I've been trying to get the attention of a very PYT in my area for 3 months now.  I sent her a very nice message and she said "thanks for messaging me."  Good start, right?  then I asked her what her ideal arrangement would be like and she said "$700 per date".  So I immediately suggested we take the conversation offsite, gave her my text number. and heard nothing.  I've DM'd her once a month for 3 months, just got another response today saying she wants $700 per date and wants to know if that's ok before wasting each others' time.  I think it would be a huge mistake to reply in any substantive way, but this time I told her that men get banned from the site for discussing money, so PLEASE text me!  Why is there such a blatant double standard on SA when it comes to talking about money, PPM, or any conversation about compensation?  Surely her ask is a blatant offer of prostitution.  But if we suggest it, even in a round about way such as "mutually beneficial"  we can get kicked off the site.  

I have read Reddit stories of guys getting banned for just having messages like that in their inbox.  And girls also complain of bans.

It is obviously some human scan, and not automated..

When I get those types of messages, I delete them immediately, and send the Same message you just sent in a new thread.

Good luck with this one.

Not sure why SA has the seeming double-standard, but it is real. Avoid discussing even the suggestion of sex for money on there. I've used 'mutually beneficial' but that is now considered risky. Women don't seem to get flagged for it, but men will if not careful. Bans and warnings often seem random. It does make things more challenging but you don't want to risk a ban as it's really difficult to get back on.

I got booted off SA back in the day.  The chick reported me for ppm.    I did manage to reup with a different ID and credit card.  My account there is deactivated now because I am on hiatus.  But yeah, keep ppm stuff off the app, go to external comms as soon as possible.

Papa Sweet,  

 
I think you have three issues here, all "worth" (irony intended) discussing.  

 
1. Apparent imbalance in use of prohibited terms between SD's and SB's.  
2. Outrageous GPS asks upfront, to the exclusion of any other discussion online or offline.
3. Non-responsive answers to your chat questions.  

 
1. There is clearly an imbalance in tolerance for language.  SB's appear to get a lot of latitude, but it's not unlimited. Someone suggested that the message text review process is done manually, but I don't think that is accurate. Having a professional background in tech and online services that require significant fraud/risk controls, I can assure you that Seeking uses some automated process to parse every message and flag any meeting their criteria for review and/or auto-ban.  If a message is flagged, it must then be escalated for additional review.  Now getting flagged does not mean it will actually be reviewed by a human.  It's a question of resources and operational scale. The sheer number of people they need to hire to review a set number of accounts/messages (let's say 250 a day as an example) means they will prioritize each flagged item using some sort of criteria (past account history, specific words used, age of account, etc.) So those items deemed higher priority (i.e.: Those with a higher correlation to P4P or those specified by their LE advisors) will get reviewed fist, while the lowest priority will go last, if time permits.  The result may be what we see empirically: SB's say somewhat careless things and don't get banned, SD's suggest or infer something P4P-ish and get booted.  

 
I'll close this item with the observation that those SB's who seem to be violating rules tend to disappear sooner. Whether they are banned, or just bail because they are not finding SD's who will pay $$$$$ to watch them eat a salad; who can say?  

 
2. High PPM asks are nothing new to us.  And we have a generally successful strategy to negotiate a fair allowance that both SD's and SB's can accept. But we know that there will always be some SB's who refuse to engage in negotiating. Your $700 POT seems to be one of those. I'll suggest that you put this in the context of the BCD conversion (i.e.: The sales process) funnel.  This POT has disqualified herself. And if she does not change her strategy to finding a suitable SD, she will soon leave the Sugar Bowl, either on her own, or with Seeking Admin "help."  

 
3. One of my biggest personal frustrations are POT's who (probably) don't actually read (and respond to) questions in my last message.  I may ask a specific question (like "do you spend any time in my area" for those who may be up to a 45-60 minute drive from me but still in the same city/county of Los Angeles), and she never provides an answer. My sense is these POT's may be legit in that they can be converted to at least one BCD, but they are following a script (perhaps written by a pimp/BF?) and want to close asap with as many "dates" as possible.  This behavior is almost always paired with a push to meet NOW! If you suggest a M&G in two days, they will ask why not now? Or they will reply with (this is real world for me from last week): "Contact me when you are ready to meet and I'll let you know."   Interpretation: She wants to maximize getting paid - every day - and if you are not ready now you go to the bottom of her list.  All of this tends to lead in the same direction; even if you do get to a BCD, it will require PPM on the high side of your budget range, the sex will be ok but not great (because there won't be any emotional investments), and she's not likely going to want (or be available) to repeat.  

 
Conclusion: You are correct to stay far away from addressing her $700 ask online.   But here's a tip I picked up while using dating apps in the Philippines: fun.  

 
I had been talking to several POT's about meeting for a date and almost all were receptive, for some amount.  One profile that I found had text like this:  

 
"Not looking for FUN. I want to find a real relationship."  That's when I realized that in that space "fun" was the term used instead of "sex."  Interestingly the POT who was not looking for fun still had (BBFS) sex with me. But she had long term aspirations and is still messaging me on WhatsApp today. (BTW: I have not been lying to her, she just really wants to find a foreign guy, and I never burn bridges.)  

 
So, I have incorporated "fun" into my replies to PPM asks:  "Let's meet for coffee on Tuesday. If we both feel good about moving forward, we can talk about setting up a date for dinner, maybe shopping and other fun."    This bagged me a 22-year-old blond spinner from London via Portugal who delivered everything I was looking for.

 
Life is good

 
The Cat

Lots of good advice, as usual, thanks!  
1. Your comments made me wonder, is SA admin only trying to b an discussions of P4P, or are they against any discussions about sex?  In the past, when asked what I'm looking for, I've said "I hope to find a meaningful connection on all levels; mental, emotional and physical as well."  I wonder if a conversation including talk about sexual likes and dislikes would get banned?  Even if there's absolutely no reference to compensation.  I'm not about to try it and find out!

2. I expect high ppm asks are not going to result in a good outcome.  But you never know.  It's not much effort to engage in some gentle negotiations and see if she has some flexibility.  I don't hold much hope for this one, but if I can at least get her to talk to me offsite I'd give it a try.

3.  In addition to failure to respond to my questions, there's a new very frustrating annoying trend.  I've had at least a half dozen in the past week ask me where I live.  Their profiles usually contain several red flags as well.  But I've become rather curt with those questions, read my damn profile, it's full of information.  If they ask me for info that's already in my profile, big red flag!

"...is SA admin only trying to ban discussions of P4P, or are they against any discussions about sex?"  

 
This is a great question to consider, as it's a bit more nuanced than any p4p wording.    I have seen plenty of POT profiles that have some wording like "I'm great in bed" or "I'm a very sensual and sexual woman."  And adjacent to that I've seen mentions about being dominant or submissive (or even "switch") as well.  

 
I don't think these terms are specifically prohibited. It wouldn't make sense to ban users who allude to a physical component to dating.  Current Seeking marketing pitches still allude to "attractive singles" so the potential for sex between dating partners is an inherent part of the "official" value prop for the business.  

 
However, the devil is in the details as always.  IF you combine some reference to sex on a date AND some mention of financial reward at the same time, you may stray too close to suggesting a P4P arrangement. For me, while on site I never get more explicit than terms like:  "fun dates, maybe an upscale dinner, or some shopping, or we can relax at my place with your favorite beverage, and we can order in."  I have also used the term "intimate" on occasion. But only in the context of what I propose we do on dates. I won't combine that with any discussion of "helping you manage your bills" or similar terms. If I need to go there, I'll at least do that in a different, subsequent message.  

 
And like you, Papa Sweet, if I can't ease her off the site to direct messages, I let her know how she can text me and just walk away.  

 
Life is good

 
The Cat