I've been in the bowl (and lurking here) off and on since 2016 and it finally happened. I recently rejoined again after some time off and had set a M&G with a POT. We agreed to an allowance amount beforehand, but she was not forthright that she expected to receive it just to meet for coffee. I am always clear when asked, per the sage advice given here, that I don't provide anything but gas money or uber fare when we meet the first time - and only in person once she shows up, no advances. As I said, we discussed allowance and given how this experience (actually my last couple experiences) on SA have gone, I probably should have made that clear as that seems to be the new thing, "My TiMe Is VaLuAbLe". But I didn't, and she didn't, and we had a chat, then the most awkward parting I've ever had. I then got a text bout Paypal or CashApp, and when I tried to explain, she exploded. We truly had no conversations about BCD or anything of the sort - she guided the conversation away whenever I started to discuss the actual arrangement - but she went ballistic via text, threatened blackmail, and reported my account. I had to click through the terms, watch a video, and agree again. Ok, fine. I did also report her for the blackmail attempt. Less than 2 hours later, my account was suspended for 3 days for a second violation. I assume she has friends on the site too who she got to report me, as I literally had no conversations in the interim, so I'm serving my sentence but contacted my card for a chargeback, as SA will not tell me what I said that was against the terms, just that they "conducted a thorough investigation". Sure they do, the lack of follow-up on the blackmail felony shows that.
I don't know if the chargeback will work, but either way, I think I am done on SA. I am sure my account will be cancelled, whether for the chargeback attempt or because crazy has a vendetta. Having been on for so long and heeding the advice here, I know to never discuss anything on-platform other than to say part of an arrangement is some sort of financial assistance for them. Apparently "allowance" is a forbidden word now according to the video I had to watch, which I had been using, but never in any context of any sort of exchange. I've never had an issue before but the state of the site is much worse than pre-pandemic. After the first "warning", I had a few other M&Gs set so I went back and made clear there is no allowance just to meet for coffee - no surprise, they all ghosted. Any advice? I know where I messed up, not being clear about the M&G expectations. That was never necessary before but apparently it is now. I am going to change my username and pictures to try and escape crazy and her friends, but I'm not sure if I shouldn't just delete my account now. If I make it to the end of this subscription period, I am definitely doing that and taking a longer, possibly permanent, hiatus.I had a similar experience a few years ago. I had no opportunity to defend myself with SA; I was just banned so I left. Fortunately, I already had a good group of SBs, some of whom I still see. After some time away, I recently joined SugarDaddy.com and I have had some good success there.
I'm super careful on SA and ask the gals to go off platform to discuss their "expectations." It may be possible to create a new account from a different IP address but haven't been in that situation.
I don't think it's the norm to demand money for the M&G but it's increasing. Secret Benefits seems to show some promise as an alternative.
But consider what you're looking for in sugar. If it's just an amped-up escort experience it might not be worth it, it's dating and relationships. Otherwise stick with pros for less stress.
Like you, I always take discussions of expectations off-site, even when they throw out numbers (or even worse, the forbidden phrase ppm!). Unfortunately, both me and a buddy have found that asking to be paid for the M&G is the new norm, at least in our areas (different sides of the same state).
Especially in light of the prevalence of "romance scams" on social media, SA Admin's oft cited refusal to allow you to defend yourself or engage in an actual discussion about why you were reported/blocked is very discouraging. Seems like they simply accept the accusations against you even when totally unfounded. I had an experience about a year ago with a lovely young local college SB who met me for a coffee date. We had a fine conversation and I thought it was going well until we parted in the parking lot and she said" so, you're not giving me anything today?" She had assumed she'd be paid to meet for lunch, I had assumed the opposite. I am usually much better at communicating, but looking back on our conversations, I realized I had not actually said anything to channel her expectation$. I know better. I was lucky in that she simply ghosted and did not take any action against me.
I agree that discussing allowances on the site is fraught with danger, so when a SB asks me what she'll receive, I suggest discussing that subject off site. If she agrees to meeting me for a coffee date, and there's been no discussion of $$ so far, I am sure to say something like this: It's just a lunch date, zero pressure, obligation or expectation. That has served me well so far. Sorry you had a such a crummy experience and thanks for sharing your story.
This thread has given me some new thoughts (e.g. -- didn't know "allowance" was not cool these days), and I checked messages from women for the last week or so. "I don't want it to feel transactional" was in three threads.
To clarify, I am a six year veteran of SA, but I don't stay on the site when I have a good arrangement or two -- or three for the last year. I am only on SA when I'm actively looking. And I think I search a much broader age range than normal -- I am very willing to venture into the high 30s and low 40s for conversations. Two of the three "transactional" comments were 35+.
Any difficulties with "transactional"? I think it is used often.
OP: Totally sucks that you got treated this way by a bullshit SB. These types of bad-faith behaviors make it critical that we play defense from the start. I continue to be disappointed that far too many POT SB's don't understand that SD's are the very opposite of Simps, or FinDom Subs, etc. I blame IG, TikTok, and far too many reddit and other blogs published by radical feminists who think their pussies don't stink after pissing all over some loser's wallet.
I do not blame Seeking, though. After FOSTA/SETSA they must look for anything that even HINTS at quid pro quo, because these statements are problematic. And I fear context is not relevant.
For example, even if you said something like "I am NOT looking for something transactional" your comment may be flagged for containing one or more trigger words. While saying simply "let's explore our mutual goals by text" may be safer. As a general rule, I never specifically respond or even acknowledge when I see her use a risky term or sentence. I just pretend she never said it and push to move off-line. Note that from what I've observed and seen reported here, Seeking is much more tolerant of questionable comments from women.
If she insists on getting some acknowledgement around money, I will either:
1. move on - about 65% of the time, or
2. Propose a M&G with a very carefully crafted message like
- "I suggest we set up a brief meeting in public, maybe at a Starbucks. We can get to know each other and see if we click and have mutual interests. This is a short, no obligations/no expectations meeting only. How about tomorrow at 4:00 pm?"
This tends to work about half the time (half of the 35%). If she doesn't go for it. I tell her to let me know if she changes her mind, and I will be moving on. For a legit (but perhaps nervous/shy) SB this makes her feel in control. But even for a possible scammer or GPS SB, it subtly reminds her that she needs your cash more than you need her pussy. There are FAR more SB's than SD's. Far more.
Always remember the power dynamic in the Sugar Bowl: She has the power to say "yes," but you have the power to say "no." If she wants to get past your "no," she needs to say "yes. "
Life is good
The Cat