Seeking Arrangements

[abqspencer]

I’ve noticed a trend recently of a few reviews of SA encounters.

I gotta say, I’m not a fan of this practice. Sure, there’s sharing info on some of the scammers, flakes, and fakes. But to review them as if they were a full-on provider doesn’t sit well.

I have no standing here, and everyone can do what they like, but if you’re going to post an encounter about an SA girl, take a moment to think if it’s really warranted or not.




Now you can all call me a White Knight or whatever

[RedorGreenorXmas]

In principle, I agree - even though I am the writer of one of the reviews, and am about to write another...

For me, the line is whether the SB/Provider you've been in contact with is using SA as a means of advertising for clients... ...or are her interests more in line with those of a traditional SB? I know that line can get blurred, but I for one will try to make sure that if I were to submit a review of anyone I met through SA that she is acting as a provider.

Maybe if we as clients/users of Eccie develop a set of guidelines it would be helpful? Like she must advertise somewhere else in addition to SA? and/or she exclusively asks for PPM or by the hour? We should NEVER release a phone # or email address obtained through SA unless she personally oks it?

[desertfish]

Although well written reviews are always entertaining to read but if SB’s are not easily available; they are of no interest to me – what do I care if they had good table manners or not.

[joyote]

if the sb has given her consent to be reviewed, I see no issue

I also think the review should include contact & rate info

[Diego Smith]

I wanted to think a bit before I responded here, because it is an intriguing question, and fairness and "responsibility" play into the answer. As background, I play almost exclusively in the sugar bowl -- I see one escort (very locally familiar) that I have seen for years, and have one SB that I have seen twice a month or more for 15 months. So when I "venture out", it is playtime, just like many other hobbyist-mongers would see an escort or visit an AMP. In other words, I "hobby" with women I find on Seeking.

Along with Spencer, I was jolted a bit when I saw RGX's review -- it wasn't the first SB review I had seen, but it was the first of that depth. I wasn't comfortable at first. But RGX outlined the situation well and presented what some of us know as a quirky and difficult woman in a pretty positive light and gave me, at least, some insight into my communications with her.

I think it is important to note that most of the guys who play regularly in the bowl are in touch with many of the same women, and we have some similar experiences. It is "fun" and "instructive" and "calming" and "amusing" to know what experiences some of the other guys have had with women that I corresponded with previously (or today, lol). It is not just about safety and avoiding time-wasters -- it can be about how to approach nice women who are on SA for honest and legitimate reasons of their own -- seeking THEIR arrangement. I had messaged RGX's lady for several days and she frustrated me -- MY arrangement and HER arrangement didn't have an intersection. But she's looking for something, and if I decide to reengage with her, RGX's review will make it more likely that I will succeed in getting what I want and giving her what she wants.

So, this is a long way of saying (imagine me being wordy, lol) that I think we should be open to SB reviews when the SBs are not clearly naive -- and the contact information should be private, unless we see her on some other venue. If you are not sure she's using SA as a major source of income, then ask about a review. I often say "I'm in touch with two or three guys that play -- you want me to tell them to contact you on the site" and I get mostly "no" answers. But, as we know, there are 8 or 10 pure pros on SA and they might well want a review. RGX's lady falls somewhere in the middle -- "semi-pro" or "permanent SB" -- and I might think it is ok to review her, but my two cents is that she should approve the contact info.

As to "rate", if she is even slightly more SB than pro, that belongs in PMs -- "rate" is a swirling world in the bowl, and one guy's ppm is another guy's full scale plan to support. I have talked to several guys about this, and an SB's "rate" is a continually moving target. I would suggest that should be generalized or discussed on PM. Putting it in a review or on an open discussion will create more confusion than help.

Thanks for the question, Spence -- important topic.

[abqspencer]

To clarify, RGX’s wasn’t the one that promoted this post, it was a more recent one, from MSN 612 I think was the poster. Sexy Asian was the title.

But good reply, Diego. More food for thought.

[goodman0422]

I feel discussion on sugar babies should be conducted in the men's lounge exclusively.

Many legit SB's know another girl. Telling one about our info sharing compromises it. They will tell their friends. Those friends will tell others. That alone is enough for me to no longer participate in information sharing. Using the men's lounge increases security.

Sharing of contact info that is not provided in the profile or ad of either a provider or sugar baby in an open forum is wrong. Do you post a providers number if it isn't in her ad? I feel you should say "she will provide" in lieu of posting her contact info.
(Would you like it if a provider posted your contact info online?)

The practice of reviewing sbs in encounters will turn more sbs into hookers. There are already too many of those on SA.

Goodman out

[RedorGreenorXmas]

All is well said gentlemen...

[conjulio]

Originally Posted by goodman0422

I feel discussion on sugar babies should be conducted in the men's lounge exclusively.

Many legit SB's know another girl. Telling one about our info sharing compromises it. They will tell their friends. Those friends will tell others. That alone is enough for me to no longer participate in information sharing. Using the men's lounge increases security.

Sharing of contact info that is not provided in the profile or ad of either a provider or sugar baby in an open forum is wrong. Do you post a providers number if it isn't in her ad? I feel you should say "she will provide" in lieu of posting her contact info.
(Would you like it if a provider posted your contact info online?)

The practice of reviewing sbs in encounters will turn more sbs into hookers. There are already too many of those on SA.

Goodman out

I agree with Goodman...

[joyote]

let me clarify...

if a sb is to be reviewed on eccie,
I think her consent should be secured beforehand

she should know what eccie is
and hopefully she will agree to have
some kind of contact info included
otherwise, what is the point of the review?

also, it seems some kind of rate would be helpful
both to her and potential callers
otherwise, she will be bombarded with calls asking for rate

I am fine with keeping sb discussions in the men’s lounge

most discussions so far
have been restricted to those sb’s not to call
if you want to recommend a yes, call
contact info should be included,
since many of us are non-subscribers on SA
but contact info should never be shared
without her consent & agreement

[john_deere]

the only way an eccie review of a seeking arrangement girl is ethical is if she knows about it and consents beforehand.

this isn't even debatable.