[URL]http://deadspin.com/investigation-that-led-to-ccu-suspending-entire-cheer-t-1794094851[/URL]
Printable View
[URL]http://deadspin.com/investigation-that-led-to-ccu-suspending-entire-cheer-t-1794094851[/URL]
[QUOTE=JZLizard;3341654][URL]http://deadspin.com/investigation-that-led-to-ccu-suspending-entire-cheer-t-1794094851[/URL][/QUOTE]You know, I contacted a "18 YO" on SA the other day and her first reply was 'I charge $500 / hour'. Thinking back to a past posting about needing to keep such people off SA if we want to preserve it for the real SBs and SDs, and not have it shut down like BP, I decided to report her to SA. In the past, I would have taken more a live-and-let-live approach to something like this, but truly, if there were an incident based on an escort who meets someone on SA (rolls him and gets busted, etc.) that hits the press, things could take a very bad turn.
[QUOTE=FScott;3334826]Congrats FarFar,
I can tell that the fantasy was just as powerful for you as it was for her! I am curious about one thing, though. You say you had three babies back in your room, but only one trip to the FC? How did you let the other two escape, or am I misreading something?
Also, nice flashback to an earlier era. I haven't seen a Bush in all my years in the Bowl!
Keep up the good work, my brother!
Peace to us all.
Scott.[/QUOTE]GND pretty but by no means a stunner, super fit spinner, 28. I found her social media and know all about her. We spoke on the phone before my trip and had good chemistry. She's a high-level exec assistant, college grad. We had a nice drink / dinner (but hard to read her) and step out of the restaurant. She looked to be walking away initially, and I sort of had to pull her back and say 'what do we do now?' After some hemming and hawing, she has a couple of hours free, I ask her back to my room.
Convo gets pretty serious pretty quick. Says she had an arrangement not from SA, but would never expect the 8 K / mo she was getting from him. IDK, maybe. We talk about needs / wants, I mention my first SB (ModelMILF) has a kid and it was bonus points for me to contribute to his schooling. She's touched, and divulges she has a daughter, and isn't it just *too* weird I mentioned that, almost like I knew her situation (of course I did) - a little suspicious, but overall I think it was a +.
She wants an exclusive. I ask about her in bed, she's not very open, but I ask if she 'likes to be led' and she's agrees. Yet another submissive. I am truly hoping to nail her, of course, so I try a couple of things she isn't responding to. She's in business / negotiating mode. I got her to make out a little, so I don't think she's a total tease. I wonder about her sex drive and our attraction, though.
The elephant in the room is the sugar. She asks about my first SB, and I say (truthfully) 2 K / mo. She replies 'could you do 3 K?' I couldn't , so we sadly parted, and she immediately blocks me on SA; then starts texting - 'so disappointed'; then, 'you're the only man I have felt comfort and connection with' (this surprised me. I didn't realize). Then, she asks if I could do just her rent, which is just a bit over 2 K. Seems like she wants to save face but knows I can do my old baby's deal. We've spoken and messaged a lot since, and the plan is to have another date. My bowlbuddy has vetted her further and she's everything she says.
I may be stepping into taboo territory here - an actual real relationship in the bowl. She knows I have a SO, it's not like she's looking for a BF, and there is a logistical challenge, but it's only a 1 hour flight and she's willing to make it. I know several of you guys have had long-term babies, mentioned either in posts or PMs. I like this girl and really want a connection, and she has the brains and personality to be that. There are plenty of us who are hitting anything that moves - how about those looking for 'the one'? - there are fewer to be sure. Many SB profiles say they are looking for only one guy, but that may be just marketing. For myself, I like having a regular or two, but if I have a paid membership, I can't stop looking at profiles on SA. Perhaps it's possible to find someone on SA who you settle into a "committed" arrangement with - or maybe that's a unicorn.
Lesson: Trouble lies ahead if you find a RoadBaby you click with.
[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3342005]You know, I contacted a "18 YO" on SA the other day and her first reply was 'I charge $500 / hour'. Thinking back to a past posting about needing to keep such people off SA if we want to preserve it for the real SBs and SDs, and not have it shut down like BP, I decided to report her to SA. In the past, I would have taken more a live-and-let-live approach to something like this, but truly, if there were an incident based on an escort who meets someone on SA (rolls him and gets busted, etc.) that hits the press, things could take a very bad turn.[/QUOTE]I've always been of the belief that the only ones who can fend off the demise of on line sugar dating in this country are the collective population of SDs. Gen Z sugar babies are going to do irresponsible things, no matter what, due their age and inexperience if nothing else. The media is not on our team -- their job is to sensationalize stories to increase ratings and sell advertising, and sex scandals such as girl-next-door types engaging in sex work, or trafficking accusations, are the stuff they thrive on, and even if the story is not all that unusual or shocking, they will find a way to sensationalize it and at that point the damage is done. The SD websites themselves of course have a vested interest in trying to retain the legality of the lifestyle and keep their sites clean, and Brandon Wade has done a great job so far of countering negative media attention. But, he is only one man and SA is only one website. The responsibility lies with us.
In the case of the cheerleader story, it actually appears to be unfolding in a way that shows no sex for hire took place. But ultimately that won't matter -- every time SA is associated with prostitution in the mainstream media, the current state of the lifestyle takes another direct kick in the balls. The simple association of prostitution with the website in a mainstream news story cannot possibly have a positive effect on sugar dating.
Notice I said "mainstream media". By that I mean the recent cheerleader and trafficking stories that get broadcast to everyone. I will differentiate this from something like a episode of Dr. Phil featuring an SD / SB relationship, where Dr. Phil raises the question of whether it's prostitution or not. That sort of media exposure is actually good for the hobby, first of all because of Dr. Phil's audience (largely female), and the fact that he's a bit of a quack anyway and his show is in no way considered "real news". If I'm not mistaken, Brandon Wade has been invited on that and other shows multiple times to explain what SA really is and how they combat prostitution. The net result is that these shows actually do more to promote the lifestyle and encourage girls to try it. But, even if Wade is an advertising genius, there is not a lot he can do in terms of media appearances to combat or defend stories of trafficking of minors, or a scandal involving a college cheer leading squad, in fact I'm sure he's probably clever enough to know when to be quiet.
It's solely up to us to preserve the lifestyle. Whether it is reporting pros and UTR types to the websites, or adjusting our modus operandi so that we are not breaking any laws and making direct offers to girls, or simply educating the vast number of mongers that think sugar dating is just an alternative to the BP / escort scene, whether or not we are able to keep doing is is going to depend on our own behavior.
[QUOTE=JZLizard;3342251]I've always been of the belief that the only ones who can fend off the demise of on line sugar dating in this country are the collective population of SDs. Gen Z sugar babies are going to do irresponsible things, no matter what, due their age and inexperience if nothing else. The media is not on our team -- their job is to sensationalize stories to increase ratings and sell advertising, and sex scandals such as girl-next-door types engaging in sex work, or trafficking accusations, are the stuff they thrive on, and even if the story is not all that unusual or shocking, they will find a way to sensationalize it and at that point the damage is done. The SD websites themselves of course have a vested interest in trying to retain the legality of the lifestyle and keep their sites clean, and Brandon Wade has done a great job so far of countering negative media attention. But, he is only one man and SA is only one website. The responsibility lies with us.
Notice I said "mainstream media". By that I mean the recent cheerleader and trafficking stories that get broadcast to everyone. I will differentiate this from something like a episode of Dr. Phil featuring an SD / SB relationship, where Dr. Phil raises the question of whether it's prostitution or not. That sort of media exposure is actually good for the hobby, first of all because of Dr. Phil's audience (largely female), and the fact that he's a bit of a quack anyway and his show is in no way considered "real news". If I'm not mistaken, Brandon Wade has been invited on that and other shows multiple times to explain what SA really is and how they combat prostitution. The net result is that these shows actually do more to promote the lifestyle and encourage girls to try it. But, even if Wade is an advertising genius, there is not a lot he can do in terms of media appearances to combat or defend stories of trafficking of minors, or a scandal involving a college cheer leading squad, in fact I'm sure he's probably clever enough to know when to be quiet.
It's solely up to us to preserve the lifestyle. Whether it is reporting pros and UTR types to the websites, or adjusting our modus operandi so that we are not breaking any laws and making direct offers to girls, or simply educating the vast number of mongers that think sugar dating is just an alternative to the BP / escort scene, whether or not we are able to keep doing is is going to depend on our own behavior.[/QUOTE]Well put, JZL. I think you are right on the beam, and that's why I posted. It needs to become standard practice for to cut out the crap. SA *is* part of the internet, of course, people are doing all kinds of stupid stuff, but truly, SA is the best thing going in my view. I scan the other active SB threads across the country, and some are really sad. They truly are, for many of those guys, just a BP alternative. On occasion I have posted there as well that they are missing the opportunity, if not the point, of the bowl. Hey, look at my post just below. A totally different scene than an 'escort' - there can be places for that, lets just keep the bowl for ourselves.
I reported a girl I was messaging with on SA who was very direct asking for "sexual favors for money" and was elusive about her age, but claimed to be 18. When I pressed for proof, she claimed to be a minor and still wanted to meet.
I'm not even sure she was real. After viewing the cheerleader scandal story, I was very suspicious that this could be a set up.
I think reporters are motivated to find a sensational story, vigilantes want to take down the lifestyle, LE may even try such tactics since the BP efforts. It was just too direct.
Let's keep SA clean and report such girls and don't let people set us up.
[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3342005]You know, I contacted a "18 YO" on SA the other day and her first reply was 'I charge $500 / hour'. Thinking back to a past posting about needing to keep such people off SA if we want to preserve it for the real SBs and SDs, and not have it shut down like BP, I decided to report her to SA. In the past, I would have taken more a live-and-let-live approach to something like this, but truly, if there were an incident based on an escort who meets someone on SA (rolls him and gets busted, etc.) that hits the press, things could take a very bad turn.[/QUOTE]
I try to enjoy a morning cup of coffee and read the paper and come across this:
[URL]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-escort-tichelman-deportation-20170407-story.html[/URL]
An excerpt: "Canadian escort who made national headlines after she injected a former Google executive with a fatal dose of heroin aboard his yacht in Santa Cruz four years ago will be deported to her home country. . Hayes, 51, met Tichelman through [URL]seekingarrangments.com[/URL] and set up a date, police said. ".
Yes, it needs to become as much a part of the bowl as a burner phone that we keep the riff-raff off of SA.
Wow FarFarAway I hadn't heard of this. That is crazy and a good reminder to always remain in control as well as report pros and pieces of crap like that. On a different note I wonder if that executive job at Google is still available. I always wanted a yacht.
[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3342276]Well put, JZL. I think you are right on the beam, and that's why I posted. It needs to become standard practice for to cut out the crap. SA *is* part of the internet, of course, people are doing all kinds of stupid stuff, but truly, SA is the best thing going in my view. I scan the other active SB threads across the country, and some are really sad. They truly are, for many of those guys, just a BP alternative. On occasion I have posted there as well that they are missing the opportunity, if not the point, of the bowl. Hey, look at my post just below. A totally different scene than an 'escort' - there can be places for that, lets just keep the bowl for ourselves.[/QUOTE]Pretty good thoughts in an ideal world but impossible to police. You can report them but 30 minutes later they have a new profile up. In the ideal world the girls would report the mongers who first correspondence is "How much or first pic is their dick. Bad behavior is rampant on both sides. I've read several times where mongers have been suspended from the account for a day but never had their profile cancelled. It won't happen often because the paying members is what fuels the site. The premise of the site is built on nsa, mutual beneficial arrangements and no drama. Technically by law its against the law. The sex is a given to the arrangement, same as BP, CL or any other sex site. One could go to POF, [URL]MATCH.COM[/URL] or any dating site and apply the techniques there but we don't. Why we don't for most part is most of those women would be pissed to be offered money for sex. Also the age group most hunt in is virtually non existent on those sites. The ratio of young women looking for an older man is in the women s favor there. On Sa its in the guys favor, usually 5 to 1 or higher. Why is it higher there, because of the mutual beneficial arrangements. Financial aid for the implied sex. All you see on the sd / sb threads is the rant about time wasters, gps, online arrangements or arm candy. The guys that actually support any on the list is considered a threat to the bowl for giving these girls help without the sex and putting these ideas in their head. The implied sex is why we're in the bowl. I'm sure you wouldn't be in the bowl without the sex. I know I wouldn't. Trying to police the girls to SAis basically a waste of time other than to out them on the threads the way most sd / sb threads do now. Jmho.
[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3342345]I try to enjoy a morning cup of coffee and read the paper and come across this:
[URL]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-escort-tichelman-deportation-20170407-story.html[/URL]
An excerpt: "Canadian escort who made national headlines after she injected a former Google executive with a fatal dose of heroin aboard his yacht in Santa Cruz four years ago will be deported to her home country. . Hayes, 51, met Tichelman through [URL]seekingarrangments.com[/URL] and set up a date, police said. ".
Yes, it needs to become as much a part of the bowl as a burner phone that we keep the riff-raff off of SA.[/QUOTE]Yes, the Google exec case was one of the first I can recall that really shed a bad media light on SA in particular, in fact a couple of years back I referred to it in this thread as an example of unwanted attention when I was debating the need to keep our activities clean with other members. There have been a couple of other cases as well. Fortunately in the Google exec case, the drugs themselves and the behavior of the girl created most of the story and overshadowed the SA association (I. E. A Google exec overdosing by shooting heroin was more interesting than how they met).
Only recently (a week or so ago), congress voted to repeal some privacy rules adopted by the FCC under the Obama administration.
These rules among other things mean ISPs can sell your browser history without being required to get your consent. Some ISPs (Verizon and AT&T come to mind) have pledged to never sell this data, but some have not commented.
It would suck for an SD's employer to run a search on him as a "character check", and see a bunch of hits for SA, BP, or this site that you accessed from your personal Internet account and computer. I think the general assumption is that the ISPs would only sell this data in a format that's not directly tied to personal information, but hey they are in the business to make a buck so who knows. And even if they don't list your browsing history next to your name and address, it can be put together through correlation techniques.
So be careful all.
[QUOTE=JZLizard;3342619]Only recently (a week or so ago), congress voted to repeal some privacy rules adopted by the FCC under the Obama administration.
These rules among other things mean ISPs can sell your browser history without being required to get your consent. Some ISPs (Verizon and AT&T come to mind) have pledged to never sell this data, but some have not commented.
It would suck for an SD's employer to run a search on him as a "character check", and see a bunch of hits for SA, BP, or this site that you accessed from your personal Internet account and computer. I think the general assumption is that the ISPs would only sell this data in a format that's not directly tied to personal information, but hey they are in the business to make a buck so who knows. And even if they don't list your browsing history next to your name and address, it can be put together through correlation techniques.
So be careful all.[/QUOTE]The one way to fight this is to do what I do. Use the Tor browser, which prevents the ISP from logging the sites you are going to. Read the great book 'Data and Goliath' for all the privacy things you should be doing on the net. Not just to keep safe from sugarbabies, but from the NSA, etc.
[QUOTE=JohnHandCock;3342515]Pretty good thoughts in an ideal world but impossible to police. You can report them but 30 minutes later they have a new profile up. In the ideal world the girls would report the mongers who first correspondence is "How much or first pic is their dick. Bad behavior is rampant on both sides. I've read several times where mongers have been suspended from the account for a day but never had their profile cancelled. It won't happen often because the paying members is what fuels the site. The premise of the site is built on nsa, mutual beneficial arrangements and no drama. Technically by law its against the law. The sex is a given to the arrangement, same as BP, CL or any other sex site. One could go to POF, [URL]MATCH.COM[/URL] or any dating site and apply the techniques there but we don't. Why we don't for most part is most of those women would be pissed to be offered money for sex. Also the age group most hunt in is virtually non existent on those sites. The ratio of young women looking for an older man is in the women s favor there. On Sa its in the guys favor, usually 5 to 1 or higher. Why is it higher there, because of the mutual beneficial arrangements. Financial aid for the implied sex. All you see on the sd / sb threads is the rant about time wasters, gps, online arrangements or arm candy. The guys that actually support any on the list is considered a threat to the bowl for giving these girls help without the sex and putting these ideas in their head. The implied sex is why we're in the bowl. I'm sure you wouldn't be in the bowl without the sex. I know I wouldn't. Trying to police the girls to SAis basically a waste of time other than to out them on the threads the way most sd / sb threads do now. Jmho.[/QUOTE]There's one piece of faulty logic, though. It costs SA nothing to ban a girl, a lot to ban a guy. Girls come on free. Of course, the lure of the 4-6 x as many girls as guys is what gets us to pay our membership, but it's not like any one girl is crucial. Especially when she's doing practices that put the whole site's business at risk. This is why SA should have the report function, and why we should use it.
[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3342709]There's one piece of faulty logic, though. It costs SA nothing to ban a girl, a lot to ban a guy. Girls come on free. Of course, the lure of the 4-6 x as many girls as guys is what gets us to pay our membership, but it's not like any one girl is crucial. Especially when she's doing practices that put the whole site's business at risk. This is why SA should have the report function, and why we should use it.[/QUOTE]Not only this, but SA's revenue per user is so incredibly over-the-top compared to any other consumer on-line service. How many other on line consumer services are capable of charging $70 per user per month?! It's largely unheard of. With margins like that, SA needs to worry about one thing and one thing only: not getting shut down or incurring hinderances to payment transactions due to legal issues or bad publicity.
Brandon Wade is smart enough to know that mongers have many free options for finding escorts. He's not a stupid enough businessman to jeopardize his $70 per user revenue by competing directly with free options that encourage illegal activity. His business model requires preservation of the sugaring lifestyle to survive and he knows it.
As far as reporting girls, yes I'm sure they will create a new account and come back, but at some point they will get tired of getting banned and will learn to behave themselves somewhat better, and start at least behaving like an SB rather than an escort.
Or, they will just realize that most men (even sex addicts) are smart enough to not pay $70 a month to meet the same pros and UTRs they can meet elsewhere for free, and unless they are brain-dead they will come to the conclusion that SA is not their party, and they should stick to the escort scene.
I've notice that a lot of girls are on the site for one day or up to a week. And it's seems like they disappear and never return to the site. I recently returned to the website and I notice it. These are quality profiles the ones I really like. Based on the information provided in the description. They same to be genuine. Any theories on why this happens or have any of you guys talked to an sb about this before?