Seeking Arrangements

**Jack617** · 01-13-19 11:53

So, we all ***** and moan, with good reason, about all these girls that mention platonic in their profiles. Like most of you I generally move on but was curious if any of you have actually fucked a girl with a profile like that? Of course this post is not coming out of left field as I ran into one that I would give my left nut to fuck, LOL.

https://www.seeking.com/member/2c537...5-daed7caf05f9

**Walruscl** · 01-11-19 22:08

Originally Posted by Nrlmus [View Original Post]

Moving onto a sister topic, considering how much of the stabilizing factor they are in our lives, many providers should be looked at as mental health professionals and in more advanced societies would be covered by health insurance or at least under European health care model should be provider with an elective upgrade, allowing one to upgrade his (or her) mental care coverage to include such services. Also, considering how many families they keep together, how many divorces they keep from happening, in fact how many women and children they keep from turning into single (I. E. Divorced) mothers, they should be able to fall under family counseling, and that too should be covered by an elective mental health rider.

Just saying.

Can't say that my 5-year SB could have prevented my divorce (though that was the idea at the time), nor was she the reason for it. More like a persistent cognitive dissonance, and a canary-in-the-coal-mine wakeup call to what was an untenable marriage. Even though in the end (inevitably), that SB is out of my life, the divorce was a necessary pain. So I suppose the logic applies, even if the stated outcome doesn't align with my experience.

My current SB is certainly salving the wounds of post-divorce life, that's for sure.

**PaulRew** · 01-11-19 18:50

Has anyone here seen her?

https://www.seeking.com/member/6db55...5-8515985ba09a

**Lozo43** · 01-11-19 16:29

Anyone ever seen her? Or any info to report on?

https://www.seeking.com/member/7ab8d...2-7b3b8d0433ed

**Spill** · 01-11-19 15:11

Originally Posted by Nrlmus [View Original Post]

Moreover, don't forget that it's not sex that you're paying for but for the companionship. Kind of like hiring a Home Health Aid privately you know.

Moving onto a sister topic, considering how much of the stabilizing factor they are in our lives, many providers should be looked at as mental health professionals and in more advanced societies would be covered by health insurance or at least under European health care model should be provider with an elective upgrade, allowing one to upgrade his (or her) mental care coverage to include such services. Also, considering how many families they keep together, how many divorces they keep from happening, in fact how many women and children they keep from turning into single (I. E. Divorced) mothers, they should be able to fall under family counseling, and that too should be covered by an elective mental health rider.

Just saying.

Sounds like a good opportunity for President Pence.

**Spill** · 01-11-19 15:09

Originally Posted by Longjblues [View Original Post]

How can it get back to "them"? How exactly does it "get back" to "them". Oh, "ten ladies out of all the ladies with profiles on the Massachusetts/NH SA site are reported on an obscure Escort review site as taking money for sex"?? I think you are overly cautious. And besides, the feds would go after SA's sister site, "WhatsYourPrice" first, since that is more clearly a gray area of the law.

Yes, I agree that everyone should be discreet, but certainly reporting on what a lady is requiring for her allowance is fine. The element of SD / SB is that the relationship is more than just a one time thing. The majority of the SA ladies are not "professionals". In fact, I would say that very few are professionals. If they take down SA, they, being the feds, will be required to take down traditional dating sites. Not going to happen.

I do not know that USASG would be considered an "obscure Escort review site", but that does not matter. The "get back to them" only needs to provide SA with the idea that there is a potential hole and they will tighten things further to avoid FOSTA. I'm not worrying about the feds shutting down SA, I am more worried about SA changing their business model away from how we like it.

**Nrlmus** · 01-11-19 15:08

Originally Posted by Longjblues [View Original Post]

How can it get back to "them"? How exactly does it "get back" to "them".

And besides, the feds would go after SA's sister site, "WhatsYourPrice" first, since that is more clearly a gray area of the law.

Yes, I agree that everyone should be discreet, but certainly reporting on what a lady is requiring for her allowance is fine. The element of SD / SB is that the relationship is more than just a one time thing. The majority of the SA ladies are not "professionals". In fact, I would say that very few are professionals. If they take down SA, they, being the feds, will be required to take down traditional dating sites. Not going to happen.

Moreover, don't forget that it's not sex that you're paying for but for the companionship. Kind of like hiring a Home Health Aid privately you know.

Moving onto a sister topic, considering how much of the stabilizing factor they are in our lives, many providers should be looked at as mental health professionals and in more advanced societies would be covered by health insurance or at least under European health care model should be provider with an elective upgrade, allowing one to upgrade his (or her) mental care coverage to include such services. Also, considering how many families they keep together, how many divorces they keep from happening, in fact how many women and children they keep from turning into single (I. E. Divorced) mothers, they should be able to fall under family counseling, and that too should be covered by an elective mental health rider.

Just saying.

**Longjblues** · 01-11-19 14:49

How can it get back to "them"? How exactly does it "get back" to "them". Oh, "ten ladies out of all the ladies with profiles on the Massachusetts/NH SA site are reported on an obscure Escort review site as taking money for sex"?? I think you are overly cautious. And besides, the feds would go after SA's sister site, "WhatsYourPrice" first, since that is more clearly a gray area of the law.

Yes, I agree that everyone should be discreet, but certainly reporting on what a lady is requiring for her allowance is fine. The element of SD / SB is that the relationship is more than just a one time thing. The majority of the SA ladies are not "professionals". In fact, I would say that very few are professionals. If they take down SA, they, being the feds, will be required to take down traditional dating sites. Not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Spill [View Original Post]

No one thinks SA is monitoring this site. At least they shouldn't. But information can "get back" to them and if it scares them enough about FOSTA, they will tighten things up even further to save their ca $h cow. The discussion on The othER board has an unwritten rule about TMI regarding SA.

Here is a post from last spring that shares that sentiment:

"That's just one of the reasons I have been so vehemently against SB reviews or anything even close to an SB review system. I am also 1,000% against guys mentioning finding their favorite hooker on the sugar sites. Right now the Sugar World is in a legal "gray area" if too many stupid guys insist on shaking their dicks at LE by openly discussing individual SB's, complete with "allowance" requirements and "activities performed" they sure as fuck are going to ruin it for the rest of us. And THAT is why we can't have nice things. LOL.

So if any of you dumbfucks find your ATF advertising on SA and you want to share that information with the world, do her and the rest of us a huge favor and just STFU!"

Yes, a little extreme, but I think we should be a little more careful.

**Javazer** · 01-11-19 14:08

Originally Posted by Javazer [View Original Post]

Please use common sense about sharing / using info on sites or with SB's. You don't want the few good options left to be shutdown, do you?

J.

Not directed to anyone in particular, just in general when mentioning SA, most of them on Seeking have no idea about this board.

J.

**Spill** · 01-11-19 14:06

Originally Posted by Longjblues [View Original Post]

"I don't think SA is actually auditing this site". Of course, they're not. No possible way that they could.

You get banned on SA partly due to complaints, but mainly if you use certain words, such as incall, donation, and perhaps standard prostitution abbreviations, BBBJ, daty, etc. They most likely have algorithms which kick out messages or profiles with key words. They cannot monitor a site like this. There are just too many of them. IMHO.

Cutie's w / booty reaction is just "normal" female to male reaction, "You're gross".

No one thinks SA is monitoring this site. At least they shouldn't. But information can "get back" to them and if it scares them enough about FOSTA, they will tighten things up even further to save their ca $h cow. The discussion on The othER board has an unwritten rule about TMI regarding SA.

Here is a post from last spring that shares that sentiment:

"That's just one of the reasons I have been so vehemently against SB reviews or anything even close to an SB review system. I am also 1,000% against guys mentioning finding their favorite hooker on the sugar sites. Right now the Sugar World is in a legal "gray area" if too many stupid guys insist on shaking their dicks at LE by openly discussing individual SB's, complete with "allowance" requirements and "activities performed" they sure as fuck are going to ruin it for the rest of us. And THAT is why we can't have nice things. LOL.

So if any of you dumbfucks find your ATF advertising on SA and you want to share that information with the world, do her and the rest of us a huge favor and just STFU!"

Yes, a little extreme, but I think we should be a little more careful.

**Rcknrl913** · 01-11-19 13:45

Originally Posted by Lozo43 [View Original Post]

Anyone seen her before?

https://www.seeking.com/member/9715b...6-e995a29853b4

She's in Revere. 250 First meet the 200 after, no time limit. Decent face nice body. Text her and she' send you a few pics. Good Luck.

**Javazer** · 01-11-19 11:24

Originally Posted by PaulRew [View Original Post]

New profile (including a pic with her GIANT ass LOL).

https://www.seeking.com/member/6e3c6...7-aaa82cedabbe

Talked to here a few weeks back where she had Lowell as location and crossed her off real quick, my head said keep moving on.

Have a handful of M&G lined up for next week, had to cut tie with a couple of on going I had, very busy after the New Year.

Please use common sense about sharing / using info on sites or with SB's. You don't want the few good options left to be shutdown, do you?

J.

**Sounds** · 01-11-19 11:06

Originally Posted by Longjblues [View Original Post]

"I don't think SA is actually auditing this site". Of course, they're not. No possible way that they could.

You get banned on SA partly due to complaints, but mainly if you use certain words, such as incall, donation, and perhaps standard prostitution abbreviations, BBBJ, daty, etc. They most likely have algorithms which kick out messages or profiles with key words. They cannot monitor a site like this. There are just too many of them. IMHO.

Cutie's w / booty reaction is just "normal" female to male reaction, "You're gross".

Even if they monitor this site, no way for them to tie between the two accounts.

**PaulRew** · 01-11-19 10:06

Originally Posted by PaulRew [View Original Post]

Sorry but I blocked her profile but a giant titted girl from Chelmsford or there abouts. Had a date all set (see my post before this one) and things were great. I should have sensed something when she was down for EVERYTHING I asked, basically does not know the word "no". We agree to a price and a time and a place and then she drops the bomb: I need 50% sent thru Cashapp or alternative method.

No way, but I increase my offer and tell her she can have the envelope as soon as she enters the room. No go, " I've been burnt before this will make me comfortable" Yeah, 50% sent to her leaves no incentive to get off the couch and get drilled sideways for the other 50%.

Told her to fuck off.

https://www.seeking.com/member/1776b...9-3e70e80215f3

New profile (including a pic with her GIANT ass LOL).

https://www.seeking.com/member/6e3c6...7-aaa82cedabbe

**Longjblues** · 01-11-19 09:30

"I don't think SA is actually auditing this site". Of course, they're not. No possible way that they could.

You get banned on SA partly due to complaints, but mainly if you use certain words, such as incall, donation, and perhaps standard prostitution abbreviations, BBBJ, daty, etc. They most likely have algorithms which kick out messages or profiles with key words. They cannot monitor a site like this. There are just too many of them. IMHO.

Cutie's w / booty reaction is just "normal" female to male reaction, "You're gross".

Originally Posted by Joe1223 [View Original Post]

Well I certainly wasn't the only reporting on her but if you can't review on here for fear of being kicked off then they should start posting on a different site. Honestly I really think she had me confused with someone else because the follow up texts did not make sense and I never saw the lady. I don't think SA is actually auditing this site but who knows maybe it's a slow day at the captain obvious "dating" site.