Aaron M.

Dating Fraud at LovingFeel.com

2/22/2023

I came to https://lovingfeel.com on 27 March 2020 with the expectation of having a pleasant experience in meeting, in understanding, and in dating Chinese women. I was living in Shanghai at the time, and I thought that https://lovingfeel.com would provide me with the opportunity to come to understand Chinese dating practices.

Six months later, I have spent $152.89 buying tokens and I have wasted over 200 hours chatting with a dozen attractive and talented Chinese women who were begging me to become the singular love of their lives. But, in the end, I bitterly learned that https://lovingfeel.com is nothing but a slick money-making scam and that, from start to finish, there was no way that I was ever going to be able to meet any of these women face-to-face here in China.

Let me explain to you why I initially approached https://lovingfeel.com with complete confidence and how, over a period of six months, I came to realize that https://lovingfeel.com is nothing but a slick money-making scam.
My initial experiences: three attractive features

Lovingfeel.com promises to be an ideal platform enabling Western men to date Chinese women. Here are the three attractive features that initially gained my confidence:

#1 LovingFeel.com profiles contain exceptionally high-quality portraits. I later discovered that the Chinese women were required to visit an approved studio photographer skilled in creating a half-dozen "glamour shots" in a high definition PDF format. Thus there are no family members, no girl friends, and no pets shown. Moreover, there are no seductive poses or semi-nude shots permitted. Anyone trying to display a nude photo is instantly blocked by the software itself—and this applies to both the women and the men. [Later I discovered that when I asked for an action pic or for a family pic, I was turned down very politely—a clue to the scam that was being perpetrated.]

#2 Female members must get validation status which provides assurances to the men that the pics displayed and the profile data are scrupulously reliable. Having been burnt by web sites that feature profiles of women who are inactive or even dead, it was a relief for me to know about this validation procedure. This validation is optional for male members. [Much later I came to discover that the validation status was absolutely useless because the avatars communicating with me were in fact women located in the USA and India.]

#3 After I set-up my profile, I received five invitations to chat and four emails within the next hour. In the days that followed, I received, on the average, eight new invitations to chat and four new emails every day. I quickly discovered that, on days when I did not login, I did not receive any further chat messages or emails. This was a welcome feature because, in an earlier dating site, I had received well over one hundred messages within the first two days. This kind of volume was overwhelming.

I later learned that my profile was visible to the female participants only during those times when I was logged in. As a result, in 9 out of 10 cases, the woman writing a chat message [<300 characters] or an email [<3500 characters] never read even the smallest part of my profile. They didn't even know that I was no longer living in the USA and that I had settled into my life in Shanghai. This was a frustration for me because I had taken the time to describe myself in vivid detail and had selected five pics showing me doing activities that I liked. [Only much later did I discover that the women functioning as avatars only made money during those times when I was posting in their chat room (at the rate of $.40/minute) or when I sent them an email ($6). Within this arrangement, there is no monetary incentive to read my profile.]
My initial experiences: three unattractive features

#1 Each woman had between five and twelve pics. While the pics were very attractive "glamour shots", the profiles were thin and centered on standard biographical details. Room was given for a lengthy self-description, but almost all the women left this blank. [The reason for this would soon become clear. The successful avatars are the ones who can artfull change their identity in order to fit the particular requirements of every man they are courting.]

#2 LovingFeel.com requires that men purchase credits to participate: 10 credits for an initial email; 25 for subsequent emails. Chatroom participation is computed at 2 credits per minute. Initially men receive 20 credits free. From that point onward, one has to pay roughly $.20 for every credit. Women, in contrast, have no fees. Once I used the 20 free credits, I bought 750 credits for $125. I did this because I believe that LovingFeel.com was an ideal site. Overall, however, I would rate the endless nickel and dime fees as producing a pricy dating experience. This will become apparent shortly.

#3 After one month, I had developed a strong attraction to one of the women. We shared a lot of personal history and arrived at the point when we were ready to meet. I commend the designers of this site for providing a safe mode whereby women have a safety net when it comes to dating. I vigorously oppose, however, the requirement that a man must spend 3000 credits on a woman before he (with her permission) could discover her email address or phone number.

My Chinese girlfriend and I were ready to take this step after having spent only 525 credits. At this point, we had nearly eight hours of sustained chatting, and I wanted to introduce my girlfriend to some of my short stories (since I am a writer and publisher). This was impossible. So I began to initiate strategies for giving my girlfriend my private email address. The software successfully blocked all my attempts. In effect, therefore, this dating site requires that I spend $428 on my girlfriend before I could give her my email address. Gasp! This can now be seen as a very pricy venture.

This was my first red flag. Hence, I would require that you tell your male clients the following:

Be forewarned. The managers of this site intend to pick your pocket. They want you to pay out $428 just to give your girlfriend your email address.

I kick myself for not having read all the fine print in advance. Strange that the reviews I had read mention nothing of this. On the other hand, I charge the Directors of LovingFeel.com with deliberately setting up unusual rules that entrap your customers.
My second red flag: duplicate messages sent by the same avatar

At just this point, I received a racy email for two different ladies: Lishuang Wu, 33 [ #*******] and Lu Lu, 39 [ #*******]. Here was the content:

We can try all the possitions together, and we will cuuum so many times together, we will have so much pleasure together too. That would be a wonderful life, do you think so?

What caused me alarm is that both of the women used the exact same words within the exact same hour, including the same spelling and grammatical errors. This requires some explanation, don't you think?

So I sent a complaint to the Customer Service department. They politely suggested that this sometimes happens because the female clients sometimes share "successful catch lines" with each other.

O.K. That might be the case. On the other hand, it seems very unlikely as a valid explanation. Why so?

For starters, I had read hundreds of lines and have never noticed identical "catch lines" being sent by two different women.
More importantly, if one looks at the words sent to me, it is clear that Lishuang Wu and LuLu were intent upon my "sexual arousal." If you read my own previous comments to both of these women, you will NOT find me so orientated. Hence, this "catch line" is blatantly out of line with the puritanical safeguards maintained by the site and out of line with my own previous exchanges with these women.
Finally, it is very unlikely that a Chinese woman on this site would have understood "all the possitions" and "we will cuuum so many times together." The deliberate misspellings of racy words was apparently calculated to avoid triggering "inappropriate speech" software. In any case, the deliberate misspellings would have very little meaning for Lishuang Wu and Lu Lu. Would they then be inclined to use such an unintelligible "catch line"? And, even if they did understand the hidden meaning, would they want to risk using such "offensive language" on this site?

Explanation #2: Does https://lovingfeel.com hire women or men as paid "avatars" who stimulate chat room exchanges by maintaining 3 to 8 female profiles at the same time? Dating sites who engage in this practice must, by law, alert their clients that such "avatars" are in play. I have not found any such admission on the part of https://lovingfeel.com. But let us allow, for the sake of argument, that https://lovingfeel.com was willing to work outside the law and that one such "avatar" hired by them was assigned both Lishuang Wu, 33 [ *******] and Lu Lu, 39 [ *******] as their "fake identities." The Directors of https://lovingfeel.com could claim that both of these women had "verified identities" at some point, but, for one reason or the other, they left https://lovingfeel.com. Rather than deleting their inactive identities, the Directors of https://lovingfeel.com might have decided that it would be in their interest to assign such inactive "identities" to a hired avatar who worked behind the scenes to maintain their pricy communications with "fake women hiding behind verified identities."

Hence, since many dating sites do hire "avatars" to promote the sexual stimulation of their male clients, it is not unthinkable that https://lovingfeel.com might be tempted to do the same. It is furthermore quite possible that a lazy avatar would write a stimulating text for one client and then turn around and use it for three or more other clients as well. Since the men have no way of seeing texts written to persons other than themselves, this lazy "cut and paste" shortcut would seemingly never be noticed. However, a lazy avatar who was assigned to both Lishuang Wu, 33 [ *******] and Lu Lu, 39 [ *******] as his/her "fake identities" might carelessly have sent the same identical words to multiple suitors and, in the process, they might have lost track of the fact that the same erotic words were being inadvertently sent to me [aLong] by two unrelated women: Lishuang Wu and Lu Lu.

Hence, I say to you, the Directors of LovingFeel. Com, "Naughty. Naughty. I CAUGHT YOU CHEATING!"
Third red flag: Examining the Visitors by Country using HypeStat.com

Using HypeStat.com, one can discover the percent of visitors according to the country of origin. The results are shown here:

Argumentation: 96% of my emails and chartroom conversations were with women that identified themselves as currently living in China. Yet, in the "Visitors by Country" table above, no visitors from China are listed (meaning it is less than a fraction of 1%).

Something is wrong here. At least 40% of the visitors to your site should be located in China. But clearly they are not. The only way to explain this is to conclude that the vast majority of the "certified Chinese women" shown on your site are falsely listed as being located in China.

For three years now I have been living in China. During this time I have become aware of the routine limitations that Chinese have whenever I use American slang. This helps me understand why my two favorite Chinese women that I met on LovingFeel.com were able to communicate so well using American slang. They used this slang not because they had American teaches, but because they were, in fact, Americans disguising themselves as "Chinese women." The slick pics made them look Chinese; their slick words made them sound like Americans (in disguise).
The Use and Abuse of Identity Verification

Your website tricks it users. You make a point of insuring that all the women shown on the site have submitted their photos and documents so as to earn a "Validate Member" certificate that is proudly displayed above their name, location, and high-quality pics. Here is the guarantee in your own words:

We carefully approve all the ladies to be registered on our website. Our lady members' profiles are not confirmed unless we verify her ID and background. Our regional partners make sure that there are no bogus profiles, that the lady you look at in the profile pictures is the lady you are corresponding with (such profiles have a label "Validated member"). Also, we make sure as much as we are able to that she is single and interested in communication with other members of the platform.

At no point, however, does the dating site actually guarantee that the woman named and shown in the pics is the same woman who is actually interacting with the men on the dating site. This is the meaning of an "avatar"– the women shown and identified are merely "lifeless puppets" that are animated by a living person who has been hired to produce lively chat room discussions "on their behalf." Needless to say, this arrangement makes it appear as though these beautiful and animated women are choosing me for their playmates and future spouses. In reality, however, it is all a staged fraud. The avatars profess their love (as illustrated below); but, at every turn, either excuses are given why it is impossible to meet or my requests for a meeting are just ignored.

Lest anyone think that "Identity Verification" is a guarantee to the men that they are selecting and interacting with the women so glamorously displayed on this site, here are the clauses to read and reread among the "Disclosures and Disclaimers":

No representations or warranties (whether express[ed] or implied) are made regarding the accuracy and correctness of the information on the platform (including, but not limited to the statistical numbers or online status of certain members etc.).

Validated Members [i.e. All the women you meet here] may use the platform for free. At the same time, Suppliers are prohibited from paying Validated Members for the use of the platform. [Nothing is said about payment to avatars.]

LovingFeel does not guarantee the accuracy of the identification verification conducted by Suppliers. [source]

In brief, the "Suppliers" provide the identities of the women shown on the site. How the Suppliers gain these identities, however, is not disclosed. I can imagine that photographic studios might offer a 50% discount to women when they allow their vanity picture set to be used by the dating site. The identity of the women and their profiles might be partially accurate but nothing prevents the Suppliers from inventing profiles so as to protect the identity of the women.

Furthermore, it is altogether suspicious that so many [nearly 8%] of the women describe themselves as "doctors." I have yet to find any profile where a woman identifies herself as a "nurse." But such obvious errors are to be expected as you say, "LovingFeel does not guarantee the accuracy of the identification verification conducted by [the] Suppliers."

Testing the validity of Hypestat.com

Before coming to a rash conclusion, however, I want to test the validity of Hypestat.com. Accordingly, I used Hypestat.com with chinalovecupid.com and discovered that 29.7% of the users were located in China and 23.5% were located in Japan.

Hypestat.com thus clearly demonstrates the fact that 50% of its users are from China or Japan—as would be expected.

At the same time, I am absolutely certain that Hypestat.com correctly demonstrates that next to NONE of the women I communicated with on lovingfeel.com were located in China. Their profiles may have come from China, but the avatars hiding behind the profiles have no connection with China and, under no circumstances, did I have a chance to ever meet any of them face-to-face (even though I actually live in China).
Overview of my findings

I came to https://lovingfeel.com with the hope of having a pleasant experience in meeting, in understanding, and in dating Chinese women. I am bitterly disappointed in finding that your fraudulent practices have severely betrayed my trust.

I just now did a search and found a site that provides a balanced and trustworthy investigation of the scam being perpetrated by you and your directors: "LovingFeel.com Admits To Creating Fake Profiles & Deceptions Exposed In This Review."

I'm sure you are aware that https://lovingfeel.com along with all your spinoff sites are "at risk" due to my research and findings. I have already copied large segments of your website and have a bullet-proof demonstration of the depth of fraud operating on your dating site. This I feel obliged to share with the public and with the officers of the law, both local and national.

All in all, LovingFeel.com needs to be investigated by authorities of the law and shut down. A class action suit needs to be initiated that will reimburse those who have lost their money and lost their valuable time and lost their trust in the Directors of LovingFeel.com

Sincerely,

Aaron Milavec profile ID: *******
Total Page Visits: 1030 - Today Page Visits: 1

Freelancer.com has for purpose to provide a protected site that links up clients with various online technical services.

Initially, I was impressed with freelancer.com. The instructions were clear and manageable. Three months later, I have been scammed and the management is offering no help to recover my lost money.

Complaint against Shabnam H. For Fraud

Shabnam *******@SHABNAM10AKTHER is a fake.

1. I came here to seek legal advice for two potential lawsuits. My project = Seeking legal advice for a possible loss of income lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Cincinnati
2. SH [abbr for Shabnam H.] made a bid for $25/hr. And she showed me three samples of her work. In reading the samples, I was impressed. Only later, on 12/8 did I discover that she did not prepare any of these samples. She had no legal training whatsoever.
3. At first our working relationship was cordial and productive. SH kept encouraging me saying, "I am making good progress on your Complaint." When I asked to see her work in progress, she tried to distract me. In the end, on two occasions, she refused to show me her work.
4. The first refusal is already erased. The second goes like this:

SH: I am marking that thing which change my me.
8:11 PM
Mills7: Makes no difference. Send what you have now and let me look at it. [My text is highlighted.]
8:11 PM

SH: Okay.Please advise me what you would like to change
8:12 PM
Mills7: For the third time, I say I was referring to the Complaint #2. Send what you have now and let me look at it.
8:13 PM

SH: Have turned on the track changes features for you to see the changes
8:13 PM
Mills7: For the fourth time: I want to see the Complaint #2 now.
8:15 PM
8:18 PM

8:18 PM
Mills7: For the fifth time: I want to see the Complaint #2 now.
8:18 PM

SH: Here I am doing development editing.you want me write down it again
8:19 PM
Mills7: Notice how you ignore my request. You did this three or four times earlier. I want to see it now PERIOD
8:20 PM

SH: Spend one hour improving my letter to the… It's your comment
8:20 PM
Mills7: This is not collaboration. I'm out of here. [I leave the chatroom.]
8:22 PM

SH: I am working on it.most of the time I can't follow exact time.

5. Notice that the English of SH is very stilted. This demonstrates that she could not have written the three samples that she showed me. I no longer have access to these samples since SH has removed them.

6. Here is a small section of the Complaint that SH prepared for me: [replacement words] and <needed new additions>

Comes now the Plaintiff, Aaron Mills, and for her [his] cause of action against the Defendant, Sandy Eiynck <, he> would state:

1. The Plaintiff is the author of the book titled [entitled], THE DIDACHE, which has performed as a best-selling book over <the> years, and continues to do so.

2. The Defendant is the Director of Finance and Operations of a publishing press by the name of Liturgical Press [hereafter collectively referred to as 'Seller'].

3. The Plaintiff had entered into an Agreement with the Seller to publish and sell his book, in return for an annual payment of Royalty to the Plaintiff.

4. As per the contractual arrangements in place, the Defendant was supposed to make timely <annual> royalty payment [payments] to the Plaintiff <,> but they <she> failed to do so,<.> due to which the <The> Plaintiff approached them [her] regarding the payment default. In response to his email, the Plaintiff was offered an explanation by the Staff Accountant for Liturgical Press, Lynn Tamm <, to the effect> that the payment could not be made due to <incorrect> bank information <made> available <to them> with <by> the Defendant being incorrect.

7. In this small section, I count 18 errors. If I had submitted this Complaint, I would be recognized as someone nearly illiterate. Hence, the Complaint was useless to me. It would damage my reputation to present such a document to my adversaries.

8. In addition, SH was entirely unreliable when I faced an emergency. She submitted the Complaint at midnight of the due date = 12/7. I got up to look at her work. Since it was critical for me to send out her Complaint with my cover letter on 12/8, I asked her three times to agree upon a time to meet when we could discuss the complaint. Again, she used evasion. At the end, in frustration, I wrote: "I am suggesting that we meet at 9am your time tomorrow. If you cannot make it then, suggest another time" [transcribed from memory since it has already been erased].

9. SH did not show up. I left a message: "I was here. You were not here." Then I went out for a dental cleaning. When I returned, I asked her, "Why did you not show up." SH replied that her daily schedule is not fixed so she cannot keep appointments. In reply I wrote, "If this is the case, why did you not tell me this when I was scheduling this meeting." She had no response.

10. My suspicion is that SH refused to show me her work in progress and refused to meet with me to discuss her work for the simple reason that she did not do the work; hence, she was incapable of discussing it with me. She evidently has a legal ghostwriter who prepared the Complaint for her. SH, of course, will never admit this because it would expose her fraud.

11. The fraud perpetrated by SH left me in a terrible position. I discovered the fraud so late that it was impossible for me to begin afresh with a new legal consultant. My two lawsuits will suffer because of this fraud.

12. In addition to this well-rehearsed and deliberate fraud, SH managed to find another of my email addresses. How she was able to do so, I do not know. When I asked her to disclose how she was able to do this, she refused to tell me anything.

Here is the email that she sent me:

Create my complaint against Sandy Eiynck, Director of Finance and Operations, Liturgical Press

From Shabnam Akther Hira on 2022-12-08 23:45
Details Headers Plain text
Dear Aaron

It is with great sadness that I inform you that, after working hard for the past few days, I finished your first project, you paid me. But that payment has gone back to your account. I don't understand why this happened.Please check your account and contact the freelancer authority and please give me my first project payment.

Thanks!

I understand that this constitutes a serious infraction of freelancer regulations. I leave it to the administration to impose suitable penalties.
All the statements here are true, and I have recounted them to the best of my ability. Given the harm that I have suffered due to the deceptions of SH, I would ask that the administration impose a fine of $400 that would be deposited to my account.
Sincerely,
Mills7

On December 12th, I submitted the details of the fraud through the "Report User" procedures. When I received no response five days later, I submitted my "Report User" a second time. Nothing happened, so I used the online help links to find out why no action had been taken.
I was told that the "Report User" data was being examined and that the results were confidential. Furthermore, it was not even clear that any action had been taken or would ever be taken.
What I realized is that the freelancer managers had set up a system for reporting frauds but the one submitting the complaint would never know if or when the complaint was examined and what penalties (if any) had been imposed. I also realized that I was all alone in trying to recover monies that I had lost.

If I had to do it over again, I would have asked SH (a) to give evidence of prior training in preparing legal contracts and (b) to provide certified letters of reference verifying the quality of her legal work. The system of verification currently in place does none of these things.

As things now stand, I will lose $200-$400 and have wasted 35+ hours of my time trying to recover my losses.