RE: A Question of Protocol

RE: A Question of Protocol (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

errantgeek -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/25/2011 10:09:48 PM)
Oh yeah, there was no doubt at all about this person's status before I decided to just fuck with them. I was solicited out of the blue. The original solicitation set off my bullshit detector. The fact I was directed towards a random site off CM or any known or legitimate kink site set off my bullshit detector. The fact I was asked to respond offsite set off my bullshit detector. Lastly, I googled the name before responding initially and found out that alias was one of a well-known scammer. Really, if there was any shadow of a doubt remaining, it was gone well before I even responded to the "person" the first time. My only regret in the situation -- and if anyone wishes to take offense to this for methodology, trust me I will understand -- is not having been able to worm any sensitive information from that person in turn, to expose them to all the internets to see.

MistressDarkArt -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/25/2011 10:45:07 PM)
Just for giggles I googled "Mistress Veronika" and this note turned up on Informed Consent from someone complaining of the same scam. Sure looks a lot like what you got, right down to "I'm disappointed you seem to want to fail..." I'd say the only failure here is "her' being caught out! Sure enough, once I stopped writing I got the standard email asking for $$$ via alertpay. I called out the scam and heard nothing until today. Here is a follow-up email I just got: I am disappointed that you seem to want to fail so early and ruin everything but this is why I set this test. There are literally thousands of so called submissives who promise to do anything but really are just selfish and are only interested in themselves. This test is basically full proof in that respect as someone would never send a cash gift if they are a selfish person or disingenuous. Most just want to be submissive in their fantasy dreams and come out with unoriginal excuses trying to explain how wrong it would be to send a gift thinking they are being clever. Not realising of course that they have immediately stereotyped themselves, no woman wants a man who spends time thinking up ways to be selfish. If what I have described in previous e mails is what you truly seek then you will not hesitate and understand why I have asked it. It is a significant show of trust and in terms of a long term relationship is nothing. Those looking for a quick masturbate would never send anything. If you refuse to obey then it is self explanatory no matter what you think, I have had far too much experience with fantasists and also real submissive men who are genuine so know the difference. If all you want to do is be submissive on your own terms and conditions then no Dominatrix will be interested in you. I had thought we were getting a connection. The choice is send a gift through alertpay which is like paypal or goodbye. If you dont do as ordered then there is no need for any further emails as we will never meet. I will look elsewhere, so good luck in your life. Think carefully if you decline though as the opportunity will not be repeated by Me, dont miss it through being obstinate and its hardly like Im asking you to chop your arm off. Do not judge me by standards of others either, you must move in strange circles !! Goddess

LadyNTrainer -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 8:22:06 AM)
It's reasonably clear that this one's methods are dubious enough that she (or he, who knows) deserves the 419 treatment. However I do actually recognize and empathize with the sentiments expressed in the letter posted by MistressDarkArt. It's one I might well have wanted to send myself if I was actually looking online and utterly frustrated by the hordes of selfish demanders. I understand the feeling very well. I wouldn't actually send that missive, because I much prefer to meet people from the local scene in person at events rather than go looking online. Fortunately I do have that option. Not everyone does if they don't live in a big city, so if someone does need to go looking online to actually meet people, I feel their pain. It is considerable, and I can not blame anyone who finally throws up her hands and says, "That's it; I am tired of being treated like an unpaid whore. So from now on men who want to treat me like a thing to use in their fantasies need to show that they are willing to give as well as just take." Believe me, I get that. I think most femdoms online do. I just don't believe that money is a good way to differentiate selfish buggers from good potential partner material. It separates the ones who are willing to pay for your time from the ones who aren't, and then what you have are clients, not friends. Money is too much of an instant-gratification shortcut, and the guys who are willing to be clients are sometimes the most shallow and demanding of all. It's not a good asshole filter. It just makes dealing with the assholes less wearing on your patience and self-esteem. Substitute "spend a couple of hours on the DDO Khyber server doing some dungeon crawling with me and my Guildies" for "send money", and every other sentiment in that letter would ring absolutely true to me. Don't underestimate the need for a good asshole filter if you are a woman looking for a partner online. If she's online and looking, her anger and frustration level is guaranteed to be pretty high after the typical barrage of ill-treatment and explicit sexual demands from supposed submissives who truly don't give a shit about her as a person, but just want to get their rocks off by "getting" anything off of her that they can without having to give anything back of themselves, their time, their energy or their emotions. Many will lie and cheat and mislead in order to get what they want from someone they are treating like a masturbatory object with no human feelings. It's not a pretty picture. To retain our sanity, at some point we have to say stop: you go no farther without proving you have some consideration for ME, not just for your cock. And that's not unreasonable at all. In fact it can be absolutely necessary for your self-esteem and self-respect. I just personally recommend setting barriers that require more time and energy and social skills and vanilla interests in common to get past.

LadyConstanze -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 9:06:25 AM)
I think we can all empathize with the sentiments expressed in that letter, but what we also should remember is that the person sending this "standard letter" does it sorely to play people and to get cash, she has no intention of ever meeting the person sending the cash. It's manipulative and morally quite questionable. Quite different from the money dommes who say flat out that all they want is money.

errantgeek -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 1:47:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze I think we can all empathize with the sentiments expressed in that letter, but what we also should remember is that the person sending this "standard letter" does it sorely to play people and to get cash, she has no intention of ever meeting the person sending the cash. It's manipulative and morally quite questionable. Quite different from the money dommes who say flat out that all they want is money. Indeed, a scam is still a scam, no matter how sympathetic it is. I'd go so far as to say it's not just morally questionable, but reprehensible. On the thread I posted it came up that some Dominants like to use a microtransaction as a means to establish identity and some sense of seriousness, but that's a far cry from what this person (or others) does. Also, LadyConstanze, I hope you don't mind the tiny compliment, but I perved your profile and wanted to mention I thought your third picture was fantastically classy. Great photography! :)

LadyConstanze -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 2:52:40 PM)
Now I got to check what the 3rd picture is... Oh this one [image]http://edge.darkgrove.com/photos/tn/tn_93227p05.jpg[/image] Actually snaps taken by a friend when we were fooling around, if you like I can send you the series, my only regret is that I didn't have the leather gloves with me when we were messing about with a cam. But the best pics usually happen when you're not prepared...

PeonForHer -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 2:56:18 PM)
Nice . . . .

LadyConstanze -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 3:14:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Nice . . . . You just lust after the whip, you slut ;)

PeonForHer -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 3:23:30 PM)
Nope - it's an impressive whip, but that's not it . . . .

LadyHibiscus -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 4:05:23 PM)
What a fab pic! The velvet gloves are a nice textural touch, I think :)

LadyConstanze -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 4:12:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus What a fab pic! The velvet gloves are a nice textural touch, I think :) Sniff, satin they are... Actually taken them from an evening gown [;)] We tried it bare handed and of course I broke a nail... Have I mentioned that I can be amazingly clumsy?

errantgeek -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 4:15:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Oh this one Actually snaps taken by a friend when we were fooling around, if you like I can send you the series, my only regret is that I didn't have the leather gloves with me when we were messing about with a cam. But the best pics usually happen when you're not prepared... Indeed, that one. :) I always found it funny how the candid shots sometimes end up being the best...haha (though my problem is that I am one of the least photogenic people on the planet and getting a photo of me in which I don't look like a colossal dumbass is a task worthy of Norse poetry). I'd love to see the series, if you're comfortable showing them off!

LadyNTrainer -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/26/2011 8:18:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze I think we can all empathize with the sentiments expressed in that letter, but what we also should remember is that the person sending this "standard letter" does it sorely to play people and to get cash, she has no intention of ever meeting the person sending the cash. It's manipulative and morally quite questionable. Assuming the part I underlined is true, I would certainly agree. quote: Quite different from the money dommes who say flat out that all they want is money. I don't consider financial dominants unethical. It's certainly a consensual kink, because I've been approached by men who want it even on my friends-only social profile. Oddly enough I have gotten fewer solicitations for this kink on my professional profile than I did on my social profile, which made it clear I wasn't looking for anything other than friendship. Go figure. It's not my kink, but it's not my business to say what other adults should be doing as long as it is consensual.

LadyConstanze -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/27/2011 12:30:40 AM)
Oh I certainly wasn't saying anything against money dommes, where you got the idea that I find it unethical is beyond me, as I said, they say straight out they are interested in money, if a guy gets off on that, it's a match for me. As for this Goddess Veronika, there are warnings on several dating sites about her, it's a known scam, which is pretty clear from the get go, "potential life-partner almost selected, send cash gift to show you are serious and generous" uhu... Out of interest, those guys who approached you for financial domination, any of them ever came through? I'm only asking because it's also not quite my kink, but I was bugged by some of them without end, even when telling them I have Zero interest in it, they would not just go away, none of them. So I asked them to first pay something into a charity and send me the receipt as a scan, scanner didn't work etc. Then made an Amazon wishlist with stuff ranging from $5 to $50 (I'm not giving my address to a stranger on the internet), oddly enough nothing ever happened. It seems they want to talk about it endlessly and that's the fetish.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/27/2011 6:57:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Oh I certainly wasn't saying anything against money dommes, where you got the idea that I find it unethical is beyond me Not what I meant to imply; I should have clarified that better. I was just saying that I don't have an issue with them, and it puzzles me that so many other people do (not talking about you specifically). Diapers are not my kink either, but I do not care if other consenting adults enjoy them. No clue why people don't feel the same way about financial domination. Not my kink, but other folks can go ahead and enjoy if they like. Ain't none of my beeswax. quote: Out of interest, those guys who approached you for financial domination, any of them ever came through? I'm only asking because it's also not quite my kink, but I was bugged by some of them without end, even when telling them I have Zero interest in it, they would not just go away, none of them. Nope, none of them. The fact that I have near zero patience for folks writing me on my social profile to solicit any form of kink is probably a factor, though. I have a pretty quick block and delete trigger finger. On my professional profile, my response to requests for either financial domination or blackmail has been something along the lines of, "That is a fantasy that I could potentially work with, but we need to talk in a reality-grounded way first to establish the ethical parameters of the professional relationship." And it's always sent them running for the hills. Which is fine with me. I suspect what they want is a response more like, "U WILL PAY ME U MONEY PIG, ON UR KNEES AND WURSHIP UR SUPERIUR GODDISS WITH ALL UR MONEYS!!111!!!" And mostly they want that so they can masturbate over it. I doubt they would ever send any money even if I did reply "in character" to their initial communication. Which I'm not willing to do.

MistressDarkArt -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/27/2011 7:11:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze So I asked them to first pay something into a charity and send me the receipt as a scan..., Oooh! That is a great idea, LadyC! I think I'll suggest HSUS!

LadyHibiscus -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/27/2011 8:17:29 PM)
The charity line doesn't work, unfortunately. It's not exciting enough, evidently. Like most male driven kinks, the bottom makes the rules. I was being pestered on the other side by some doof who insisted he be humiliated by being "forced" to pay. I told him to put up or shut up. And he paypaled me $15!! EPIC LULZ!! He disappeared after that, so I couldn't mock him over it.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/27/2011 8:33:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressDarkArt Oooh! That is a great idea, LadyC! I think I'll suggest HSUS! Please don't. http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/03/the_humane_society_of_the_unit.php "Contrary to their claims, HSUS does not support local animal shelters, does not help provide homes to homeless animals, and advocates that no human shall ever breed animals for any reason, whether it's for medical or scientific research, for conservation purposes, for educational purposes, for food or for companionship." I will personally attest to the truth of this statement; I've seen them in action. And not good action, either. Google "HSUS scam" for lots more links and evidence. They jumped right in on the case and took in a shitload of money for the care of Michael Vick's high profile dogs, when the fact was that they immediately assessed the animals as too aggressive for rehabilitation and had them put down. They kept right on taking money for their "care", though. That's the quality of folks we're talking about, here. Donations to an actual animal shelter would be much better, IMO. The HSUS spends most of its money and time doing extremely questionable things that are at times directly contrary to animal welfare.

cloudboy -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/27/2011 10:11:56 PM)
As far as I can tell neither "Nigeria" or your "bank account number" are involved, so that's a good sign! I'd love for you to send her $500.00 and report back what happened. I'm betting anything under $100.00 would be viewed as insulting, but if you sent $200.00 you'd save $300 and probably find out what's what to boot. This board has lacked for good stories; something with a hotel room, handcuffs, a compromising trip to the ice machine, and a Quentin-Tarrantino-like twist.

WyldHrt -> RE: A Question of Protocol (6/27/2011 10:20:38 PM)
quote: "Contrary to their claims, HSUS does not support local animal shelters, does not help provide homes to homeless animals, and advocates that no human shall ever breed animals for any reason, whether it's for medical or scientific research, for conservation purposes, for educational purposes, for food or for companionship." I will personally attest to the truth of this statement; I've seen them in action. And not good action, either. Google "HSUS scam" for lots more links and evidence. They jumped right in on the case and took in a shitload of money for the care of Michael Vick's high profile dogs, when the fact was that they immediately assessed the animals as too aggressive for rehabilitation and had them put down. They kept right on taking money for their "care", though. That's the quality of folks we're talking about, here. Donations to an actual animal shelter would be much better, IMO. The HSUS spends most of its money and time doing extremely questionable things that are at times directly contrary to animal welfare. Gee, sounds a lot like PETA [:'(]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.15625