"Sugar Babies" and "Arrangements"

[FarFarAway]

I am trying to establish relationships on SA, not just one-and-done. My approach generally includes a public M&G, and at said meeting, if I like someone and want to encourage the next step, I have a small gift for them. Most commonly I give a gift card from Sephora or Victoria. In denominations I can buy at the grocery, like 25 or 50. Usually, a girl really likes this 'gesture'.

I recently did a mid-day meeting w / a MILF, we just had drinks. A smoking hot one, to be sure. She's a novice on the site, I easily found her real identity. She formerly was a fitness / bikini competitor, even if her bod isn't quite what it was, she's a 9, despite her age (she is still 20+ years my junior). She's not convinced she wants an arrangement, but I considered myself in the running, and IK she deleted her profile, she was getting so many crass messages. So no competition. Sometimes, the POT being naive can lead to real bargains, so I have been hopeful.

I was out of touch on a business trip, upon my return, I suggested we renew our contact. Her response:

"Ok, but the VS card you gave me. Everything online was least 60-70.

I haven't used it but I'm just being honest."

[Peter Johnson]

I didn't mean to imply that you use the term "simp" to mean overpaying. It could be a wrong use of the term. I'm not sure. But I'm certain that others have used the term that way in debates concerning the topic of overpaying.

A couple examples:

http://www.usasexguide.nl/forum/show...825&viewfull=1#post4873825.

EDIT -- Link didn't work. Here's a quote: "I earn upwards of 70 k, with no debt, children, and I'm under 30. That's enough money to afford the over-priced providers. I just refuse to be a simp."

Ok I stand corrected that no one had used it that way. But I do think that someone who can afford to "overpay" is much more often considered a "player" or a "whale" than simp-like.

The worst are the submissive "findom" guys who get off on being used for their money, and don't get anything sexual in return. But if someone is extremely wealthy and can afford to pay $1000 for a smoking hot 21 y/o, then good for them, and it's certainly not pathetic simp behavior.

[NewAnonymousName]

You are confused. I don't remember reading one comment on here that called a guy a "simp", who overpaid to get some action from a sb. Simps are the ones who give the girls money for nothing.... to buy their pics or just act nice to them.

I didn't mean to imply that you use the term "simp" to mean overpaying. It could be a wrong use of the term. I'm not sure. But I'm certain that others have used the term that way in debates concerning the topic of overpaying.

A couple examples:

http://www.usasexguide.nl/forum/show...825&viewfull=1#post4873825.

EDIT -- Link didn't work. Here's a quote: "I earn upwards of 70 k, with no debt, children, and I'm under 30. That's enough money to afford the over-priced providers. I just refuse to be a simp."

http://www.usasexguide.nl/forum/show...highlight=simp#post3990256.

EDIT -- Link didn't work. Here's a quote: "Some simp probably did pay the 600 and now she feels she is worth it."

[Peter Johnson]

On the bright side, many of these professions pay well enough that we can simp by overpaying to outbid some of you when we want to close a deal with a hot young sugar baby. (Just kidding. Sort of.)

You are confused. I don't remember reading one comment on here that called a guy a "simp", who overpaid to get some action from a sb. Simps are the ones who give the girls money for nothing.... to buy their pics or just act nice to them.

[Peter Johnson]

Does anyone have a pic or a link to her new profile? Sounds familiar; I think I may have seen her before.

YMMV with Succulent Sweetheart (Rose). PP has had some good times with her, but I saw her once and she was acting like a low class hooker and rushing me to finish, after just 5 minutes. She also asked for the $$$$ up front, and took a phone call and said "I'm with a client". So not the best attitude or service. Maybe I got her on a bad day, but can not recommend, even though she looks good. Again, YMMV.

[BrownSugaTwo]

Succulent sweetheart is still around. A new profile now. She gained some weight. But she is available.

Does anyone have a pic or a link to her new profile? Sounds familiar; I think I may have seen her before.

[Peter Johnson]

'Corrective action' is deleting social media and not having your pictures and personal information all over the internet. This shit is going to get worse, much worse, and social media is made for women not dudes. Life improves when you delete all that trash..

No, social media is not made only for women, and nor is it all trash. I don't use LinkedIn, and the only social media site with my real identity is Facebook. And it serves a good purpose, to help me keep in touch with family and friends all over the world, as well as participate in different groups and communities, like hiking, collectibles, etc. Sure, if you only use FB to stalk your ex-gf, then it isn't useful or healthy, but for those of us who are a bit more multi-faceted, it works great.

And actually, what do you think USAG is? This is social media as well, to a large extent. Just like Twitter or Instagram or Reddit, where you don't have to use your real name.

[Member #6704]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think SucculentSweetheart is a woman I saw several times about three years ago. Her body was smoking hot. She had curvy hips and nice tits but wasn't fat at all. She was really tight for both vaginal and anal. She didn't really like to kiss, which is the main reason why I stopped seeing her. She seemed disinterested when I was DATY, so I only did it once and didn't keep at it for very long. I really can't be certain it's the same woman because I don't have any old pictures of her to compare. But your comment about her not liking DATY makes me think it's her. She didn't host. She always drove to my hotel room.

Succulent sweetheart is still around. A new profile now. She gained some weight. But she is available.

[NewAnonymousName]

'Corrective action' is deleting social media and not having your pictures and personal information all over the internet. This shit is going to get worse, much worse, and social media is made for women not dudes. Life improves when you delete all that trash.

There's no reason to even have your picture on LinkedIn, and certainly not having it visible to everyone. Masking pictures is a temporary fix to a permanent problem and it won't be effective for very long.

This isn't accurate for many professions. Service professionals (doctors, lawyers, consultants, accountants, etc.) are typically required by their firms to have pictures with names and bios on practice or company webpages. Many executive teams are required by their companies to do the same. LinkedIn bios with pictures are often a valuable tool to make connections for sales prospects or for potential job changes.

On the bright side, many of these professions pay well enough that we can “simp” by overpaying to outbid some of you when we want to close a deal with a hot young sugar baby. (Just kidding. Sort of.)

[PrinceOfFools]

Thanks for the info. I suppose we are all screwed in some capacity. All we can do is take corrective action going forward.

'Corrective action' is deleting social media and not having your pictures and personal information all over the internet. This shit is going to get worse, much worse, and social media is made for women not dudes. Life improves when you delete all that trash.

There's no reason to even have your picture on LinkedIn, and certainly not having it visible to everyone. Masking pictures is a temporary fix to a permanent problem and it won't be effective for very long.

[LouisHernandez]

This is incorrect. Running a cloaked picture through pimeyes will still find matches to uncloaked pictures that are already out there on the web. Fawkes' website specifically says that this won't protect you. I've tried it. I ran a cloaked picture through pimeyes and it still found the matches to my uncloaked work pictures that were already out there.

Cloaking only works consistently if you cloak all of the pictures out there on the web that pimeyes uses to build a database on you. It usually will not work if you merely cloak the picture that you share with a SB.

Thanks for the info. I suppose we are all screwed in some capacity. All we can do is take corrective action going forward.

[LouisHernandez]

Oh yeah, that sounds like the rational course of action, and not sure why I didn't think of it. I should certainly do this with my main FB pics and maybe delete some of the other ones on there, although if other people have me tagged, won't help much there. I have that meetup.com acct that I may just delete and start from scratch with a cloaked pic. I haven't even gone an event in years. And definitely going to opt out of any photos, on group hikes or similar.

Changing the main profile pics on FB et al. Will do most of the work, if you keep the rest of your social media profile private. I updated all my main pics yesterday. Of course it takes a while to propagate thru the system. Going forward make sure all public facing photos are cloaked.

[Peter Johnson]

Cloaking only works consistently if you cloak all of the pictures out there on the web that pimeyes uses to build a database on you. It usually will not work if you merely cloak the picture that you share with a SB.

I will have to submit a takedown request for both facecheck and pimeyes, as well. I wonder how much of your DL do they really need? I'm going to black out a lot of it.

And there are these sites, but are there others out there? And certainly will be many more in the future. Going to be a game of whack-a-mole, but just the way it is.

[NewAnonymousName]

I've done the same as you. So it sounds like cloaked pics can never be matched with other pics. That's good enough for me.

This is incorrect. Running a cloaked picture through pimeyes will still find matches to uncloaked pictures that are already out there on the web. Fawkes' website specifically says that this won't protect you. I've tried it. I ran a cloaked picture through pimeyes and it still found the matches to my uncloaked work pictures that were already out there.

Cloaking only works consistently if you cloak all of the pictures out there on the web that pimeyes uses to build a database on you. It usually will not work if you merely cloak the picture that you share with a SB.

[Peter Johnson]

Even before I swapped my social pics with cloaked ones, when I did a search using a cloaked pic it wasn't able to find me. I also filled out the form on pimeyes to not track / index my face and that was pretty painless. I haven't done that with any of the other sites, but I probably will.

The only thing I did with my social media pics is to change my profile pic for google, facebook and linked-in to cloaked images.

Oh yeah, that sounds like the rational course of action, and not sure why I didn't think of it. I should certainly do this with my main FB pics and maybe delete some of the other ones on there, although if other people have me tagged, won't help much there. I have that meetup.com acct that I may just delete and start from scratch with a cloaked pic. I haven't even gone an event in years. And definitely going to opt out of any photos, on group hikes or similar.