RE: Negotiation over payment demands

RE: Negotiation over payment demands (Full Version)

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

Message

HoneyBears -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (10/30/2016 4:40:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Shandirra quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Pro Dommes session in person. They also do cam sessions, phone sessions, chat sessions, etc. It's not exclusively in person. I'm old. (In other news, water is wet.) I know things have evolved as technology has moved on. However, my 'go-to' thought about pros is still the real time, BDSM kind of thing. Shoot me. [sm=2cents.gif] Since we are getting somewhat technical here, here is how we see it. (BTW, Cub is the one who has personal experience with just about every sort of FemDom. [:D]) LadyPact, we also agree that pro-dommes are BDSM scene/service providers who generally get hired to provide IRT Topping sessions. The difference is between concept (talk) and practice (walk), virtual reality and in-person experiential reality. Every lifestyle domme is a Femdom, but not every Femdom is a relationship-oriented lifestyle domme. (Accordingly, the contra-parallel adage that every slave is a submissive, but not every submissive is a slave, could apply in terms of which is a subset of what.) Shandirra, I believe you are making a distinction between dommes-for-hire in ways other than how fin-dommes practice their craft. In other words, those Femdoms who require pay-for-play are not limited to pro-dommes and fin-dommes. Most fin-dommes are cyber dommes, but not every cyber domme is a fin-domme, much less a pro-domme. Cyber dommes do cam and/or engage in chat and/or interact via e-messaging forms of on-line domination, including exchanging e-mails (& often texts). Phone Mistresses are what those Femdoms call themselves who work for phone sex outfits, by voice only with customers where direct phone contact is not allowed, as opposed to having their own private clientele by whom they get compensated. -- Lisa & Cub

ResidentSadist -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (10/30/2016 9:22:33 AM)
In play for pay, you get what you pay for. $25 is equivalent to a trip to McDonalds or a car wash. I don't think you're topping from the bottom. I think you got caught up in bad situation and had to break your word because you were uncomfortable. Or you're trying to play in an arena you can't afford. It's akin to hiring an escort and agreeing to pay an undetermined amount, knowing the rates are typically $200 - $500. Then after she gives you some emails, some role playing and your collar, you don't want to pay a $100. You got her time, attention, her service in emails and a collar, but she never got her cash. You reneged on the deal. That isn't topping from the bottom, that is breaking your word to someone that already invest their time in you. Admittedly she sounds like a scammer, but you should have had higher levels of comfort about her being genuine before you started your role play interactions and took her collar. Any type of dating interaction with women costs money. Even if it isn't pay for play. A decent dinner for two costs over a $100... long stem roses can cost over $120... the average hotel room costs $90 - $150. To her, a $100 might be a small amount, a token. So it might not be appearing on cam that is her issue. It might be your changing the deal, renegotiating and adding more service requirements for a "token" tribute that is a big red flag to her. To her it might not be a cam issue, it might be her collared slave adding hurdles for her to jump before she gets paid. Like suddenly demanding her used panties or something before you make the tribute you agreed to. This could be why she made the topping from the bottom comment. She only wanted $100 and you bailed out on her. You bailed because you weren't up front about your video chat verification requirement and feel uncomfortable. Now you are in a position where she was up front with you about the tribute, but you didn't do your due diligence and are in a position to get scammed. You made a deal, had role play, emails and collared to an unverified person of unknown gender and age. In pay for play you are buying her time and attention, like spending time in a video chat. With or without clothes on, webcam girls cost from $1.99 - $5.99 a minute. If she is genuine, I can see why she might not want to invest anymore time without any return. I mean, she even collared you... you got be the slave. You got her attention and played for free with emails and protocol. From her point of view it could seem like you scammed her for some free service. After not telling her your video requirements, then breaking your word and not paying a modest amount, I think you put yourself in a position where you won't find out if she is genuine or not.

Shandirra -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (10/30/2016 12:56:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HoneyBears Shandirra, I believe you are making a distinction between dommes-for-hire in ways other than how fin-dommes practice their craft. In other words, those Femdoms who require pay-for-play are not limited to pro-dommes and fin-dommes. -- Lisa & Cub Dommes-for-hire sounds kinda cheesy. [:D] I know several pro-dommes that utilize the more technological versions of conducting sessions. shrugs Whilst I agree that the bulk of professional domination sessions involve flesh time activities, I don't see much difference between using technology or flesh time meetings for the purpose of professional domination. Sub/slave pays for service, dominatrix provides service. What I do see a monumental difference with is financial domination. Is it a viable fetish? Yes, and I respect the choices others make to partake in it; submissive or dominant. What I don't respect or condone is abuse. Especially these twenty-somethings that think it's a quick buck to pay the rent with. Draining someone dry IS abuse. A dominant; female or otherwise, should have a care to protect the interests of those they form a D/s relationship with. In this instance; allowing the individual enough income to provide for themselves and their dependents. Not withstanding the total lack of humane regard most of these creatures have for the gullible target. They give domination a bad name. shudders

Shandirra -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (10/30/2016 12:58:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist In play for pay, you get what you pay for. $25 is equivalent to a trip to McDonalds or a car wash. Very true and the best giggle of my day. "You want fries with that?" [:D]

Alecta -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (10/30/2016 1:12:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shandirra What I don't respect or condone is abuse. Especially these twenty-somethings that think it's a quick buck to pay the rent with. Draining someone dry IS abuse. A dominant; female or otherwise, should have a care to protect the interests of those they form a D/s relationship with. In this instance; allowing the individual enough income to provide for themselves and their dependents. Not withstanding the total lack of humane regard most of these creatures have for the gullible target. They give domination a bad name. shudders Actually, this is a legitimate fetish. What I object to is the "bait and switch" where something is agreed to in order to lure someone into a position where they are stuck with an agreement that they would not have agreed to had it been upfront.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (10/30/2016 2:40:13 PM)
quote: I think you got caught up in bad situation and had to break your word because you were uncomfortable. Well not quite, see in the OP he said he would "consider" tributes. quote: She does mention early on that she wants a fetish item as a "tribute" and to help weed out time wasters. Now, I am not generally looking for pay for play, but I am a giving person to those I care about, and the "economics" (supply / demand / etc) for a male sub online are against him, so I agree to consider it.

AtUrCervix -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (10/31/2016 5:06:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunshow This may seem like a rant, but I am genuinely interested in learning more of a community perspective. I was engaging with a domme with several emails back and forth to establish what we each are looking for and the parameters of a relationship. She is not a findomme or prodomme. She does mention early on that she wants a fetish item as a "tribute" and to help weed out time wasters. Now, I am not generally looking for pay for play, but I am a giving person to those I care about, and the "economics" (supply / demand / etc) for a male sub online are against him, so I agree to consider it. I'm imagining some fun fetish items, but I don't know exactly when this will be demanded, and I am interested to learn more about this domme before committing. We send a few more emails, roleplaying the relationship with honorifics and capitalization and me playing very submissive and subservient. Of course, we have no trust yet, and I require trust to be truly submissive. Then the payment demand comes. $100 Amazon gift card. At this point I say, paraphrased "Let me take off my slave collar and discuss this freely". Then I lay out the ways in which I would be comfortable parting with $100. The next response is angry, that I'm "topping from the bottom", and she hopes I can find some other domme who can handle my "issues". One of my own requirements before giving something that can't be taken back, like a compromising photo or money, is a short, non-sexual video chat. Unsurprisingly she refused. On the one hand, I can see her point: I had vaguely agreed to pay some sort of tribute at some point. To me, that is just the starting point of a negotiation, like negotiating over limits. Making payments to somebody is not my fetish, and it's not part of the D/s relationship. To me, that's just her condition for making the next step, just like one of my conditions is a video chat. Is there any sense in which she is right that I was "topping from the bottom" or otherwise behaving poorly as a potential submissive? Of course, you are only getting my perspective, but I am trying very hard to be fair. EDIT: for the sake of discussion, I'd rather frame this as a hypothetical than something that "actually happened". This avoids getting sidetracked into disagreements about what actually did happen (I think....she's "not that in to you").

Titanium19 -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (10/31/2016 8:41:31 PM)
I have not been on here long, but have been around online communities for casual play long enough to see a couple red flags not meeting half way on your terms, regardless of the domme/sub/who makes the rules/who follows the rules spells scams throwing an insult to make you feel that they are in control and cutting you off spells scams and scare tactic not willing to do a skype to show real identity spells MAN asking for monetary payment forward and having delivered only promises spells scam there are scammers here on CL, I have been contacted by one already who is a cam model that is trolling new profiles for victims, she has fake pics and pics of different girls that are supposed to pass for her. I played along right down to the very end when she\he asked me to join a cam room and pay for "training"

DarkSteven -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (11/1/2016 12:28:04 AM)
RedMagic!!!!!!

Shandirra -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (11/1/2016 3:02:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alecta quote: ORIGINAL: Shandirra What I don't respect or condone is abuse. Especially these twenty-somethings that think it's a quick buck to pay the rent with. Draining someone dry IS abuse. A dominant; female or otherwise, should have a care to protect the interests of those they form a D/s relationship with. In this instance; allowing the individual enough income to provide for themselves and their dependents. Not withstanding the total lack of humane regard most of these creatures have for the gullible target. They give domination a bad name. shudders Actually, this is a legitimate fetish. What I object to is the "bait and switch" where something is agreed to in order to lure someone into a position where they are stuck with an agreement that they would not have agreed to had it been upfront. I guess you missed this portion of my statement: quote: ORIGINAL: Shandirra What I do see a monumental difference with is financial domination. Is it a viable fetish? Yes, and I respect the choices others make to partake in it; submissive or dominant. What irritates me is abuse; which I outlined in the same statement. Don't cherry pick out of context. I agree that financial domination is a viable fetish. Just not when it's twisted to the point that the victim (yes, VICTIM) is not left with enough funds to survive on or care for their dependents. That's not financial domination. That's preying like a vulture upon the gullible and the weak.

TNDommeK -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (11/2/2016 2:02:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunshow I was genuinely worried about being scammed -- i.e. send $100 and never hear from her again. A fetish item seemed more reasonable and less scammy, and I was thinking $25-50 value. The role play and honorifics and capitalization and such were demanded by her and I was happy to oblige. It was genuine, in that I was "switched on", particularly as I am learning her demands and expectations. But when a fetish item suddenly becomes a $100 gift card, and then this becomes a part of my test of submission, with only photo levels of verification, this became a series of red flags for a likely scam. Note, I am not declaring this person to be a scammer. But I started thinking about how unfortunate it would be to throw away a potential pairing because of a lack of communication. If I assume she's not a scammer, it's unfortunate that her protocol was to behave much like a scammer (after a friendlier warm-up). Meanwhile I'm working on being able to trust her, probing if this is just a short-term money play, and she storms away from the table. In fairness, I was not initially up front about my video chat requirement. This was because our email discussion spanned several days, while in the meantime someone else tried to run a tribute-with-no-verification scam, so I updated my protocol. She can legitimately complain about that -- that my requirements only became clear once we firmed up the tribute details. see thats what I was thinking. the amount you named would have been fair and doable. Im a fin domme and think $100 before you know someone is steep. dont get me wrong, I wont turn it down if you send it, but to be fair that was a bit much. and the way she reacted told me everything. you did right by declining. ill tell you like I tell others, research! Look for posts, journals, contributions to sites, references, verification pics/videos, etc. Its easy to spot grab and dash fin ducks. edited to add...I didnt read the entire thread, just a section of two of your post. Thats my bad. I just went back and re read everything..Resident Sadist's post was spot on and is another great way to look at it. If you truly HAD been already roleplaying, invested time with etc..then she is right to ask for that. My answer above was because I thought you had just initially met.

Gunshow -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (11/2/2016 3:14:53 PM)
FWIW, there was no "collaring", just some light role play over 4-5 rounds of emails. I meant it purely metaphorically, and only in a role play sense, in that the submission was genuinely felt but not (yet) truly real. I am not sure if I am the type to be truly collared, though it sounds exciting, but this seems more like a 6 month type of deal, not 6 emails.

LadyPact -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (11/2/2016 3:28:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunshow FWIW, there was no "collaring", just some light role play over 4-5 rounds of emails. I meant it purely metaphorically, and only in a role play sense, in that the submission was genuinely felt but not (yet) truly real. I am not sure if I am the type to be truly collared, though it sounds exciting, but this seems more like a 6 month type of deal, not 6 emails. Well, you probably confused folks about that part, considering your original says (paraphrased) "Let me take off my slave collar and discuss this freely"

MrRodgers -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (11/2/2016 5:43:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Shandirra quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Pro Dommes session in person. They also do cam sessions, phone sessions, chat sessions, etc. It's not exclusively in person. I'm old. (In other news, water is wet.) I know things have evolved as technology has moved on. However, my 'go-to' thought about pros is still the real time, BDSM kind of thing. Shoot me. Me too. Otherwise it's cybertime. A 'pro' is real time.

SnowRanger -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (11/4/2016 3:46:02 PM)
Hello A/all, I have no problem with Pro-Dommes. Some of my favorite experiences... Well, you get the idea. I will say this to the OP: If tribute doesn't come up in the beginning, Run like Hell! Respectfully, Mike SnowRanger

slavedogspike -> RE: Negotiation over payment demands (11/7/2016 4:11:56 PM)
They are scammers, period

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875