Stepping on Hot Button Issue. Sigh
[QUOTE=IanPrax;6665521]Ask is $x3.[/QUOTE][I]Oops, found a hot button issue here, my response. My bad![/I]
Huh? What does your code mean? IF you meant 300 why not type that? Same number of characters, easier to type, especial if on a phone and switching between special character, letter and number?
Yeah, I know, the "site" suggests a coded system on expressing payment amounts. IMHO it ain't cool and it sure isn't protective in any way: LE has experts who know these codes. So I'm lobbying for clarification by using real numbers instead of code ones.
If you mean 300 say 300. Ok?
Ladvfirefighter / tempting beauty
I apologize first I couldn't get there profiles to load firefighter is a hot 40 yr old and tempting beauty is 50 any info is appreciated I did the FB troll and found both thanks.
OpSec Type Question. OF and Sugar Dating
So I am wondering about * From time to time doing DD I have run into SBs who have OF pages. In addition, seems like there should be a way to find SBs or upscale girls willing to date on that site.
So going to OF, I can sign up, but most of the content is Adult in nature and thus OF requires one to verify they are 18-yo to see such adult stuff. Shoot looked a several profiles of hot ladies, but because I'm not age verified, can't see the public posts, some of which appears to be quite x-rated (from the description).
I looked around the 'net and it looks like there is no way around this age verification requirement by OF. So. That means one has to provide a valid I'd to sign up. Not something I normally do. I don't mix IRL info with Sugar Dating or my Sugar Identity.
So from an OpSec perspective the only two things I can think of are:
1) Create an entirely new identity for OF purposes only and do not tie that in any way to the Sugaring or Mongering activity. Look but don't touch!
2) Get a fake I'd card and try to use that for age verification purposes on OF.
I think the first approach would not allow me to take conversations from the OF to the Sugaring I'd and create a link between them, so it becomes a 'look, but don't touch' proposition. The second approach, fake I'd could fail, especially if OF has some connection to state D / L databases and can verify if the info on the fake I'd is indeed fake!
Has anyone had this same OpSec problem and has a solution? TIA!
I Used GooglePay to Pay for a 2nd Seeking Account
After a little over 2 years on my current Seeking account, I too set up a 2nd paid account. I plan to delete my current account shortly. Anyhow, when I set up the 2nd account, Seeking presented a GooglePay option. Which I took. GooglePay linked to my burner Gmail account which has a fictitious name. I made the payment on GooglePay using the same credit card I used on my current Seeking account. I did have to confirm my billing zip code, but the charge went through using my fake google name. While I don't know the mechanics of how GooglePay and Seeking interact, I figured GooglePay would not share my credit card info with Seeking.
[QUOTE=LikeMike1963;6685521]I actually was not banned. Just wanted to start with a fresh updated profile. See who may of blocked me that I could not see before etc and it worked. Payments were not a problem with the using the same card. I use a regular CC as I do not have a SO. I have tried the gift cards and tried registering them but tend to have issues. I suspect SA does not like gift cards as there is no way to perpetuate their suck ass auto renewal program![/QUOTE]