Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Exposed: the seedy side of school for sugar babies (Times today)  (Read 1134 times)

Offline Steely Dan

Exposed: the seedy side of school for sugar babies
TIMES investigation finds a fine line between sex work and dating ‘rich’ older men

In the conference room of a plush West End hotel, a blonde woman in exceptionally tight jeans stood in front of a class of 40 wannabe “sugar babies” and spelt out the bottom line of life with a sugar daddy: sex and money.

This was the annual “sugar baby summit”, a day of schooling in how to date older, wealthy “daddies” in exchange for gifts and a luxurious lifestyle. But it was time to cut to the chase.
“The first monthly allowance may start at the end of your first month . . . don’t feel you have to have sex before that,” said Simone Toon, 25. “You’re going to give him everything straight away, and he might not give you that monthly allowance.”

The organiser of this event, Seeking Arrangement (SA), is the biggest of several websites that have tried to promote — and profit from — the idea that relationships between sugar babies and sugar daddies are a mainstream, and legal, dating choice that benefits both sides.

However, an investigation by The Sunday Times, in which our undercover reporter attended the “summit” and a masked party for members, found that behind the spin and promises of wealth, security and equality, the line between so-called “sugaring” and sex work is hard to discern.

This newspaper revealed in March that underage schoolgirls were advertising themselves as sugar babies on SA. Girls as young as 15 had joined the site by entering a fake date of birth and clicking a box claiming they were 18.

Last week, to test how robustly it protects young and underage users, our undercover reporter, who is in her early twenties but looks young for her age and who is routinely asked to provide ID at nightclubs, created a sugar baby profile under a false name using photographs of herself when she was 15.

The profile was used to gain access to SA’s “annual sugar baby summit”, a “progressive course” which, for a ticket price of £120, is “aimed at providing a skill set unlike any other, all while seated next to aspiring sugar babies just like you!”, according to the website.

The summit was held in the private underground cinema of the five-star Ham Yard hotel in Soho. Breakfast was served under chandeliers and mirrors in the swanky bar area. None of the summit attendees appeared underage, but no checks were made at the venue. SA said this was because no alcohol was served.

The event had the gloss of a business conference, but in among the PowerPoints, fashion advice sessions and a smartly dressed Oxford professor who (incorrectly) advised the women that they did not have to pay income tax on their cash gifts of tens of thousands of pounds, the darker vein of life on SA came to light.

A cyber-security expert gave advice that inadvertently showed the true intentions of many of the prospective sugar daddies: never give your home address and always have your own travel booked to ensure a swift exit.
Although some of the women attending and speaking at the event said they had positive experiences as a sugar baby, others had concerns about what it involved and the teachers found themselves facing difficult questions.

Speakers at the summit appeared discomfited by women who engaged in a practice called “pay-per-meet” — where a price is set for a date. Brook Urick, a sugar baby and SA’s spokeswoman, chided a summit attendee: “That’s actually against the terms so you’re not actually supposed to ask for money up front because that’s very scammy. If they’re looking to have a ‘pay-per-meet’ arrangement then that really, really walks the line of sex work. I mean, do you want to walk that line?”

Toon cautioned in her presentation: “It’s really important that they don’t mistake you for being a paid girl or a hooker.”

For several years, SA has claimed to have a quarter of a million UK university students. “Daisy”, a student who used the website, said SA had paid her to give media interviews, including to the BBC last year, promoting the site. In fact, she had been on one date, and later blocked the man when his messages turned strange and he came across as “not safe”.

Other attendees expressed concern at underage girls using the site. One who had flown from Las Vegas for the summit, asked: “Us girls can’t see other girls’ profiles, but I actively know of minors who use your site. How do I report minors who I know are using your site if I don’t know what their membership name is?”

She was told that SA took those matters seriously, and was advised to send them all the details she could so SA could remove them.

The Sunday Times passed a database containing the profiles of the underage girls we found in our investigation in March to the company, but some had not been removed at the time of going to press. SA said it had been unable to remove the accounts because they would have had to identify them “manually” from a database of more than 1,800.

At the evening event, a masquerade ball for sugar babies and daddies at a nightclub in central London, no ID was checked. Our reporter entered the venue simply by providing the name on her profile — a fake name linked to a profile full of pictures of herself aged 15 and 16.

Inside, women in low-cut ballgowns substantially outnumbered nervous men, seated alone in booths wearing masks. “Oh my God this is going to be so awkward,” said Daisy, cashing in her free drink token. Unlike the sophisticated millionaires in the marketing material, most of the sugar daddies appeared to be lonely businessmen.

A London-based lawyer complained that he had to sift regularly through an SA inbox full of “Eastern European prostitutes” stating their price. “There’s a place for that and it’s not here,” he said. “We can get into the morals of whether this is really any different but I do think it is, materially, different.”

The next day with more pictures added to the profile, including two of her in a school uniform from when she was 15, our reporter found herself inundated with messages from men as old as 59.

One user, who claimed to be a company director with a net worth of more than £1m and who thought she was 17, proposed to pay £150 for sexual services. It is illegal to pay for sex with an under-18.

SA said it had “more safeguards to prevent underage use than most sites” and had recently employed an “underage task force” to tackle the issue. A spokeswoman said SA relied on its members to “help weed out” people abusing the site and had removed one guest from the night event for attempting to solicit female members.

The Sunday Times also passed the usernames of members who had solicited our reporter to SA for removal.

“The integrity of our site is very important to us and we take great pride in our efforts to provide a quality, legal experience for those wanting to participate in the sugar lifestyle,” she added.

The licence holder for the venue where the masked party was held said it had enacted their policy of asking anyone “who looks under the age of 25” for identification.

Offline Jumping Jack Flash

What happened to the "Our reporter made their excuses and left" school of journalism?

I cant say that I'm surprised that their masked ball was a flop.

Offline billybobsmith

So if I give a girl £150 to have sex with me one time in a hotel, that's bad and makes her a prostitute.  Yet give her £500 a month to have sex with her 4 times in a hotel and bingo!  That's fine!

Offline martini2429

  • Temp ban until
    27/02/24 @ 16:24
  • Posts: 2,197
  • Likes: 1
  • Reviews: 0
What happened to the "Our reporter made their excuses and left" school of journalism?

I cant say that I'm surprised that their masked ball was a flop.

Probably trying to arrange a PPM

 :yahoo:

Offline TPreston

The thing with underage is true. Ive reported girls ive found on social media via their number, and they've done fuck all. I often ask girls on there who look young to send me a photo of their ID with every thing covered up except date of birth and photo. If they are over the age of 18 they shouldn't give a shit. They verify photos and your profile as you sign up, so getting yourself verified shouldn't be a problem - fabswingers, adultwork and other sites manage it.

Their customer service is poor. In the megathread plenty of us have had problems with them. They actively montion this site so they are fully aware they are selling sex work and pimping despite how they try and sugar coat it.