DE Sugar

**Graham111** · 12-13-25 08:39

I've got something for you!!

**Kennydubby1** · 10-16-25 15:49

Originally Posted by Graham111 [View Original Post]

No doubt about it. Assume donation will be $$ Was a safety girl when I saw her with WHFT but a great bod.

Does anyone have any updates on where to contact Anya / Lilith? PM as I would love to get in touch.

**Shampoo55** · 10-14-25 14:49

Originally Posted by Nate0110 [View Original Post]

I did not as Seeking now requires a selfie verification? Think I'll pass. Am I the only one this website was down for a few months? I didn't even know it was back up until yesterday.

Yeah, I think I'm grandfathered because I use an old / existing account. But from what I hear from other forums is that yes, if you delete your account and start over you need to verify.

And no, I've been able to access Seeking over the last several months. Occasionally there is a glitch when accessing the site through a VPN, but that doesn't last long and eventually lets me in. Also, I downloaded the App on the burner, so perhaps that gives me some bona fides with the website?

**Nate0110** · 10-13-25 13:20

I did not as Seeking now requires a selfie verification? Think I'll pass. Am I the only one this website was down for a few months? I didn't even know it was back up until yesterday.

Originally Posted by Shampoo55 [View Original Post]

Did anyone else catch that Moon is on SA these days?

**Shampoo55** · 10-08-25 11:45

Did anyone else catch that Moon is on SA these days?

**Nate0110** · 05-13-25 10:31

Originally Posted by Frasier69 [View Original Post]

I think she use to escort in the past, pre-pandemic.

She's been on and off the site over a decade. She used to host at her moms house off Kirkwood Hwy. Nothing special I saw her twice that was enough and this was 7 or 8 years ago. I don't remember her escorting on STG's etc but it entirely possible. Happy Hunting.

**BerryMcCockinr** · 05-05-25 12:18

https://members.seeking.com/member/d...6-0f93d2030114

Looks familiar. Anyone seen her before?

**Shampoo55** · 04-20-25 18:54

Originally Posted by Antipooh [View Original Post]

Chatted with her briefly until the classic SS / HH / HR quote and talking money in the site chat. Blocked her immediately. Not what I'm currently into, and trying to keep an account.

Sounds like a wise move. I have come to the conclusion that Seeking has expanded its anti- escort efforts to the point of creating accounts that discuss P2 P and get dudes banned. Oh, I know, doesn't makes sense to ban your paying customers, but they ARE very vigilant about stamping out obvious prostitution from the website. I have one girl send me a DM on Seeking asking how much PPM I was offering for a sex date. I reported the profile and last I check the PF never got banned!

**Antipooh** · 04-16-25 14:47

Originally Posted by Shampoo55 [View Original Post]

https://members.seeking.com/member/c...0-eb187b07b702

Profile clearly looks like she DTF in a P2 P situation. And even doubles?

Im a young thick white girl who's ready to finally have some fun😍 im down for whatever but my time is valuable

Im looking for sumone who knows nothing in life is free

Anyone pursued this? Its so blatant that its a wonder it's allowed and not banned. Er, unless it is SA fishing for guys that will bite and make an illegal offer? You think SA is doing stuff like that to be able to prove they are stamping out prostitution on the site?

Chatted with her briefly until the classic SS / HH / HR quote and talking money in the site chat. Blocked her immediately. Not what I'm currently into, and trying to keep an account.

**Shampoo55** · 04-16-25 11:20

https://members.seeking.com/member/c...0-eb187b07b702

Profile clearly looks like she DTF in a P2 P situation. And even doubles?

Im a young thick white girl who's ready to finally have some fun😍 im down for whatever but my time is valuable

Im looking for sumone who knows nothing in life is free

Anyone pursued this? Its so blatant that its a wonder it's allowed and not banned. Er, unless it is SA fishing for guys that will bite and make an illegal offer? You think SA is doing stuff like that to be able to prove they are stamping out prostitution on the site?

**JTerry26** · 04-04-25 21:39

Originally Posted by Shampoo55 [View Original Post]

OH, here I go again, another thing that is often lost is the history. So here's a quick review, fwiw.

Seeking used to be called Seeking Arrangement! It was designed and built to be a Sugar dating site. (wealthy men looking for young women to support and improve their life) In fact the owner, Brandon Wade, was a client and he found his wife through the website. Hence the emphasis on RELATIONSHIP.

Then those geniuses at BackPage happened. They turned their noses up at NGOs and others that were trying to help them avoid having under-aged girls trafficked on their website. But the $1/ ad age-verification cost was "too high" so they rejected it. The did however start to 'edit' incoming ads. So if a pimp wrote Young Lolita Girl for your Pleasure BackPage edited out "young lotita" and posted the advert. THAT instead of refusing the post and banning the poster. It took an act of Congress to stop these guys: New law FOSTA / SESTA.

As a result of the new law, where websites had immunity for user content posted on their platform, the new law now made websites both criminally and civilly liable for sex trafficking on the website. Since no one distinguishes sex trafficking from prostitution, there was a HUGE shift in the landscape. BP was shut down, many websites (including this one) were moved overseas and / or sold. And Seeking Arrangement rebranded themselves as Seeking. In order to protect his Cash Cow, Mr. Wade's rebranding put strict prohibitions on the use of the site for prostitution. So if you offer a girl "XXX for sex acts" on the site, the BOTs will find and ban the account. Read the Seeking TOS and you'll clearly see the prohibitions on prostitution.

Where the change occurred, like most things, is the Pandemic. Prior to that it was well-to-do gents looking to "keep" a woman and improve her life. Since then, it seems like many guys are calling themself "sugar daddies" when they are just meeting a girl in a hotel for sex. I get it, few want to think of them self as a "John" hiring a prostitute and few girls want to think of themself as a prostitute / escort so the term "sugar baby" is more acceptable.

Just because people misuse terminology doesn't make it so. Just saying.

Interesting. It was still SA when I used it in early 2021 during the tail end of the epidemic. Did a meet and greet at a restaurant where we sat outside at a picnic table b / c of Covid restrictions.

**Shampoo55** · 04-04-25 11:19

Originally Posted by JTerry26 [View Original Post]

I used Seeking most back in '21. It was explicitly PPM for allowance with an expectation for sex in all of my interactions. Now the common denominator was me in all that, understood, but I saw 4 women in a month, 3 PPM and one an allowance. It didn't feel at all like a dating site, it felt like a more genteel prostitution site. Since then following the conversations on here that still seems to be the norm.

But I have no idea how long Seeking has been around or what it was like before I used it. I assume if it was more like a dating site you could use it to find a GF that would be more like a SD / SB relationship, as you define. It's a pity that doesn't exist, I would sign up for that.

OH, here I go again, another thing that is often lost is the history. So here's a quick review, fwiw.

Seeking used to be called Seeking Arrangement! It was designed and built to be a Sugar dating site. (wealthy men looking for young women to support and improve their life) In fact the owner, Brandon Wade, was a client and he found his wife through the website. Hence the emphasis on RELATIONSHIP.

Then those geniuses at BackPage happened. They turned their noses up at NGOs and others that were trying to help them avoid having under-aged girls trafficked on their website. But the $1/ ad age-verification cost was "too high" so they rejected it. The did however start to 'edit' incoming ads. So if a pimp wrote Young Lolita Girl for your Pleasure BackPage edited out "young lotita" and posted the advert. THAT instead of refusing the post and banning the poster. It took an act of Congress to stop these guys: New law FOSTA / SESTA.

As a result of the new law, where websites had immunity for user content posted on their platform, the new law now made websites both criminally and civilly liable for sex trafficking on the website. Since no one distinguishes sex trafficking from prostitution, there was a HUGE shift in the landscape. BP was shut down, many websites (including this one) were moved overseas and / or sold. And Seeking Arrangement rebranded themselves as Seeking. In order to protect his Cash Cow, Mr. Wade's rebranding put strict prohibitions on the use of the site for prostitution. So if you offer a girl "XXX for sex acts" on the site, the BOTs will find and ban the account. Read the Seeking TOS and you'll clearly see the prohibitions on prostitution.

Where the change occurred, like most things, is the Pandemic. Prior to that it was well-to-do gents looking to "keep" a woman and improve her life. Since then, it seems like many guys are calling themself "sugar daddies" when they are just meeting a girl in a hotel for sex. I get it, few want to think of them self as a "John" hiring a prostitute and few girls want to think of themself as a prostitute / escort so the term "sugar baby" is more acceptable.

Just because people misuse terminology doesn't make it so. Just saying.

**JTerry26** · 04-03-25 15:53

Originally Posted by Shampoo55 [View Original Post]

Well Seeking wasn't as you described and WAS women looking for true Sugar Daddies until the notion got bastardized.

So which websites haven't been bastardized?

I used Seeking most back in '21. It was explicitly PPM for allowance with an expectation for sex in all of my interactions. Now the common denominator was me in all that, understood, but I saw 4 women in a month, 3 PPM and one an allowance. It didn't feel at all like a dating site, it felt like a more genteel prostitution site. Since then following the conversations on here that still seems to be the norm.

But I have no idea how long Seeking has been around or what it was like before I used it. I assume if it was more like a dating site you could use it to find a GF that would be more like a SD / SB relationship, as you define. It's a pity that doesn't exist, I would sign up for that.

**Shampoo55** · 04-01-25 21:49

Originally Posted by JTerry26 [View Original Post]

I think we agree. I also think if you want to find an actual SB going to a website where women who are willing to fuck for money if the label is right put themselves on display for men who want to pay for sex probably isn't the best place to start.

Well Seeking wasn't as you described and WAS women looking for true Sugar Daddies until the notion got bastardized.

So which websites haven't been bastardized?

**JTerry26** · 04-01-25 21:03

Originally Posted by Shampoo55 [View Original Post]

Don't get me wrong, this is all sex work. That said, the traditional definition as you correctly pointed out (in bold above) IS the definition of Sugar Baby. Sugar Daddy. You can bastardize it all you want, by just doing PPM for hook-up meets, but that doesn't make a dude a SD, nor the girl a SB.

Point is that some are looking for the traditional definition of a Sugar Baby, but with so many Johns in the pool, most girls are just escorts. Putting a label on them doesn't make it so. Site is being misused.

So say you were looking for a traditional Sugar Baby, and not just some Escort with the SB label, how youse gunna find it since everyone thinks that just getting paid to fuck is being a SB?

Seems like the fine point I'm trying to make is lost and is the true definition.

I think we agree. I also think if you want to find an actual SB going to a website where women who are willing to fuck for money if the label is right put themselves on display for men who want to pay for sex probably isn't the best place to start.