"Sugarbabies" / "Arrangements" Amateurs or Not?

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3782845]Start with the Index and FAQ. However, I highly recommend looking at it as an overall glimpse into the perspective of various SDs, and not so much a how-to guide to be followed to the letter. Read it and try to develop your own style. I've written a lot about what works for me, but my game hinges on exercise as a mandatory component of it, and I would have diminished results due to lower T levels and sexual performance if I stopped exercising and let myself go, I'm sure.

HWG's "stepped game plan", to the best of my knowledge, hinged on sending out pre-typed marketing blasts to lots of girls offering specific amounts of money. I don't know if people still do this, but I do know SA now detects this "form letter" approach to mails and some members have reported account suspension over these marketing blasts. Further more, this technique only works with pros, a real SB will get creeped out by offers for money in the first message -- you have to be much smoother than this if you want to land a real SB. What's more, increasingly, it's a very bad idea to make any sort of monetary offer for sex over digital communications, and it not only puts the hobby in jeopardy, and you at legal risk, but it draws more pros to SA and makes it harder to find a real SB. So much so, that if you read some of the SB boards in other cities, you'll find a lot of sugaring noobs don't even know the difference between an SB and a utr/pro.[/QUOTE]Very good insight! I will follow your advice.

Also thanks others pm'ed me and offered help. I will report back to you with my encounters.

[QUOTE=FruitNinja;3772827]I see a few two girls come to you. Anyone try this? Experiences?[/QUOTE]Are you talking about having them come to your place? Even if single, I wouldn't do it. If they get obsessed or mad at you for some reason, then they know too much about you. My .02.

[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3778775]I

[blue]Only if you want to give money to chicks so they treat you like shit and don't fuck you. You could always just get married if you want to do that.

A2[/blue][/QUOTE]Haha LOL! Yeah, apparently there are some guys who gladly feed into this. Or the SA chicks hear about it on some SA blog, and they think they can get money for nothing. Some apparently do, good luck with that.

[QUOTE=RVASpider;3782664]Do some guys have non-physical relationships with SBs? I've come across a few girls that say they get paid to hang out with men without having to do anything sexual. These girls want $400+ to go out to dinner and say that talking about paying for sex is off limits. I'm sure for some there is a crazy amount they would accept to have sex but I am curious to find out if anyone pays for a truly platonic relationship.[/QUOTE]Had a few that want big money just to have coffee. Scratch that one. I've also had one mediocre guy offering 6 k a month. She was a dead fish. I wouldn't give her 100.

[QUOTE=Madaboutmax;3783181]I've had success with "platonic" girls by being patient and respectful as well. The temptation is to call them out on it, but what's the point of that?

I let them know that I'm not looking for a platonic relationship and that no relationship would hold my attention long if intimacy wasn't ultimately a part of it. I tell them I'm willing to go slow and get to know each other before starting an arrangement. If that is not what they are looking for, I let them know I respect their view, wish them luck and to let me know if they reconsider.

Thanks to how many guys act on the site, it doesn't take them long to see reality. If they disappear, I saved myself some wasted time. If they contact me again, I know they understand my expectations.[/QUOTE]I find the whole "platonic / go slow" thing curious. When I was dating and the age of most SBs, everyone new the 3 date rule for civvy dating (and girls are a lot more open to random hook ups now than ever before). So if any kind of $$$ is involved, why would anyone invest more than 3 dates getting a girl naked? Yeah, sure they are half your age and don't want a relationship, but that's why $$ are involved to bridge that gap.

If anyone is at all hesitant about the age difference or feeling like an escort, I usually tell them the key to a successful arrangement is being comfortable. If you look at me and can't imagine enjoying having my head between your legs or looking back over your shoulder while making your back arch, then there is no real point in meeting again. But if you find that prospect appealing, keep this in mind. By the time most women are 30, they have had way too many dead-end relationships, jerk boyfriends who cheat on them or don't treat them well, dutch dates with the soulful barista with the man bun who just wants to get you on his futon, and more than a few regrettable drunken hook ups and / or selfish sex partners who are all jackhammer and no finesse. And all you have to show for it are some bad stories to share with your girlfriends and- heaven forbid- a pregnancy scare thanks to some dopey loser. On the other hand, we could go to dinner have some laughs and you can go home with me and have a night with someone who understands a woman's pleasure comes first- and often- since mine is assured with a hottie like you- maybe get some help or advice on navigating adulthood that your peers are clueless about (finding renter's insurance, weight job options) and not have to worry about rent this month. Doesn't sound like a very hard decision to me.

I read through the FAQ's page on here and found some great info. It looks like Richmond is the top forum in reference to good information for SD's. Thanks to everyone here who contributes its been great info.

My Currently stats:

I have been using SA for 11 months now. I have indulged 19 women off this site. Mostly no pro college girls between 18 and 24. Average damage is $$ plus entertainment costs. Average time seeing the girls continuously is about 30 to 60 days before it fizzles out. I spend a lot of time on SA and would like to make it more efficient. Over time my response and M at G numbers have gone down probably about 30% respond and I am able to get a M at G with 1 out of 4 of those. Getting to the FC on the M at G is at like 80% now though as all expectations are laid out in front.

Process 1 with expectations laid out:

1. Initial message just saying, Hi I think we are on the same page and mentioning something that shows I read her profile and am interested. 30% response.

2. Small talk 1 to 2 messages. 50% response (the girls lose interest fast here if you don't get to the point).

3. Message with my expectations, allowance, and ground rules for the M at G and potential compensation. 20% response but this fluctuates time of year, Christmas and New Years was much higher with much for success. Depends on how money dependent the girl is.

After this point success is very high.

4. Meet and a nice place for drinks or coffee. Flakes less then 1 in 10.

5. FC 80% of those.

I have had some success in the past with not explaining the expectations and allowance until the meeting and we are having a good time. I have gotten two without providing any compensation doing this but takes time for a date that has a higher chance of a date not ending up at FC.

Process 2 without discussing arrangement terms before meetings.

1. Hello message 30% response.

2. Small Talk 50% response.

3. M at G 40% response.

4. FC 60% of those that show up at M at G.

Process one leads to less dates but higher closing ratio on dates spend. Process 2 can be fun but is more time consuming and you get the occasional GPS girl who gets upset about the terms that you have to deal with in person. I am feeling the girls out to see who is in need of money the most that's who tends to go for process 1. Process 2 is better on those who are new and don't know what they are looking for or what they are doing.

Anyone have a good general opening line template and expectations template? It looks like best practice to use a template but cut in something from the SB's profile to make it personal. Hollywoodguy has some templates but am looking for something shorter and less template looking. I would like to raise the initial response rate and the response to the expectations and allowance part. Also any general feedback would be great!

[QUOTE=RVASpider;3783289]I've had one that said it was platonic only, went out for drinks, and ended up having fun in my car that night. It was fantastic and I've seen her twice since then.[/QUOTE]RVA very interesting you had that experience. I usually avoid the ones that have platonic in their profiles because they seem to be the most likely to scam us. And yet, you had success, good game, good job. Thanks for sharing.

[QUOTE=RaverThw;3787068]I read through the FAQ's page on here and found some great info. It looks like Richmond is the top forum in reference to good information for SD's. Thanks to everyone here who contributes its been great info.

My Currently stats:

I have been using SA for 11 months now. I have indulged 19 women off this site. Mostly no pro college girls between 18 and 24. Average damage is $$ plus entertainment costs. Average time seeing the girls continuously is about 30 to 60 days before it fizzles out. I spend a lot of time on SA and would like to make it more efficient. Over time my response and M at G numbers have gone down probably about 30% respond and I am able to get a M at G with 1 out of 4 of those. Getting to the FC on the M at G is at like 80% now though as all expectations are laid out in front.

Process 1 with expectations laid out:

1. Initial message just saying, Hi I think we are on the same page and mentioning something that shows I read her profile and am interested. 30% response.

2. Small talk 1 to 2 messages. 50% response (the girls lose interest fast here if you don't get to the point).

3. Message with my expectations, allowance, and ground rules for the M at G and potential compensation. 20% response but this fluctuates time of year, Christmas and New Years was much higher with much for success. Depends on how money dependent the girl is.

After this point success is very high.

4. Meet and a nice place for drinks or coffee. Flakes less then 1 in 10.

5. FC 80% of those.

I have had some success in the past with not explaining the expectations and allowance until the meeting and we are having a good time. I have gotten two without providing any compensation doing this but takes time for a date that has a higher chance of a date not ending up at FC.

Process 2 without discussing arrangement terms before meetings.

1. Hello message 30% response.

2. Small Talk 50% response.

3. M at G 40% response.

4. FC 60% of those that show up at M at G.

Process one leads to less dates but higher closing ratio on dates spend. Process 2 can be fun but is more time consuming and you get the occasional GPS girl who gets upset about the terms that you have to deal with in person. I am feeling the girls out to see who is in need of money the most that's who tends to go for process 1. Process 2 is better on those who are new and don't know what they are looking for or what they are doing.

Anyone have a good general opening line template and expectations template? It looks like best practice to use a template but cut in something from the SB's profile to make it personal. Hollywoodguy has some templates but am looking for something shorter and less template looking. I would like to raise the initial response rate and the response to the expectations and allowance part. Also any general feedback would be great![/QUOTE]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.

I have these two girls turned out to be roommates wanting to get together asking for 8 $ for trio and one is OK with 3. Any of you had any input to share PM if you want.

[URL]https://www.seekingarrangement.com/member/796c3eb9-27e7-405b-8d32-acc45e198b37[/URL]

Second on is germinthang, this one took out the profile unless she blocked me.

Let me know, please.

Thanks.

[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..[/QUOTE]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=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.

I agree with JZLizard in most everything here. As he has suggested in the past, it is up to those of us who want SA and sites like it to continue to take our own steps. If I contact a girl and she proposes an allowance discussion on the site, I immediately say it's not permitted. If she did it b / c she's an escort and I lose out, well, that's good for me (saves my time), and it's good for SA if she can't ply her trade there. If I get a $ amount proposal in a PM, I immediately report them. The evidence is right there in their message. I presume the girl can get back on with another email of course. I haven't personally seen them though. I contacted a girl through a CL ad a few months ago, approaching her as a SD. After a little messaging, she just says 'my place, $500', so I know she's an escort. I have no interest. Then I get my paid SA membership, and there she is, under the Featured profiles. I was tempted to try to resurrect her old ad and report her to SA also, but it's a little vigilante, and just too time-consuming.

One wonders about a serial process of new sites springing up that do the same thing, by different people in similar ways. The Secret Benefits site is advertised heavily here. There's no reason in principle it could not become a successor or competitor for SA. I got a profile, but have not been able to figure out a safe way to pay for messaging. As was mentioned, that is the key to the castle for any such site. Enabling those of us w / SOs to pay discreetly. At this stage it doesn't have anything like the scope of women SA does, at least in my area.

Would making the women pay some token amount help or hurt the integrity of SA? Maybe escorts have more $ and it would encourage them?

While I agree that premium members can help SA get rid of the escorts by reporting them, SA management has to step up and take some actions to clean the site. Some of the profiles now on SA clearly indicate prostitution, some public photos are too revealing, they are doing nothing to clean them up. In some cases when I reported, nothing happened. If Mr. Wade wants to stay in business he has to make some drastic changes to the site so that SA is viewed as a dating site not sex site. Otherwise, the days of SA are numbered under SESTA / FOSTA. For example, he can get rid of the "Lifestyle Expectation" choices for girls so that money is not connected to the dating.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.

[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3793366]I agree with JZLizard in most everything here. As he has suggested in the past, it is up to those of us who want SA and sites like it to continue to take our own steps. If I contact a girl and she proposes an allowance discussion on the site, I immediately say it's not permitted. If she did it b / c she's an escort and I lose out, well, that's good for me (saves my time), and it's good for SA if she can't ply her trade there. If I get a $ amount proposal in a PM, I immediately report them. The evidence is right there in their message. I presume the girl can get back on with another email of course. I haven't personally seen them though. I contacted a girl through a CL ad a few months ago, approaching her as a SD. After a little messaging, she just says 'my place, $500', so I know she's an escort. I have no interest. Then I get my paid SA membership, and there she is, under the Featured profiles. I was tempted to try to resurrect her old ad and report her to SA also, but it's a little vigilante, and just too time-consuming.

One wonders about a serial process of new sites springing up that do the same thing, by different people in similar ways. The Secret Benefits site is advertised heavily here. There's no reason in principle it could not become a successor or competitor for SA. I got a profile, but have not been able to figure out a safe way to pay for messaging. As was mentioned, that is the key to the castle for any such site. Enabling those of us w / SOs to pay discreetly. At this stage it doesn't have anything like the scope of women SA does, at least in my area.

Would making the women pay some token amount help or hurt the integrity of SA? Maybe escorts have more $ and it would encourage them?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3793092]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.[/QUOTE]That's the point I was trying to make. Upping the membership will suck but it would help to level things out some. Or, he could make guys put skin in the game by doing away with monthly memberships. Go three months min or something.

[QUOTE=DrSummer;3793732]While I agree that premium members can help SA get rid of the escorts by reporting them, SA management has to step up and take some actions to clean the site. Some of the profiles now on SA clearly indicate prostitution, some public photos are too revealing, they are doing nothing to clean them up. In some cases when I reported, nothing happened. If Mr. Wade wants to stay in business he has to make some drastic changes to the site so that SA is viewed as a dating site not sex site. Otherwise, the days of SA are numbered under SESTA / FOSTA. For example, he can get rid of the "Lifestyle Expectation" choices for girls so that money is not connected to the dating.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.[/QUOTE]I endorse that last idea. I routinely ignore it, even more so w / the younger SBs, because the record is that some just are reacting to how the words sound and not to the site definitions. TBH, I even had a search that plays this angle. I call it clueless. Figuring that many guys may steer away from a girl who says High or Substantial, I filter for those who do and are <23.

BTW, generally, I have thought that the 30's women might be a better match for me since I am 60+, and I have contacted many in my 2+ years on SA. Mostly, though, I have found them to be mercenary bitches. They seem to calculate the allowance based on those descriptors w / a flinty eye. The definition of GPS. They likely have greater needs than the 20's girls, and expect them to be fulfilled. The SB we all want is one for whom this is all new and they want to add an adventure to their young lives.

[QUOTE=DrSummer;3793732]While I agree that premium members can help SA get rid of the escorts by reporting them, SA management has to step up and take some actions to clean the site. Some of the profiles now on SA clearly indicate prostitution, some public photos are too revealing, they are doing nothing to clean them up. In some cases when I reported, nothing happened. If Mr. Wade wants to stay in business he has to make some drastic changes to the site so that SA is viewed as a dating site not sex site. Otherwise, the days of SA are numbered under SESTA / FOSTA. For example, he can get rid of the "Lifestyle Expectation" choices for girls so that money is not connected to the dating.

Stay Safe.

Dr. S.[/QUOTE]I do think getting rid of the lifestyle expectation amount might be a good idea (because it is useless anyway), but he would simultaneously need to find a way to attract female members to replace it, because this method of self-evaluation of their worth is part of what gets them interested in creating an account. They see the numbers, imagine how much more secure they will be if they supplemented their lifestyle by that amount, and it gives them motivation to proceed into waters they might otherwise have too many reservations about.

I don't see the connection to money as the primary issue here. If girls are advertising "companionship" by the hour and posting "quickie" discount rates, that's one thing. However, the exchange of money or gifts for companionship is NOT illegal, and that's the point that always seems to get lost. This is the sole legal fact that gives sites like SA survival potential (as long as they manage it well, facilitating the legal lifestyle of sugar dating while also battling the illegal practice of prostitution).

One thing to keep in mind is that the lawyers, judges, politicians that would be needed to launch a campaign also often partake in the practice of having a younger kept woman (SB) on the side, even the ones that wouldn't be caught dead taking a risk with a per-hour escort. Why? Because one of them jeopardizes their career and puts everything they've worked their whole life for at risk, while the other one does not. Or maybe they are just like and don't like the challenge-less practice of paying a girl to fuck who happens to be willing to fuck just about anyone that walks through the door with some green in their hand.

[QUOTE=FarFarAway;3793366]I agree with JZLizard in most everything here. As he has suggested in the past, it is up to those of us who want SA and sites like it to continue to take our own steps. If I contact a girl and she proposes an allowance discussion on the site, I immediately say it's not permitted. If she did it b / c she's an escort and I lose out, well, that's good for me (saves my time), and it's good for SA if she can't ply her trade there. If I get a $ amount proposal in a PM, I immediately report them. The evidence is right there in their message. I presume the girl can get back on with another email of course. I haven't personally seen them though. I contacted a girl through a CL ad a few months ago, approaching her as a SD. After a little messaging, she just says 'my place, $500', so I know she's an escort. I have no interest. Then I get my paid SA membership, and there she is, under the Featured profiles. I was tempted to try to resurrect her old ad and report her to SA also, but it's a little vigilante, and just too time-consuming.

One wonders about a serial process of new sites springing up that do the same thing, by different people in similar ways. The Secret Benefits site is advertised heavily here. There's no reason in principle it could not become a successor or competitor for SA. I got a profile, but have not been able to figure out a safe way to pay for messaging. As was mentioned, that is the key to the castle for any such site. Enabling those of us w / SOs to pay discreetly. At this stage it doesn't have anything like the scope of women SA does, at least in my area.

Would making the women pay some token amount help or hurt the integrity of SA? Maybe escorts have more $ and it would encourage them?[/QUOTE]I've been told by 3 POTs they pay for their accounts too, met one recently that was sharing account with her roommate because of it. Probably why some come and go frequently.

As I understand it, it creates a new potential financial liability via civil action but also a criminal one. Depending on how profitable this is for Wade, it may very well be worth legal bills and even settlements of the eventual plaintiff suits to continue to operate. However, the criminal liability is another matter and may eventually force his hand. It would be a risk I wouldn't take personally.

Something will spring up for this idea located offshore or the like to take its place if / when that happens. However, it will be much more under the radar and I doubt the true sugar newbies that I do this for will be nearly as plentiful as it will lack the exposure.

I already got my first ever message from the site from someone quoting prices in "hhr and hr" just like like she was no doubt doing in her backpage ad a few days ago. Not good.

Been quite a while since I was active in this section. Still actively work SA and a couple of the other sites, though.

SESTA / FOSTA is incredibly badly written law. It was intentionally written as ambiguously as possible, so that not only sites like BP that allowed direct advertising can be held to it, but more ambiguously-targeted sites like SA and even discussion-only sites like this one can be held to it. Both civil and criminal liability are possible, since SESTA / FOSTA remove the criminal and civil protections for aggregators from the Comm. Decency Act, and allow "victims" to sue for civil damages. It very specifically makes no distinction between private sex workers and human trafficking victims; if it involves, promotes or even just discusses commercialized sex, it's considered trafficking (nevermind that far more people are trafficked as labor than for commercial sex, and that many if not most sex workers do so of their own choice.).

It's not been signed into law yet, and I have to wonder why Trump hasn't signed it. Maybe he has personal reasons for not wanting this to go forward....

Constitutional challenges will likely come quickly, and everything I've seen so far from across the ideological spectrum indicates that the chances of it getting thrown out are solid (when both the anti-trafficking groups and the sexworkers groups are up in arms together, it's got problems.) But many (most?) of the sites we've depended on for years can't survive even a few weeks of waiting, much less the years it will take to wind through all the courts. Which may be the author's goal in the first place. BP will *never* be back, as their problems are much bigger than this.

Offshoring of existing / new sites is not as much an escape as it sounds. The US has extradition treaties and reciprocity agreements with a most of the other countries where hosting could occur, and in those cases a request from the DOJ could cut off access to the site from the US. They'd have to host in places where those treaties / agreements don't exist or aren't followed (places like the Caribbean financial havens), and thanks to the fact that we no longer have net neutrality, even then we could see the DOJ demand that US ISPs block access to those sites. (Yes, you may be able to get around this with a private VPN. Show of hands: how many of you know how to set up a VPN and are willing to mess with it regularly?

[QUOTE=CantWinLosin;3795127]Been quite a while since I was active in this section. Still actively work SA and a couple of the other sites, though.

SESTA / FOSTA is incredibly badly written law. It was intentionally written as ambiguously as possible, so that not only sites like BP that allowed direct advertising can be held to it, but more ambiguously-targeted sites like SA and even discussion-only sites like this one can be held to it. Both civil and criminal liability are possible, since SESTA / FOSTA remove the criminal and civil protections for aggregators from the Comm. Decency Act, and allow "victims" to sue for civil damages. It very specifically makes no distinction between private sex workers and human trafficking victims; if it involves, promotes or even just discusses commercialized sex, it's considered trafficking (nevermind that far more people are trafficked as labor than for commercial sex, and that many if not most sex workers do so of their own choice.).

It's not been signed into law yet, and I have to wonder why Trump hasn't signed it. Maybe he has personal reasons for not wanting this to go forward....

Constitutional challenges will likely come quickly, and everything I've seen so far from across the ideological spectrum indicates that the chances of it getting thrown out are solid (when both the anti-trafficking groups and the sexworkers groups are up in arms together, it's got problems.) But many (most?) of the sites we've depended on for years can't survive even a few weeks of waiting, much less the years it will take to wind through all the courts. Which may be the author's goal in the first place. BP will *never* be back, as their problems are much bigger than this.

Offshoring of existing / new sites is not as much an escape as it sounds. The US has extradition treaties and reciprocity agreements with a most of the other countries where hosting could occur, and in those cases a request from the DOJ could cut off access to the site from the US. They'd have to host in places where those treaties / agreements don't exist or aren't followed (places like the Caribbean financial havens), and thanks to the fact that we no longer have net neutrality, even then we could see the DOJ demand that US ISPs block access to those sites. (Yes, you may be able to get around this with a private VPN. Show of hands: how many of you know how to set up a VPN and are willing to mess with it regularly?[/QUOTE]Great posting. Well written and explained. It will take years for it to be settled in court and like you said probably tossed out but again years down the road. Most do2 have the deep pockets for years of litigation so someone like the ACLU will need to step up.

[QUOTE=DavidS78;3794695]I've been told by 3 POTs they pay for their accounts too, met one recently that was sharing account with her roommate because of it. Probably why some come and go frequently.[/QUOTE]They only pay for Premium accounts, which I think are like $20/ mo. I think that lets them contact the SD first instead of just favorite him, and some other things, and I think they occasionally run specials that are below full price.

But most SBs don't have premium, only free accounts.

I may be mistaken but I think an email address at a valid university gets them the same level of access as premium. Student discount..lol

[QUOTE=JZLizard;3794641] don't see the connection to money as the primary issue here. If girls are advertising "companionship" by the hour and posting "quickie" discount rates, that's one thing. However, the exchange of money or gifts for companionship is NOT illegal, and that's the point that always seems to get lost. This is the sole legal fact that gives sites like SA survival potential (as long as they manage it well, facilitating the legal lifestyle of sugar dating while also battling the illegal practice of prostitution).[/QUOTE]Prostitution is not illegal by federal law, only state laws, and the states are not party to this FOSTA crap from what I'm reading. I'm no legal expert, but for the life of me, I can't understand how the feds can criminalize online posting or discussion for an activity that is otherwise legal.

Can any confirm if an unverified PP account is still a viable option for SA?

[QUOTE=Assaholic;3795539]Prostitution is not illegal by federal law, only state laws, and the states are not party to this FOSTA crap from what I'm reading. I'm no legal expert, but for the life of me, I can't understand how the feds can criminalize online posting or discussion for an activity that is otherwise legal.[/QUOTE]The Communications Decency Act was what prevented states from pursuing these sites in this way. SESTA / FOSTA removes that block and lets states as well as victims pursue the operators.

So while we obsess over political bs.

Don't get side tracked.

Scammers are out in force.

Check out the fingers. Nice try.

Attached from prev post.