Seeking arrangements success!

[fedssocr1]

I got that notice too. But I use an Android phone. You can still access the website

[Guest]

I got that notice too. But I use an Android phone. You can still access the website

Good. Find me on there Hehe

[+ Keith30309]

I’m sticking my toe back into the SA waters. I’ve created a profile with a couple of pics and a lengthy “about me” section. It was rejected because it didn’t conform to the terms of service. The only remotely questionable things I had were “I am not looking for a platonic arrangement“ and “I do not use Venmo, CashApp or any other money transfer service - cash only.”

 

I removed those two statements leaving a really vanilla, almost generic profile and submitted it 5 days ago and it is still under review.

I had forgotten what a pain in the neck this process was. It’s so strange they are hyper about the SD profiles whereas the SB profiles and pics are relatively explicit.

[MscleLovr]

leaving a really vanilla, almost generic profile and submitted it 5 days ago and it is still under review

they are hyper about the SD profiles whereas the SB profiles and pics are relatively explicit.

 

I agree. I feel it’s best to be bland, eg “I like to look after my guy” or “I’m open to any type of arrangement” or “I enjoy dating a handsome guy”.

 

IME younger men are quite happy to say what they want in the initial messages. Even if they are unrealistic, you can be candid once you switch to private messages.

[+ muscleboyinsd]

It’s a great way to meet younger guys period

 

and the vibe is much different - and for me much better than an escort site

 

I agree. The guys I've met off of Seeking aren't professional escorts, so it feels a lot different. It feels more like you're both exploring, and it's less transactional.

[+ DrownedBoy]

It seems that SA is for men with time to go with their money. Unfortunately, I'm a few years away from retirement.

[MscleLovr]

SA is for men with time to go with their money

 

That’s not an unfair comment. I have always maintained that SA is for fit, handsome young men who want to discover more of the world with a nice older man. It’s certainly not a quick fix for a dating problem, tho it can prove very satisfying.

[+ Keith30309]

I stumbled across this on Reddit.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/sugarlifestyleforum/

 

First impressions:

1) With females there are multiple “meet and greets” before anything intimate happens.

2) There are many, many people who have their accounts banned/suspended for no apparent reason. And lots of details about the profile and communication content that may have caused it.

3) There is an enlightening amount of thoughtful expression of the merits of an arrangement from the standpoint of the female SB’s who participate. Despite the old saying, “it’s Not just about the money.”

4) I’d noted that male SB profile content was allowed to be pretty explicit compared to SD’s. Apparently the same is true of straight female SB profiles.

[Mo Mason]

$90 a month?! I want to try SA but that's a lot more than I would expect it to cost. Holy smokes.

[fedssocr1]

if you do 3 months it's only $80/mo

[+ Keith30309]

I was able to get back on after being permanently banned but I'd never invest more than a single month's fee after reading about how often SA suspends accounts with no refund of the fee.

[AceHardware]

I was able to get back on after being permanently banned but I'd never invest more than a single month's fee after reading about how often SA suspends accounts with no refund of the fee.

 

I only know you via this forum, and your posts here are always temperate and thoughtful, so I doubt you wrote anything extreme or inappropriate on SA worthy of perma-banning you. That site's staff must be a little kooky and/or stupid.

[MikeBiDude]

That site's staff must be a little kooky

They are kooky and quite arbitrary!

[Nick222]

SA clamped down the same time craigslist.com closed their m4m sections in the US and rent men changed their lingo to ‘porn stars.‘ They’re hyper paranoid about the SESTA/FOSTA law, and are being hyper cautious.

[Studsearcher]

Just a theory but it could be to deter law enforcement. LE could create fake SB accounts and message SD’s for free, whereas creating an SD account to catch SB’s has a paywall. If they eliminate SD accounts that even mildly suggest solicitation, then LE has no reason to start a fake conversation with them. If that makes any sense.

[+ Keith30309]

I think that the hyper-aggressive policing of content is an attempt to minimize any implied suggestion that somehow sex and money are linked. On virtually every SA web page is verbiage around prohibition of anything remotely related to solicitation. I think that the removal of the app from the Apple Store stung and the service is struggling to maintain a perception that it is similar to Match.com, for example.

 

The thing that mystifies me is that the "daddy" content is policed with vigor - both profile and private messaging - and the "baby" content is much, much more overt: "you make me feel good I make you feel good", "bottom baby boy wants to be lavished with gifts", etc. Selfie photos of guys nude except for a towel drooping at pubic level are common.

I just ran across this with photos of a 22 year old twink wearing girl's undergarments:

I'm a femboy looking for something casual nearby. I'd prefer a relationship that's sexually-oriented. If you're visiting Atlanta, then I could definitely make your trip more pleasant, so send me a message and we can get to talking and exchange contact info. I'd like to meet in person, and not just do online stuff. I'm open to a video call or photos before meeting, if you want me to prove that I'm real! I'm very direct when I'm attracted to someone. I'm not afraid to candidly tell you what I'm looking for, so it's okay to ask, when appropriate. I'm not looking for something long-term on this site, but maybe I'll run into someone like that!

This sort of thing is pretty common.

 

Perhaps there are too many free "baby" profiles to police and instead they focus on the $90/month SD's. I don't get it.

[MscleLovr]

I can’t claim to know the intricacies of US criminal law, let alone the varied views surrounding prostitution, but the theory advanced by @Studsearcher makes good sense to me.

[Guest]

I think that the hyper-aggressive policing of content is an attempt to minimize any implied suggestion that somehow sex and money are linked. On virtually every SA web page is verbiage around prohibition of anything remotely related to solicitation. I think that the removal of the app from the Apple Store stung and the service is struggling to maintain a perception that it is similar to Match.com, for example.

 

The thing that mystifies me is that the "daddy" content is policed with vigor - both profile and private messaging - and the "baby" content is much, much more overt: "you make me feel good I make you feel good", "bottom baby boy wants to be lavished with gifts", etc. Selfie photos of guys nude except for a towel drooping at pubic level are common.

I just ran across this with photos of a 22 year old twink wearing girl's undergarments:

I'm a femboy looking for something casual nearby. I'd prefer a relationship that's sexually-oriented. If you're visiting Atlanta, then I could definitely make your trip more pleasant, so send me a message and we can get to talking and exchange contact info. I'd like to meet in person, and not just do online stuff. I'm open to a video call or photos before meeting, if you want me to prove that I'm real! I'm very direct when I'm attracted to someone. I'm not afraid to candidly tell you what I'm looking for, so it's okay to ask, when appropriate. I'm not looking for something long-term on this site, but maybe I'll run into someone like that!

This sort of thing is pretty common.

 

Perhaps there are too many free "baby" profiles to police and instead they focus on the $90/month SD's. I don't get it.

“bottom baby boy wants to be lavished with gifts" that was my profile.... awkward.

 

 

kidding.

[+ José Soplanucas]

I think that the hyper-aggressive policing of content is an attempt to minimize any implied suggestion that somehow sex and money are linked. On virtually every SA web page is verbiage around prohibition of anything remotely related to solicitation. I think that the removal of the app from the Apple Store stung and the service is struggling to maintain a perception that it is similar to Match.com, for example.

 

The thing that mystifies me is that the "daddy" content is policed with vigor - both profile and private messaging - and the "baby" content is much, much more overt: "you make me feel good I make you feel good", "bottom baby boy wants to be lavished with gifts", etc. Selfie photos of guys nude except for a towel drooping at pubic level are common.

I just ran across this with photos of a 22 year old twink wearing girl's undergarments:

I'm a femboy looking for something casual nearby. I'd prefer a relationship that's sexually-oriented. If you're visiting Atlanta, then I could definitely make your trip more pleasant, so send me a message and we can get to talking and exchange contact info. I'd like to meet in person, and not just do online stuff. I'm open to a video call or photos before meeting, if you want me to prove that I'm real! I'm very direct when I'm attracted to someone. I'm not afraid to candidly tell you what I'm looking for, so it's okay to ask, when appropriate. I'm not looking for something long-term on this site, but maybe I'll run into someone like that!

This sort of thing is pretty common.

 

Perhaps there are too many free "baby" profiles to police and instead they focus on the $90/month SD's. I don't get it.

 

I am not sure, but I think what it is illegal is soliciting, so they are monitoring harder the SDs.

[+ Keith30309]

I am not sure, but I think what it is illegal is soliciting, so they are monitoring harder the SDs.

I‘m uncertain of the legal difference between ”If you give me an allowance I will do whatever you want” vs. “I will give you an allowance if you do what I want”. However there is a huge difference in perception because of the implied difference in power within the relationship. The latter could be implied to be much closer to pandering or worse.

A headline of “College coed claims sexual solicitation by sugar daddy” is much different from one of “Rich sugar daddy claims defrauded by college coed.” It’s just a guess but I think that SA is trying to avoid the potential publicity fallout of misfortune of its “sugar babies”.

 

On the other hand, I’d think that the risk of being accused of trafficking is much greater with unrestricted SB profiles with more overt sexual content. I don’t know.

[MscleLovr]

I thought prostitution aka commercial sex was only legal in the regulated brothels of a few counties in Nevada, and illegal elsewhere.

[fedssocr1]

isn't the company based overseas somewhere?

[+ Keith30309]

SeekingArrangement (also known as Seeking) is an American sugar baby and sugar daddydating website founded by MIT graduate Brandon Wade in San Francisco, California in 2006. The company headquarters is presently located in Las Vegas, NV. There are additional offices located in Ukraine and Singapore. Currently there are a combined 2.6 million Sugar Babies active on the site—both male and female.

[KeepItReal]

Lots of boys selling videos on seeking; in your experience - has it ever been worth it? Lots of promises, of course!

Edited December 28, 2019 by KeepItReal

[MikeBiDude]

Lots of boys selling videos on seeking; in your experience - has it ever been worth it? Lots of promises, of course!

For me...I don’t ever engage in those. And btw it violates the seeking TOS.