"Sugarbabies" / "Arrangements" Amateurs or Not?

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3787495]Just some general thoughts:

Stats and success rates -- I almost feel guilty to say I have a 100% MG to FC conversion rate, minus one anomaly that happened 5 years ago, and one girl that I denied a trip to the FC (she wasn't as attractive as pics) about 2 years ago. I believe the reason has everything to do with my vetting process (which girls I choose, and which ones get filtered out early), and the general conversation and interaction invested with each one. All is far from perfect, though, the statistic I should probably be monitoring more closely are the ones that get generally flaky before the M&G is arranged. I've had no problems with no-shows to the M&G, but I do have the occasional problem with someone enthusiastically wanting to meet, then on the day that I ask for their availability, they want to reschedule because of car trouble or whatever. And in many cases the flake reason is real, for example they will say they can only meet if I come pick them up (due to the car trouble), but they might be like 45 minutes away from where they knew I was going to be, and simply failed to plan better. I'd really like to solve that problem, but the only solution so far is to line up a first and second string in each city I travel to, so that I have a chance of lining up a date with someone else if the one I really want falls through.

In terms of conversation templates, I think personalizing your intro letter is overall a good idea. In general, I'm not a fan of templates though. I keep my first contact very brief but unlock a private (real and recent) photo of myself. I used to paste in a default intro, but I don't even do that anymore, because I figure a simple hello plus a pic is enough that she will bite if interested. I also prefer that they do this with their intro or first message to me instead of sending me a highly personalized greeting. Part of the reason for this is because things that are said in a profile are open to interpretation, and sometimes they will indicate some interpretation of what I said that isn't exactly what I meant, and thus it does more harm than simple small talk. I saw this happen enough times (and got tired of things being incorrectly read into my profile) that I decided to reduce it to just a few sentences that avoid specificity about anything -- just filler material. It seems to work better for me. I've heard HR recruiters say that putting an objective on a resume works against you more than it helps, because it can have a categorizing effect that leads to many potentially false conclusions about you. I think the same principle applies here. I once got a VERY personalized intro letter, where the girl wrote a staggering amount of text, great depth all of the things she saw in me based on my profile. I'm not sure what she was trying to accomplish, but it did not impress me. She was attractive, but I was no more attracted to her after the detailed intro, in fact it actually raised some concerns, because I thought to myself : "my god if that much effort went into her intro letter, what kind of texts is she going to be smothering me with after I bang her?"

Back to stats, one statistic I'm starting to pay more attention to (or perhaps increase) is my success in getting an SB to agree to a photo shoot (well. Ok. Amateur porn) on the first date. I used to find that a lot of them are just too shy or nervous about this. However, for whatever reason I'm getting better at talking them into being keen on the idea; if they say they don't want to, I drop the idea and don't press it. I think the current generation of 18-25 yr olds has been raised with the idea that filming sex acts are just a part of life. Getting them to do this has always been easier on date #2 or later, but my recent success rate on first date videos is about 60%, and I'd like to bring that up to 80%. These are all non-utr types. I'm sure success rate would increase if I lowered my standard, but I'm not interested in utr or pros.[/QUOTE]Good information here. I've never done the calcs but I do fairly well. My target is 18-21. The thing I've found is that you have to strike fast. If you give them to much time they are gone to the next guy.

No more we can search by phone number here is the article [URL]https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/restricting-data-access/[/URL].

[QUOTE=RobHere;3788052]No more we can search by phone number here is the article [URL]https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/restricting-data-access/[/URL].[/QUOTE]Damn. Thanks for sending this over. I tried to search a few phone numbers last night from my last round of SA before premium expired. Plate was too full to really invest time with these ladies at the time but I stored them for later because of their FB profiles. Now I don't know who is who because I can no longer even see their digits on SA unless I pony up 90 more. Between SA raising rates. New congress online sex laws. FB removing recon abilities and hardened pros invading SA due to BP and CL decline. Things will get tougher. Double damn. Ripper.

Sorry, but what is FC? I'm ramping up for a few MGs, hopefully I can get a room.

[QUOTE=Ripvan12;3788147]Damn. Thanks for sending this over. I tried to search a few phone numbers last night from my last round of SA before premium expired. Plate was too full to really invest time with these ladies at the time but I stored them for later because of their FB profiles. Now I don't know who is who because I can no longer even see their digits on SA unless I pony up 90 more. Between SA raising rates. New congress online sex laws. FB removing recon abilities and hardened pros invading SA due to BP and CL decline. Things will get tougher. Double damn. Ripper.[/QUOTE]If a sb give her number to you retype it back to her and it will be there. They just turn her side off.

It was a matter of time. You guys may already know BP has been shut down as of this morning. Also TER has decided to block its content to US users. What effects will this have on SA?

1. Will all the escorts in BP try to get into SA and make it a further mess?

2. Will SA be the next target?

3. Will SA take stern actions to clean up and make sure escorts don't get in so that they can stay in business? That would be good for us who are tired of the mess in SA now.

4. How will the SBs on SA react knowing that BP is not an option anymore?

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.

[QUOTE=RVASpider;3787947]60% is fantastic. I haven't talked to any of them about filming but I may need to get some of the screen names from you of those that agreed to it![/QUOTE]Heh. No offense, but I never share info on girls, or ask for it from others. I know some are into it, but I operate so far away from the UTR / Pro end of the spectrum, that I really cannot think of one of my SBs that would be anything other than horrified that I tried to pass her off to someone. Now, many of them would likely be open to me bringing in another girl or maybe a buddy for a threesome, but I'm not really into that so I never ask.

I can't explain the recent decline in camera shyness. As recent as just a few years ago I used to have a hell of a time getting them to do this on the first date, yet more and more I find them saying yes.

[QUOTE=FruitNinja;3787964]Good information here. I've never done the calcs but I do fairly well. My target is 18-21. The thing I've found is that you have to strike fast. If you give them to much time they are gone to the next guy.[/QUOTE]For me, the kink is in filming them before and during the first fuck. For some reason, filming them after I've fucked them prior doesn't hold the same adrenaline rush. I think part of it may be the elevated risk of them saying no on the first date.

I have learned one thing for sure -- it's never a good idea to test the waters prior to the first actual FC visit. I believe I've scared a few off that way.

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3789760]Heh. No offense, but I never share info on girls, or ask for it from others. I know some are into it, but I operate so far away from the UTR / Pro end of the spectrum, that I really cannot think of one of my SBs that would be anything other than horrified that I tried to pass her off to someone. Now, many of them would likely be open to me bringing in another girl or maybe a buddy for a threesome, but I'm not really into that so I never ask.

I can't explain the recent decline in camera shyness. As recent as just a few years ago I used to have a hell of a time getting them to do this on the first date, yet more and more I find them saying yes.[/QUOTE]I have no interest in a threesome either! I met a girl for drinks last night and she let me videotape. No face shots though.

[QUOTE=DrSummer;3789704]It was a matter of time. You guys may already know BP has been shut down as of this morning. Also TER has decided to block its content to US users. What effects will this have on SA?

1. Will all the escorts in BP try to get into SA and make it a further mess?

2. Will SA be the next target?

3. Will SA take stern actions to clean up and make sure escorts don't get in so that they can stay in business? That would be good for us who are tired of the mess in SA now.

4. How will the SBs on SA react knowing that BP is not an option anymore?

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.[/QUOTE]If you do an advanced search on my posts from around the mid 2015 time frame, using "trafficking" as a keyword, you can read some of my thoughts about threats to the hobby (sugaring hobby that is, not mongering). Some of those predictions are showing signs of coming full circle, even though at the time some folks said it would never happen.

I do think the sugaring lifestyle as we've come to know it (enjoying on line conveniences) is in danger, and I hope the SD sites find a clever way to deal with the issue.

The bright side for sugaring is that unlike prostitution, it's not illegal. The risks mostly revolve around the idiots that don't know the difference. I don't see how the seizure of BP domains could not lead to more riff-raff trying to convert to the sugar scene, and unfortunately there will be mongers seeking same there, and it's that sort of activity that creates ambiguity around the differences between mongering and sugaring.

So there is a definitely a risk looming, and may seem shallow to summarize it this way, but the short-term outcome is probably going to hinge almost completely on how Brandon Wade plays his cards. Will he try to implement AI algorithms to weed out mongers and escorts? Will he approach preserving SA through legal tactics? As long as online dating sites exist, there will always be sugaring opportunity for those who know how to find it. But whether it stays as easy and convenient as it is today is going to be the result of pretty much one man's decisions.

I completely agree the future of SA depends on how Mr. Wade is going to play his cards and how fast he does it. The new SESTA is so broad and overreaching on digital content, SA is not out of the hook. Mr. Wade has a business to run, and make profit, I hope he makes some smart choices. For the SB end he can weed out girls to make a distinction between sugaring and escorting. Also on SD side, will he go only premium paid membership and collect some personal information from joining members? I am sure we will have to give away some of our anonymity to play the game in the future. Personally I would rather give some of my information if SA becomes a cleaner site than what it is now (I don't have a SO, I have the luxury of doing that, most others may not have that luxary). But, the sugar bowl is definitely going to change its complexion.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3792473]If you do an advanced search on my posts from around the mid 2015 time frame, using "trafficking" as a keyword, you can read some of my thoughts about threats to the hobby (sugaring hobby that is, not mongering). Some of those predictions are showing signs of coming full circle, even though at the time some folks said it would never happen.

I do think the sugaring lifestyle as we've come to know it (enjoying on line conveniences) is in danger, and I hope the SD sites find a clever way to deal with the issue.

The bright side for sugaring is that unlike prostitution, it's not illegal. The risks mostly revolve around the idiots that don't know the difference. I don't see how the seizure of BP domains could not lead to more riff-raff trying to convert to the sugar scene, and unfortunately there will be mongers seeking same there, and it's that sort of activity that creates ambiguity around the differences between mongering and sugaring.

So there is a definitely a risk looming, and may seem shallow to summarize it this way, but the short-term outcome is probably going to hinge almost completely on how Brandon Wade plays his cards. Will he try to implement AI algorithms to weed out mongers and escorts? Will he approach preserving SA through legal tactics? As long as online dating sites exist, there will always be sugaring opportunity for those who know how to find it. But whether it stays as easy and convenient as it is today is going to be the result of pretty much one man's decisions.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DrSummer;3792723]I completely agree the future of SA depends on how Mr. Wade is going to play his cards and how fast he does it. The new SESTA is so broad and overreaching on digital content, SA is not out of the hook. Mr. Wade has a business to run, and make profit, I hope he makes some smart choices. For the SB end he can weed out girls to make a distinction between sugaring and escorting. Also on SD side, will he go only premium paid membership and collect some personal information from joining members? I am sure we will have to give away some of our anonymity to play the game in the future. Personally I would rather give some of my information if SA becomes a cleaner site than what it is now (I don't have a SO, I have the luxury of doing that, most others may not have that luxary). But, the sugar bowl is definitely going to change its complexion.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.[/QUOTE]If Google and Facebook can't be trusted with your personal data then why in the world would you trust a sex site. Yes, S. A is a sex site. Let's stop fooling ourselves. 99% of the men on there are looking for pussy is some form or another. S. A. Is a less crude sex site but that doesn't change the underlying purpose. I think he started trying to weed the less sophsitcated mongers by upping the membership price so that's a start. I do agree that going all premium will help too.

[QUOTE=SugaFoot;3792770]If Google and Facebook can't be trusted with your personal data then why in the world would you trust a sex site. Yes, S. A is a sex site. Let's stop fooling ourselves. 99% of the men on there are looking for pussy is some form or another. S. A. Is a less crude sex site but that doesn't change the underlying purpose. I think he started trying to weed the less sophsitcated mongers by upping the membership price so that's a start. I do agree that going all premium will help too.[/QUOTE]LOL how does raising the premiums help weed out anything? Higher priced hookers to higher paying johns? The horse is out of the barn, to latevto close the door. Sa is a sex site pure and simple. He will probably raise premiums, suckers will pay and wake up one morning to find its closed. He had a great run, , and made a ton of money which he is not going to risk losing by continuing to operate a sex site.

[QUOTE=SugaFoot;3792770]If Google and Facebook can't be trusted with your personal data then why in the world would you trust a sex site. Yes, S. A is a sex site. Let's stop fooling ourselves. 99% of the men on there are looking for pussy is some form or another. S. A. Is a less crude sex site but that doesn't change the underlying purpose. I think he started trying to weed the less sophsitcated mongers by upping the membership price so that's a start. I do agree that going all premium will help too.[/QUOTE]There is a tremendous difference. Facebook and Google are in the advertising business -- all of their revenue source revolve around targeted ads, profiling their customers and selling data about them. They do not charge membership fees, they operate on a business model that involves giving access to the service itself away free, in exchange for the user agreeing to forgo their privacy.

SA's profit comes, plain and simply, from membership fees (as do most dating sites). What's more, Brandon Wade is smart enough to know that the dating site business and the advertising business are two very different industries. A dating site (of any type) that ever intentionally puts the privacy of its member base at risk will be out of business in a few months. This is even more true with SA or any other site where a huge portion of its members need even more privacy. Wade knows that if married men can no longer trust his site, 80%+ of his current member base will vanish overnight.

In other words, Google / Facebook maximize profits by compromising their users privacy. SA maximize profits by protecting their users privacy. The profit motive drives everything. I can never understand why folks lump businesses together that have such opposite business models.

As far as SA being a sex site. As someone with extensive experience with regular dating sites, I can tell you 99% of men are looking for sex on those sites as well. In that regard, [URL]match.com[/URL] would be a sex site too and by the time you get to Tinder, 99% of everyone on there is looking for casual sex (whether male or female). Let's not forget this is a primary motivation for men and women getting together on line in the first place.

[QUOTE=JohnHandCock;3792966]LOL how does raising the premiums help weed out anything? Higher priced hookers to higher paying johns? The horse is out of the barn, to latevto close the door. Sa is a sex site pure and simple. He will probably raise premiums, suckers will pay and wake up one morning to find its closed. He had a great run, , and made a ton of money which he is not going to risk losing by continuing to operate a sex site.[/QUOTE]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.