I was chatting up a new potential on SA today and she asked the following question: What do you like to do in these age gap arrangements?  I tried to answer as cordially as possible without being explicit.  As far as I recall, I said:  I like to have some intimate, one on one time, as well as go out to eat, go for motorcycle rides, and whatever you like to do.  When I hit the send button I got a pop up box saying that my message violated their policies against transactional relationships and I could send it as is and risk censure, change it, or cancel it.  So I cancelled it.  But in truth there was nothing in my message even vaguely hinting about compensation or $ugar.  I told the girl about this odd experience and she said she received the same message.  We switched to text after that, but wtf??

Was probably the naughty word. Although , private time or one on one referring to sex may also be bad.  I'd first go to text asap.  Second, use relationship instead.  Mention mentoring, same things couples do on dates, etc.  You guide her with your knowledge to go further in life.  She keeps things fun and exciting.

I suppose arrangement might have been the trigger.  But she used it, not me!  And it's hard to wrap my head around a ban on sex talk.  We're adults, adults have sex, and like to talk about it.  As long as there's no mention of payment or compensation, they can't seriously be banning any talk about sex, can they?  The warning was all about transactional language.  But I like your advice about discussing mentoring, and I'll probably never say arrangements again onsite!

Seems their AI filter is in full force, but you must have stated at least a word or two to trigger it.  I absolutely hate moving to text immediately, but it's obvious that you won't be able to say much anymore on the App.
Many of the girls have explicit descriptions in their bios which seem to be immune.
BUT to tbh, never had a girl ask me about the "age gap,"  figuring that a bit of cash overcomes it   lol

I recently used the term 'I'm seeking a traditional SB/SD relationship' in a POT reply and it triggered the pop-up warning. If I get a warning I don't send the reply, I reword it. Not sure if a rewording gets scrubbed as well, but when i removed the aforementioned phrase it didn't trigger another warning. It would appear any wording even remotely construed as suggesting a sugar relationship is likely to trigger a warning on Seeking and place your account at risk of being banned.  

 
I wonder if the females are being monitored using the same degree of word detection?

Two days ago I received a message in my “Filtered” tab asking if I like sloppy blowjobs and wanting to drain me. Her profile is still up and she still emails twice a day asking me to come over.

Read these posts then went on Seeking to scope new profiles.  

 
I was greeted by those new links at the top of the landing page to the Seeking Blogs. These blogs are really just marketing ads trying to compel the reader to sign up.  

 
The 3rd link went to this blog:  
"Split the Bill – Why Your Dating Dealbreakers Are the New Green Flags"  

 
Please use the link below and read it with Papa Sweets and bdrmfun48's experience in mind Among the notable nuggets included:  

 
"Luxury Isn’t a Price Point. It’s a Mindset.

 
True luxury in dating is the freedom to ask for what you want—and the confidence to walk away when it’s not there. That’s what Seeking was built for. It’s a platform designed for intentional, unapologetic dating. The kind that doesn’t punish you for being selective. The kind that cheers when you say, “No thanks.”

 
And it’s working. Over 68% of Seeking members say they feel more empowered to ask for what they want here than on any other app. That shift toward clarity and directness isn’t accidental—it’s part of a larger reset in dating culture, where intention is finally being prioritized over games."

 

In other words:  Ask for what you want - unless it's cash! Truth in advertising appears to be dead. Sad.  

 
Life is good

 
The Cat