Sugar Daddy Sites

**RanManCan** · 02-16-22 02:49

I don't normally post this shit, but wow!

"How about a video chat for 900 so we know we're not wasting each others time, you can ask me anything 😇.

Valentina baby: https://members.seeking.com/member/b...c-5a3758a4c411.

**FirstClass1** · 02-15-22 17:38

This faceless profile is actually a botoxed and lip filled goblin in her 30's claiming to be 24. She wants 5000 a month plus gifts and high end restaurants, in exchange for one nut into a bag for an hour. That's the equivalent of a $100 k job after taxes, all for giving you the lousiest sex since your ex wife.

https://seeking.com/member/9eee16a5-...7-131c824064e6

**FirstClass1** · 02-15-22 16:46

Originally Posted by FarFarAway [View Original Post]

Every one should go onto the web and find a nice graphic of a Valentine's Day card, and text it to a bunch of your POTs. The girls will just melt. I have revived several today.

Great move. I creampied a new green eyed blonde by including a Valentine's greeting in my messages.

**FirstClass1** · 02-15-22 16:44

Originally Posted by Jendabaze [View Original Post]

It sounds like he is covering himself legally. "Use seeking to find love not sex " is a good way to defend himself if the site gets in trouble.

That's exactly right. Continued scrutiny on the site following FOSTA and the ongoing Matt Gaetz scandal have prompted Seeking to reposition themselves as a conventional dating site. The "Friends with Benefits" tab has been changed to "Friends," blog articles on sex trafficking and personal safety have been released over the past months, and bots are scanning messages for any mentions of PPM or any escorting terminology. The asymmetrical enforcement on SD accounts over those of SBs has of course encouraged further scammer and GPS profiles to proliferate.

Wade's full page ad on his marriage is an attempt to improve the optics of the site: "love and marriage can be found via sugar dating. ".

Most girls on the site will still put out and take money, but users need to be more circumspect in how they go about this.

**FarFarAway** · 02-14-22 20:26

Originally Posted by PussyPumper [View Original Post]

The transition to the new Seeking has happened.

Only mention of arrangements is in the potted company history, under "About Us".

As others have also suggested, I think this is likely to be a reaction to FOSTA-SESTA concerns, and simply a desire to get the escorts and w*mongers off the site. I think that would be fine, actually. Those of us who want to use it to find real arrangements won't have so much chaff to sift through to find wheat. I would also guess we can expect increased vigilance on the part of the mods there on screening messages for anything out of line, so I would be as mild as milk in messaging on there. As many have already recommended, move communication off the site to get into that. And if you have trouble getting someone to message off the site, they are either too skittish or you need more game.

All of us will know what the site was and continues to be, and the lore on the street will keep its cred.

**FarFarAway** · 02-14-22 17:43

Every one should go onto the web and find a nice graphic of a Valentine's Day card, and text it to a bunch of your POTs. The girls will just melt. I have revived several today.

**PussyPumper** · 02-14-22 01:34

The transition to the new Seeking has happened.

Only mention of arrangements is in the potted company history, under "About Us".

**BigBear818** · 02-13-22 23:23

I had a different experience with her and was quite the opposite to what you experienced. Even repeated with her a few times because she lets me deliver cream pies every time. She's either a very good actress or really likes me like she wants me to be her new bf / hubby which is a no for me. Very nice lady though based on my experience.

Originally Posted by Ajfff [View Original Post]

Skip this gal, definitely nice and gorgeous looking like her pics, not crazy expensive, but definitely she's watched more Japanese porn than me as she's almost a limp fish. Real quick time too, all covered.

Nice looks, bad time unless you like someone with very bad English skills that wants to rush you along with very little. This despite discussing it and being firm about it before she got there.

Maybe you'd have a different result, but I'd recommend a pass unless anything changes. Not my biggest fail, but not even worth 2.

I'd put a few more of my fails / wins down, but blocked most of mine or they blocked me.

**Jendabaze** · 02-13-22 14:15

Originally Posted by OcasianBoy [View Original Post]

Mr. Wade is getting married as he has found true love. So seeking is supposedly changing to just a regular online dating site on Valentine's Day. So no more sugar dating on the site?

It sounds like he is covering himself legally. "Use seeking to find love not sex " is a good way to defend himself if the site gets in trouble.

**FarFarAway** · 02-13-22 13:56

Is, sadly, running a full page ad in the LA Times today, advertising his impending marriage. Actually, I think he is a f-ing idiot and I wish he wouldn't do this. Those of us in the sugar bowl who have SOs don't need anyone reminding them that we alpha males have options out there we might indulge. Keeping my SO blissfully ignorant of the possibilities is my stock in trade.

About whether people would pay for vanilla dating through seeking, they already do that for a lot of dating sites, like match.com. There is an article in the LA Times today about expensive rich people matchmaking. It is Valentine's Day tomorrow, all this will get media attention, then blow over and go back to the old ways.

**TheHuntsman** · 02-13-22 13:28

Originally Posted by RogerOver [View Original Post]

But who would pay that monthly fee just for "dating" opportunities? I doubt the underpinnings will change. But hey, looks like there's an opening for anyone wanting to start stealing market share.

Totally agree. Regular dating sites have a premium version too, but not at the same price as SA.

**JackMiles** · 02-13-22 11:47

Originally Posted by LargeEss [View Original Post]

Odd didn't receive an email. Maybe phishing?

Not at all. It's from the site and has a video of Wade talking about it.
https://youtu.be/sx3Dg_igqVg

**RogerOver** · 02-13-22 11:44

Originally Posted by PussyPumper [View Original Post]

The original version allowed nudity. Or at the very least least topless. I saw some of that on very old profiles when I first started.

Then some years back, SA changed from being Seeking Arrangements to just Seeking, and took away the focus on arrangements. There was talk at the time of transitioning to being a regular dating site. This sounds like another step in that direction. Wade is probably hoping to increase his customer base with regular daters, while keeping present SDs. Not sure how that would work, but might be.

But who would pay that monthly fee just for "dating" opportunities? I doubt the underpinnings will change. But hey, looks like there's an opening for anyone wanting to start stealing market share.

**Large Ess** · 02-13-22 10:18

Originally Posted by JackMiles [View Original Post]

I got the email as well. He's right. He's making it a dating site, but what that means exactly I don't know. In the least it'll be rebranded.

Odd didn't receive an email. Maybe phishing?

**PussyPumper** · 02-13-22 01:11

Originally Posted by OcasianBoy [View Original Post]

Mr. Wade is getting married as he has found true love. So seeking is supposedly changing to just a regular online dating site on Valentine's Day. So no more sugar dating on the site?

The original version allowed nudity. Or at the very least least topless. I saw some of that on very old profiles when I first started.

Then some years back, SA changed from being Seeking Arrangements to just Seeking, and took away the focus on arrangements. There was talk at the time of transitioning to being a regular dating site. This sounds like another step in that direction. Wade is probably hoping to increase his customer base with regular daters, while keeping present SDs. Not sure how that would work, but might be.