"Sugarbabies" / "Arrangements" Amateurs or Not?

I got the same pop up today. Seems like a CYA move by SA. I assumed it was something they made everyone check off, but I wonder if it was based on my communication. I never discuss "pay for play", but I do discuss starting with a "pay per meet" allowance if things go well.

The check box disclaimer makes it clear they don't encourage "pay per meet " allowances. If the allowance isn't in return for intimacy, I'm not sure I understand the concern. Isn't that the premise of WYP?

[QUOTE=Zcochran00;3700100]Was just messaging a POT about negotiations, and when I refreshed the page, I got a warning dialog that reminded me "SA is only for real relationships, not PPM", and forced me to check off agreement with five principles. They do seem to be doing pattern matching on messages.

For a while I'd included an email address in my standard greeting, but I stopped doing that at some point. I may have to start that again, although it seems like email is definitely a dying thing among the younger generations.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zcochran00;3700100]Was just messaging a POT about negotiations, and when I refreshed the page, I got a warning dialog that reminded me "SA is only for real relationships, not PPM", and forced me to check off agreement with five principles. They do seem to be doing pattern matching on messages.

For a while I'd included an email address in my standard greeting, but I stopped doing that at some point. I may have to start that again, although it seems like email is definitely a dying thing among the younger generations.[/QUOTE]They suspended me the other day. I sent three messages one with "pay to play". I wonder if they will lift the ban or refund me since I renewed and was suspended in four hours.

My apologies fellas. I never had the opportunity to meet her when she was in VAB, but sounds as though she's a RVA regular. She made it sound like she just moved there and was in need of help. Appears she got some advertising out of me none the less. Sorry she wasn't as expected.

Salty.

[QUOTE=Tidad;3696432]Salty, you've been hoodwinked. This is Pam of "Pam and Maddy" fame; she is from Richmond and has been in the game (and chasing the dragon) in the area for years. Early to mid 2017 they were working out of a crappy house in Midlo, lately she has been hosting (solo I think) at her BFs house in the East End. Her reviews have been very YMMV but she is a straight up pro.[/QUOTE]

I did get the SA pop-up as well, and since I never make "escort-like" conversation or indicate how much I will pay per meet, I assumed it is something that everyone will see at least once? I could be wrong, there could be a false-positive detection in my messages, but honestly if they are mining the contents of our messages they are undermining their marketing position of a lifestyle-specific dating site that supports anonymity (they do encourage not using real names on their profile).

The good part about the pop-up is that it was not just aimed at daddies, it also mentioned that SA is neither the place for "online only" bullshit or escorting. Hopefully this means they will start banning the girls who just want to sell sexy pictures and the morons that pay for that, and if we're lucky start reducing the numbers of folks who don't understand the difference between sugar dating and escorting.

In terms of actual pay per meet, I doubt any SD will just start a girl on a monthly allowance so it's the only way to do things. We should not sweat this one at all, just tell her that the conversation must be taken to text or email to work out details. The ones that are interested will do this pretty quickly anyway. The only caveat is that newer girls haven't worked out the idea of a burner number in their mind and are skittish about giving out their real number (rightfully so).

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3700483]I did get the SA pop-up as well, and since I never make "escort-like" conversation or indicate how much I will pay per meet, I assumed it is something that everyone will see at least once? I could be wrong, there could be a false-positive detection in my messages, but honestly if they are mining the contents of our messages they are undermining their marketing position of a lifestyle-specific dating site that supports anonymity (they do encourage not using real names on their profile).

The good part about the pop-up is that it was not just aimed at daddies, it also mentioned that SA is neither the place for "online only" bullshit or escorting. Hopefully this means they will start banning the girls who just want to sell sexy pictures and the morons that pay for that, and if we're lucky start reducing the numbers of folks who don't understand the difference between sugar dating and escorting.

In terms of actual pay per meet, I doubt any SD will just start a girl on a monthly allowance so it's the only way to do things. We should not sweat this one at all, just tell her that the conversation must be taken to text or email to work out details. The ones that are interested will do this pretty quickly anyway. The only caveat is that newer girls haven't worked out the idea of a burner number in their mind and are skittish about giving out their real number (rightfully so).[/QUOTE]I got the same pop up. Guess there has been some complaining. Last week, the SA police blocked me for 24 hrs for using the term "casual encounter". Aren't these all casual encounters?

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3700483]In terms of actual pay per meet, I doubt any SD will just start a girl on a monthly allowance so it's the only way to do things. We should not sweat this one at all, just tell her that the conversation must be taken to text or email to work out details. The ones that are interested will do this pretty quickly anyway. The only caveat is that newer girls haven't worked out the idea of a burner number in their mind and are skittish about giving out their real number (rightfully so).[/QUOTE]I got the pop-up also but I got at login leaving me to conclude it is going to all members. I never talk PPM but I do suggest we start with a weekly allowance meeting once per week as we build trust.

Bam.

[QUOTE=RedBaron69;3700944]I got the same pop up. Guess there has been some complaining. Last week, the SA police blocked me for 24 hrs for using the term "casual encounter". Aren't these all casual encounters?[/QUOTE]Was casual encounter something you mentioned in a couple of messages here or there, or was it something that you sent out in pre-worded introductory blast (I. E. Many copies of same)?

[QUOTE=BamBam;3701013]I got the pop-up also but I got at login leaving me to conclude it is going to all members. I never talk PPM but I do suggest we start with a weekly allowance meeting once per week as we build trust.

Bam.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I think it was meant for everyone. From an operational standpoint it would be way easier (cheaper) just to use the opportunity to remind all members what the site is about rather than to mine all messages looking for trouble.

[QUOTE=Madaboutmax;3700197]I got the same pop up today. Seems like a CYA move by SA. I assumed it was something they made everyone check off, but I wonder if it was based on my communication. I never discuss "pay for play", but I do discuss starting with a "pay per meet" allowance if things go well.

The check box disclaimer makes it clear they don't encourage "pay per meet " allowances. If the allowance isn't in return for intimacy, I'm not sure I understand the concern. Isn't that the premise of WYP?[/QUOTE]Which one of the sites are you talking about? WYP or SA as both are mentioned.

If one reads the disclaimers when contacting someone on WYP it is made VERY clear that while one IS paying for a date that intimacy / sexual contact is NOT to be expected. I know, I almost missed it when I was on WYP. I think we have been conditioned to just click through "the fine" print to get where we want to go. But the disclaimers are there.

What is likely going on with SA and any disclaimers is that Wade is trying to save or insulate his cash cow. LE and AGs across the country got the CC companies to stop accepting payments from BackPage (BP). BP switched to using Bitcoin. Now the Cartel have put additional pressure on BP and BP eliminated any text / description in the posts / advertisements. So the adds can be argued are just women seeking men and no sex is implied. Keeps their cash flow going, hopefully. The rational of course was to stop women from being trafficked!

So I have no doubt that LE and politicians are scheming to put pressure on Wade and his SA operation, which they view as nothing more than another source / form of prostitution. So If Wade can demonstrate that "arrangements" are clearly just platonic and has nothing to do with pay to play, he MIGHT be able to dodge a cash cow ending episode.

Me? When I am on SA, I NEVER EVER talk about any form of payment. It just makes sense to take that kind of discussion "private" to my monger email, accessed only through a VPN. Oh and of course, I am sure everyone is discussing payment is only for legitimate services: companionship, back rubs, dancing or poetry reading.

So IF Wade is putting up these new warnings & disclaimers, then he is feeling the pressure, it makes sense to be prepared should that pressure materialize and his records get seized. One doesn't want to be in a Ashley Madison situation with ones pants around their ankles!

I haven't been on SA for months, but have been trolling for girls in other venues (CL, etc.). I am finding many use kik, an app I installed on my burner. It seems to work OK, seems to be discreet (in both directions), and it seems to be popular. Whereas some sites don't permit posting of email addresses, girls are getting away with posting handles from kik, snapchat, etc. This could be unique to my area or to the non-SA POTs, but good to keep in mind.

Also on S B don't believe any of this add tried to help her but was told still had to pay for sexual favors, pictures are 3 years old. Has anybody tried meeting her? Would like to know how it went.

Greetings,

I just got a cancellation from a new beautiful Young lady because she noticed I don't have a background check? That was never a problem before.

I read it and you basically need to give up all your personal info. So much for being discreet LOL.

And I'm guessing it's not cheap.

Any experience with this?

Hello just wondering if there are any updates on how you are paying for your memberships specially on SA? I've done a search but what I have found is the the prepaid cards no longer work? Thanks.

OK fellows, lot to report here gotten few new ones, since I do not stick with just one. Hard for me variety is more exciting! In the schedule all set to go two AA 18 hot college babes, one 30+ AA having difficulty matching the schedules, one hottt Filipino 19 met and excellent hott dream wow she is a wild child Still have the regulars three others kind of rotating but I am thinking of sticking to this one Filipino.

Making a trip to Las Vegas coming weekend lined up really hot latina 19 college girl, she is committed and three others in the negotiations. Damn talk about the amount of people who are active in Las Vegas!! Almost everyone who I sent a message to want to meet, no BS dinners and M&G shit straight to the task. These are not regulars most are UNLV students!!

Will report back, I am sooo fucked with this hobby.

Stay Safe.

[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3703917]I haven't been on SA for months, but have been trolling for girls in other venues (CL, etc.). I am finding many use kik, an app I installed on my burner. It seems to work OK, seems to be discreet (in both directions), and it seems to be popular. Whereas some sites don't permit posting of email addresses, girls are getting away with posting handles from kik, snapchat, etc. This could be unique to my area or to the non-SA POTs, but good to keep in mind.[/QUOTE]I see a bunch of these girls on regular dating sites who use KIK and 9 out of 10 times they tend to be scammers. I am very suspicious when I see a girl who wants to use KIK.