlimited time but for the 99.9% of us no money no honey
[QUOTE=Ardin;3899888]The changes may not be a bad thing for us Splenda Daddies, since it may tilt a few things in our favor. It puts a big squeeze on the scourge of ruthless pro's / UTR's, and it gives us a little more plausible deniability "hey I'm just here for the dating, the benefits that can with that you'll just have to find out". The little ladies will adapt. The smarter ones, anyway. The more money hungry among them will have to walk on eggshells now or face exile. The rest can leap back into the shadows and sewers from whence they came.
My mission hasn't changed: to empty my balls into as many greedy 18-25 why / o's as I can until my legs collapse, in the shortest amount of time and lowest possible cost.
[blue]Those guys are dreaming, sugar babies are hookers and sugar daddies are johns. The ads on "seeking" are no different than BP. The chicks won't fuck unless they get paid so the johns pay. The cops are already running stings.
A2[/blue][/QUOTE].
[QUOTE=A2]
[blue]Those guys are dreaming, sugar babies are hookers and sugar daddies are johns. The ads on "seeking" are no different than BP. The chicks won't fuck unless they get paid so the johns pay. The cops are already running stings.
A2[/blue][/QUOTE][B]Completely[/B] agree. This is even more true following the shutdown of other sites. One can gloss it over with "game" or whatever, but you're paying them to fuck. They are hookers.
Been receiving messages from her. Considering to schedule a date. Any experience to share? Feel free to PM.
[URL]https://www.seeking.com/member/7e251f78-3391-4a8b-ae56-47cbab664b0b[/URL]
[QUOTE][blue]The cops are already running stings.
A2[/blue][/QUOTE]For those with insight, anything particular on how to identify and avoid these profiles on SA?
[QUOTE=Kogal_lover;3901310]
[blue] The cops are already running stings.
A2[/blue]
For those with insight, anything particular on how to identify and avoid these profiles on SA?[/QUOTE]Are you guys 13 years old or something?
It's pretty damn clear. The law says that talking (just talking) about money for sex acts is soliciting of prostitution and is a crime. Therefore, and please pay attention here, do not discuss money for sex acts. Never-ever. For *any* reason with any individuals. I know some of you dumb fucks will still do it but really, it's that simple. Now, was that hard?
[QUOTE=Kwagmire;3899778]They should just move the site offshore, as one other esteemed webmaster we all know has done.[/QUOTE]Moving the site (I. E. The servers the site resides on) isn't enough. Ownership and operations must be offshore, in a place that either doesn't have reciprocation with the US on LE matters or that won't enforce crap that they don't believe in. US LE is going after the owner / operators, as they don't just want to shut down the site, they want the people they see as lawbreakers in jail.
For example, this site didn't just move offshore, it got sold lock, stock and barrel to a non-US entity in a country where US LE can't really touch (or at least, isn't likely to go to the effort of extracting the new owner over non-national-security matters.) That new owner probably better not try to travel to the US ever again. There's also probably some risk for any of the admins that are in the US, tho' maybe not much since they're not really running the show, just employees or volunteers.
The guy that owns SA is a US citizen and resident that's making money hand over fist from the site; he's highly unlikely to either sell the goose laying the golden eggs, or move himself to one of those few places that would protect him from US LE. His only options are to either clean up the site as much as possible relative to the new laws and hope LE doesn't come after him, or go out of business.