"Sugar Babies" and "Arrangements"

**Peter Johnson** · 10-19-25 22:51

https://members.seeking.com/member/f...a-3ee56a43c9a4

Has anyone met this one? Seems like a somewhat sweet girl, but I get an escort vibe from her. She started talking about the "donation", which is not a good sign.

And I have seen many escorts and enjoyed most (or maybe half) of them, but it's just a somewhat different experience and not what I'm going for here.

**Peter Johnson** · 10-18-25 07:57

https://members.seeking.com/member/6...6-e63944c56b77

That can't be for real. I have no words.

It sent me a message and I couldn't get to the Block button fast enough. (Actually I felt bad so I just deleted the message, unread. But that profile is going to give me nightmares).

**Peter Johnson** · 10-18-25 00:07

https://members.seeking.com/member/1...5-23a74f591046

I don't know about this one. She definitely has a pro vibe and was very quick to send me her # and started talking about ppm immediately (once I got her on Signal). And she wanted to also hook up immediately.

She wants 500 and sends me pics, and one of them looks like a dumpy body, nothing like her photos on the site. I mean it could be the same person, but probably not. Anyway too many red flags in a short time period, so I'm not going to pursue it further.

**Peter Johnson** · 10-17-25 16:48

Originally Posted by OliverNP [View Original Post]

I think you may be discussing how secure the app itself is based on encryption algo strength and what not. But no matter how good the devs are, there is no data center / cloud tenant or network location on earth that is 100% safe from a government entity silently intervening with the hosting and infrastructure and capturing and tracking whatever they want.

Yes they can capture the end to end encrypted data, which gives them absolutely nothing. And sure, no data will be secure "forever" (assuming humanity lasts long enough), but if an open source protocol has quantum resistant encryption, that's about the best you are going to do, for a long, long time.

Originally Posted by OliverNP [View Original Post]

"oh, you remember that encryption-at-rest algo that was undefeatable even by Quantum? We can sell you the backdoor key for that for only 200 million".

If there was a backdoor in Signal, it would be discernible in the open source code. But it's not, because there isn't. Sure there is always some risk of them pushing an auto update with such malicious code, that could do some harm before it was recognized, but that's about it.

Also there's also always some non zero risk of one's device being compromised, but that's not what we are discussing here. We are talking about what communication protocol is the safest, with the fewest drawbacks.

Originally Posted by FreudFro [View Original Post]

Ultimately, the key points are trying to stay secure with what's currently available. Signal is end-to-end encrypted and stores info on the sending and receiving devices. As it stands, that is more secure than Telegram, which stores data on centralized servers... which could be compromised by bad actors, including the host. Also, by default, Telegram is not end-to-end encrypted, but can be with "secret chats." They also both hide your phone number, which WhatsApp does not do.

Yes, good summary and Telegram seems to be the second best option, after Signal, among the more mainstream options. But Telegram is not open source, so you have to trust the developers, and why do that, if you don't have to? But I have done the Telegram secret chats with a couple of girls from the site, and it's a compromise I can accept, if necessary.

**FreudFro** · 10-17-25 08:04

Originally Posted by OliverNP [View Original Post]

I think you may be discussing how secure the app itself is based on encryption algo strength and what not. But no matter how good the devs are, there is no data center / cloud tenant or network location on earth that is 100% safe from a government entity silently intervening with the hosting and infrastructure and capturing and tracking whatever they want.

And since "good" devs make good money, and generally don't just spend all their free time working for no pay, do questions not come to mind as to their motive here?

Usually what happens with open-source is that if there is any real value in the software itself and it finds success, that value starts to accumulate and becomes an increasing maintenance burden, at which point the developer (s) either decide to abandon or monetize the project (and if there is money to be had, can you guess what their preference will be)? And since purchase of this type of app is usually not about the software itself, but the data it acquired in operation, what would make the most financial sense? To say "oh sorry, we have nothing to sell but the source code which has already been freely downloadable by anyone all this time" . Or would it be smarter, and more like a typical software engineer selling what they just spent the last 10 years on, to say "oh, you remember that encryption-at-rest algo that was undefeatable even by Quantum? We can sell you the backdoor key for that for only 200 million".

As a fellow tech geek, I agree with your posts. Good reads, thanks for sharing. I will disagree that there are fewer "good" devs in open source. I mean Linus Torvalds made Linux and Git (both free and open source), but I digress.

Ultimately, the key points are trying to stay secure with what's currently available. Signal is end-to-end encrypted and stores info on the sending and receiving devices. As it stands, that is more secure than Telegram, which stores data on centralized servers... which could be compromised by bad actors, including the host. Also, by default, Telegram is not end-to-end encrypted, but can be with "secret chats." They also both hide your phone number, which WhatsApp does not do.

They are both good options. Signal is more like a Wickr replacement (which was what I loved).

Be safe out there.

**OliverNP** · 10-17-25 06:52

Originally Posted by 2me4Looking2 [View Original Post]

The notion that open source is not inherently more secure than closed source is accurate. The security depends heavily on how good the devs are and who is reviewing the code. There is plenty of junk and dubious open source apps out there. That being said, Signal is one of the most if not the most secure messaging apps there is. They just implemented security to protect from Quantum computers and I don't think anyone else has that yet. It also gets a lot of attention and review from security experts.

I think you may be discussing how secure the app itself is based on encryption algo strength and what not. But no matter how good the devs are, there is no data center / cloud tenant or network location on earth that is 100% safe from a government entity silently intervening with the hosting and infrastructure and capturing and tracking whatever they want.

And since "good" devs make good money, and generally don't just spend all their free time working for no pay, do questions not come to mind as to their motive here?

Usually what happens with open-source is that if there is any real value in the software itself and it finds success, that value starts to accumulate and becomes an increasing maintenance burden, at which point the developer (s) either decide to abandon or monetize the project (and if there is money to be had, can you guess what their preference will be)? And since purchase of this type of app is usually not about the software itself, but the data it acquired in operation, what would make the most financial sense? To say "oh sorry, we have nothing to sell but the source code which has already been freely downloadable by anyone all this time" . Or would it be smarter, and more like a typical software engineer selling what they just spent the last 10 years on, to say "oh, you remember that encryption-at-rest algo that was undefeatable even by Quantum? We can sell you the backdoor key for that for only 200 million".

**OliverNP** · 10-17-25 06:25

Originally Posted by PeterJohnson [View Original Post]

What an utterly absurd statement. It was difficult to read anything after that.

It was clear by your response that you're unqualified to debate this topic with me or even understand my point.

For everyone else, I will just leave it at the fact that anyone out there can verify what I've said with a little bit of searching or AI.

Anyone who thinks free or open-source software is somehow providing them more privacy than proprietary systems is in for a big wake up call. The state of the code in a repo has nothing to do with how services utilizing that code gets deployed, who its deployed by, who owns the infrastructure at the particular point in time in question, etc.

Signal, or any other online service which claims to protect your anonymity is only pandering to the gullibility of the average horny john, drug dealer or dodgy character who has motive to try to hide online.

Ask yourself this: if you were a government agency that wanted to track potentially nefarious online behavior, what would be the best way to go about it? One of the oldest and most effective methods is to set up a decoy / honeypot service that goes to the greatest lengths to sell the concept of anonymity and ensure the user they're safe from prying eyes. Then, track and study everything to understand their methods and leverage their data against them later, as needed. And even beyond the threat of government decoys, there are foreign-run "free services" to fear.

Since I'm not breaking any laws by sugaring, I don't really mind the government being all up in my business as much as I do bad actors from China / Russia / India etc. , who won't hesitate to resort to future ransomware attacks.

It's best to never become naive enough to think that any form of online communication is safe from this. The notion that free and open-source software provides any sort of safety net in this area is as hilarious as it is dangerous to those who believe that.

**LambdaAb** · 10-16-25 18:13

https://members.seeking.com/member/c...f-e561fa28dcb3 - Lexi.

This one is a scammer will ask you money when meet and take money run away with her friend.

Originally Posted by MajMilkDuds [View Original Post]

**Peter Johnson** · 10-15-25 17:13

Originally Posted by 2me4Looking2 [View Original Post]

I've messaged with her a bit. She is definitely a pro and I would bet you can find her on listcrawler. She lives in hotels and moves around to different places. As long as you are aware of that and not paying a premium then give her a try and report back. She has sent me some pretty hot videos.

Yes definitely a pro, or semi-pro, at the very least. I saw her awhile back and mostly a good experience. But has to be very high traffic and will pretty much do CIP or anal with anyone...which is both good and bad.

**2me4Looking2** · 10-15-25 16:10

Originally Posted by SugarDaddio [View Original Post]

Hey gents. Chatting with Kaitlyn. I'm interested and just wondering if anyone has seen her yet. If you have and feel like sharing it would be much appreciated.

https://members.seeking.com/member/8...e-f81c0d5cb623

May the pussy be with you. SD.

I've messaged with her a bit. She is definitely a pro and I would bet you can find her on listcrawler. She lives in hotels and moves around to different places. As long as you are aware of that and not paying a premium then give her a try and report back. She has sent me some pretty hot videos.

**2me4Looking2** · 10-15-25 16:05

Originally Posted by PeterJohnson [View Original Post]

What an utterly absurd statement. It was difficult to read anything after that.

Nothing was said about Signal being "free software" or not. Telegram is free, Whatsapp is free, they are all free.

And what data about you do you think that Signal has they can be "sold off" in the future (in your imaginary scenario)?

It's impossible to refute nonsensical arguments, but anyway nothing is perfect. Even using zero electronic communications with the girls would not be perfect, nor is using SMS or Signal. It is just about weighing the risks and choosing which ones are more tolerable for each individual.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/geo-satellites-leaking-sensitive-data-unencrypted

And btw, anyone can intercept SMS messages with cheap equipment, according to this article. Not to mention your cellular provider and the NSA.

The notion that open source is not inherently more secure than closed source is accurate. The security depends heavily on how good the devs are and who is reviewing the code. There is plenty of junk and dubious open source apps out there. That being said, Signal is one of the most if not the most secure messaging apps there is. They just implemented security to protect from Quantum computers and I don't think anyone else has that yet. It also gets a lot of attention and review from security experts.

**Peter Johnson** · 10-15-25 03:14

Originally Posted by OliverNP [View Original Post]

The fact that the source code is open has nothing to do with whether it can be trusted

What an utterly absurd statement. It was difficult to read anything after that.

Originally Posted by OliverNP [View Original Post]

starting to realize that free software typically doesn't stay free forever. Especially services like this, which use "free" as a way to build the audience, at which time the platform then has value to be sold off (and most buyers will want all the data that has accumulated over the year

Nothing was said about Signal being "free software" or not. Telegram is free, Whatsapp is free, they are all free.

And what data about you do you think that Signal has they can be "sold off" in the future (in your imaginary scenario)?

It's impossible to refute nonsensical arguments, but anyway nothing is perfect. Even using zero electronic communications with the girls would not be perfect, nor is using SMS or Signal. It is just about weighing the risks and choosing which ones are more tolerable for each individual.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/geo-satellites-leaking-sensitive-data-unencrypted

And btw, anyone can intercept SMS messages with cheap equipment, according to this article. Not to mention your cellular provider and the NSA.

**MilfHunter818** · 10-14-25 15:52

Originally Posted by MadDog1746 [View Original Post]

Clear your inbox. I am chatting with her now and like you said comms are trash, got her down to 250 plus room but she won't send me any pics of her body. You said its nice, what would you rate her service? Was DFK and DATY involved or is it business as usual?

I messaged you.

**TravelinSD** · 10-14-25 11:03

Originally Posted by GoneForGood97 [View Original Post]

I don't remember what name she advertised under, but she looks super familiar. If I remember right she was 400 per hour on Tryst, no BBJ, which is why I never pulled the trigger. Though possible I'm mixing her up with someone else, it's been a few years. She was this hippie looking girl on Tryst.

It may be her. She definitely gave off some hippie vibes in her initial conversational texts.