Do you think pro subs/switches/doms should be honest when they register here?

[primetime]

so what you're saying is, if they plan to solicit themselves and that's the ONLY reason why they are here, they should tell us?

well, that's fair, but to a degree. i'm in the middle, so i cant say yes, i cant say no. i can see arguments from both sides. to those who wish to form some sort of "relationship" with these people, i can see why they want them to be honest because one could be mislead. but on the other hand, i can see why it doesnt matter. everyone comes to this forum with their own agendas anyway.

the only thing i have is when one of the "pros" show up, i dont think we should ask them to state their intentions. they should state their intentions if they want to, not because someone wants them to.

but why is this limited to "pros"? shouldnt EVERYONE state their intentions? i have seen many "non professional" female members (males too) who started off posting like wildfire and making all the claims of they love the community, then they disappear. they never show up to gatherings, they never meet anyone outside the internet. they just go "poof". isnt that the same thing?

i guess my vote would be "no", but i rather see a middle ground because that's where i really want to vote.

 

[dtrell]

thanks for your opinion and your vote. i still dont think you quite have it, but thanks anyway.

 

[Kalamos]

honesty is ALWAYS laudable.

No. It isn't. In some cases it isn't.
Sometimes you have to bear the burden of a lie alone, so others won't suffer from it.

like primetime, i dont think you understand the question or the options, and i thank you for not voting if you dont.

Well, as Primetime said, you're not giving us a third option.
I don't believe in "musts".
"Should", so they can attract potential clients more readily?
Yes. Advertisement factor and all.

"Must"?
No.
It's pointless and ineffectual.
And besides, how?
Even if we have unscrupolous chars aboard, you have no way to make them come out to the public.
You "should not" put rules you cannot realistically enforce.

It is like asking people at a party to wear some kind of sign so everybody knows what they out for: money, lust, thrill, and so on.
You don't trust them in the first place, would you trust them to show up the right sign for you?

Hidden motives should stay that; people are more complex than a simple Yes/No on a form.

 

[dtrell]

No. It isn't. In some cases it isn't.
Sometimes you have to bear the burden of a lie alone, so others won't suffer from it.




Well, as Primetime said, you're not giving us a third option.
I don't believe in "musts".
"Should", so they can attract potential clients more readily?
Yes. Advertisement factor and all.

"Must"?
No.
It's pointless and ineffectual.

1. yes it is. dont lie in the first place, then noone can be hurt. we will agree to disagree.
2. there is no third option. should they be honest about it or shouldnt they. thats the poll. again, agree to disagree.
3. again for the umpteenth time, i never said must, and should is a human thing, not a forum rules thing. again, agree to disagree.

thanks for posting your opinion and voting.

 

[Kalamos]

1. yes it is. dont lie in the first place, then noone can be hurt.

No, it is not.

thanks for posting your opinion and voting.

Didn't vote.

 

[dtrell]

thanks for your opinion then.

 

[dtrell]

No, it is not.

this is childish already and im not continuing it. so far the majority of people agree with me.

Didn't vote.

thanks for your opinion then.

 

[Kalamos]

this is childish already and im not continuing it. so far the majority of people agree with me.

Childish?
I just used the barest minimum of words I could spare without wasting either party's time.
You should appreciate the effort.

 

[dtrell]

anyone else care to post an opinion?

 

[Bagelfather]

To join or not to join

have no problem if they come on here just to try and scare up people to bring money and come for tickle sessions wherever they work, just say thats your purpose.

If the person in question is posting their opinions on tickling or talking about other topics (politics, movies, religion, tofu, etc.) I do not think they should be obligated to disclose something. As far as I understand it this is a forum for discussion, not a meat market. Yes you can meet people for play and friendship but that is not the primary function. It is a tool that allows such meetings to happen by bringing people together and talking.

If someone randomly hits on a person and they write back that they are a pro domme/sub and have no interest in meeting aside from money then that is YOUR tough luck for hitting on the wrong person. If the person solicits people and says "oh I am so ticklish, tee-hee if only someone would come tickle me!" and then gets the solicitor all hot and bothered and THEN tells them it is only for money that is deceptive and wrong.

i personally have conversed with two that when discussed about coming to a gathering, say at a rival dungeon or even at a members private home or hotel gathering, or meeting to chat or have a private session for no monetary gain, they have hidden behind some "contract" they have, which i guess contracts are allowed to take away constitutional rights of free association...although i didnt know contracts trumped rights.

I'm sorry to ask this but can you rephrase, it doesn't make sense to me. If you are talking about BDSM contracts they are not legally binding, everyone in the BDSM community knows that. It is an agreement done often in writing so there is no confusion as to the obligations. If someone has a contract with a master or mistress then they may not be able to play outside a dungeon. I know of pro subs for example who have a master/mistress but will not play with anyone outside the dungeon and will play only within the comforts of him or her and the master/mistress.

If you are speaking of contractual obligations with a dungeon itself about not playing for money elsewhere that is probably legally binding. If I was working as a graphic artist for a company I could NOT freelance for graphic art work unless it was outside the domain of where I worked and was not a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest clauses in work contracts are fairly common outside of BDSM.

If you can clarify what you mean by contract I may be able to address this better.

so anyway the question is simple, answer yes if you agree that they should be honest about why the registered, or answer no if you are ok with them acting as if they are seriously interested in our fetish and only being interested in the monetary gain they can get from it. either way i am curious as to others opinions.

A pro domme or sub generally will not do something with a client unless they themselves are into it on some level. If you are stating that if someone is a professional and is trying to get money from the community they have to be honest then you would have to register anyone who does videos the same way. Are these people truly in it for the kink or are they just coming to us to get money from our bank accounts and not caring about us?

Honestly it is talk like this which keeps most professional dommes or subs who have an interest in joining the community. I doubt most of them would come to an event as that is a problem for business. Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free?

 

[Bugman]

If the person in question is posting their opinions on tickling or talking about other topics (politics, movies, religion, tofu, etc.) I do not think they should be obligated to disclose something. As far as I understand it this is a forum for discussion, not a meat market. Yes you can meet people for play and friendship but that is not the primary function. It is a tool that allows such meetings to happen by bringing people together and talking.

If someone randomly hits on a person and they write back that they are a pro domme/sub and have no interest in meeting aside from money then that is YOUR tough luck for hitting on the wrong person. If the person solicits people and says "oh I am so ticklish, tee-hee if only someone would come tickle me!" and then gets the solicitor all hot and bothered and THEN tells them it is only for money that is deceptive and wrong.



I'm sorry to ask this but can you rephrase, it doesn't make sense to me. If you are talking about BDSM contracts they are not legally binding, everyone in the BDSM community knows that. It is an agreement done often in writing so there is no confusion as to the obligations. If someone has a contract with a master or mistress then they may not be able to play outside a dungeon. I know of pro subs for example who have a master/mistress but will not play with anyone outside the dungeon and will play only within the comforts of him or her and the master/mistress.

If you are speaking of contractual obligations with a dungeon itself about not playing for money elsewhere that is probably legally binding. If I was working as a graphic artist for a company I could NOT freelance for graphic art work unless it was outside the domain of where I worked and was not a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest clauses in work contracts are fairly common outside of BDSM.

If you can clarify what you mean by contract I may be able to address this better.



A pro domme or sub generally will not do something with a client unless they themselves are into it on some level. If you are stating that if someone is a professional and is trying to get money from the community they have to be honest then you would have to register anyone who does videos the same way. Are these people truly in it for the kink or are they just coming to us to get money from our bank accounts and not caring about us?

Honestly it is talk like this which keeps most professional dommes or subs who have an interest in joining the community. I doubt most of them would come to an event as that is a problem for business. Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Great post,i agree 100% And a nice quote from TR,agree 100% with that also.

 

[dtrell]

I'm sorry to ask this but can you rephrase, it doesn't make sense to me. If you are talking about BDSM contracts they are not legally binding, everyone in the BDSM community knows that. It is an agreement done often in writing so there is no confusion as to the obligations. If someone has a contract with a master or mistress then they may not be able to play outside a dungeon. I know of pro subs for example who have a master/mistress but will not play with anyone outside the dungeon and will play only within the comforts of him or her and the master/mistress.

If you are speaking of contractual obligations with a dungeon itself about not playing for money elsewhere that is probably legally binding. If I was working as a graphic artist for a company I could NOT freelance for graphic art work unless it was outside the domain of where I worked and was not a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest clauses in work contracts are fairly common outside of BDSM.

i am talking about them hiding behind a contract where they say that just because they meet a guy at the dungeon, that automatically means they are not allowed to see that guy EVER again outside the dungeon. and i am talking for NO monetary gain. im saying to meet as a friend or whatever they want to meet as. i think there is no such thing in their "contracts". they have personal lives and they have a right of free association, regardless of how hey met the person in question. so when they say this is the reason, i dont believe it. i am also talking about not attending a gathering at a rival dungeon (again for no money but as a private citizen) because the sub in question is into tickling and wants to participate in a gathering.

hope that helps clear it up, and thanks for your opinion and vote.

 

[unclebill]

I enjoy when the ladies from the L.A. dungeons post. I don`t care if they are promoting themselves or their place of employment. Its all good to me. I have visited the dungeons four times and have always enjoyed talking with the ladies before and after the sessions. I actually became email friends with one that used to work at Passive Arts. Another thing I wanted to point out is that several women from this forum have quit posting in recent months, and its been noticable, at least to me. The attention is good for the remaining ladies, but more more females are desperately needed. The last thing we need to do is chase any of them away. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Blackrook]

I agree with the poster who said the question is loaded.

It singles out prosubs/switches/doms with an implied assumption that they are less honest that the community in general. If that's not the implication, why single them out? If that is the implication, then say so and support your statement.

Rook.

 

[dtrell]

ok i am stating this one last time for everyone that still doesnt understand it:
1. i dont care if they come on here to promote their job or their dungeon, in fact i encourage it. this is beside the point of the poll question.
2. i never said they were more or less dishonest than anyone else on here. again, never stated anywhere in the poll question or my opinion. it singles them out because i chose to single them out for this poll, because i wanted to ask about them specifically.
does anyone else need anything cleared up? a lot of people have read way more into this thread than its intent.

 

[active verb]

Dtrell, I think Rook's point was that you question implies that

this group is less honest than we are generally even if you say that was not your intent. And based on your post in Genevieve's thread where you comment about other professionals being dishonest, it's hard to accept that it wasn't your intent, notwithstanding your denial.

http://www.ticklingforum.com/showpost.php?p=1312888&postcount=31

"i know that youre not just on here like many past dominion, chateau, and passive arts dungeon workers have done (such as simone at the dominion or nikita at passive arts)...just sign up to hit up as many people as possible for paid sessions, and when it doesnt pan out, never post or participate here again (most members here dont take kindly to that, because we truly believe in our fetish...people on here to make money can just advertise in the pay sites subforum)..."

 

[dtrell]

lets see, i made up the thread, the poll, the question, and my own opinion, yet somehow you know more about what i meant by it than i do. ok if you say so. why ask if you arent going to believe my answer? and i was commenting on other specific professionals i have encountered and nowhere anywhere did i generalize that pros as a whole are more dishonest than others. PLEASE stop reading more into what i said. words mean things. i am an honest person (one of the ones on here), if i meant more than the words say, i would admit it.

 

[Blackrook]

so you are saying what? That I have to accept your

characterization of the poll question at face value? I didn't comment on your intent. I commented on the implication of the question. And I think it is a fair interpretation. I don't really care if you originated the poll, the question or anything else. I think the question implies that professional doms, subs and switches are less honest than the tickling community as a whole. I could care less what you claim you intended.

 

[primetime]

dtrell, i think that is part of the problem why so many people are asking for clarification and why you have to repeat yourself so many times. the way the post starts, it seems (operative word) that you are singling out the workers of BDSM communities as not being honest. It's as though somewhere down the line, some BDSM worker screwed someone over because they werent honest and their only purpose for being here is to drum up business nothing else. You say that is not your intent, but that's what the whole thread seems to indicate.

i think the topic should have been if ANYONE joins the community, should they be honest when they join? The title "Do you think pro sub/swtiches/doms should be honest when they register here?" tells me that they havent been and it is a common occurrence and people are getting screwed over because they are deceiving people. do you see where people can get confused on what the purpose of this thread is?

 

[jaba]

here's whats REALLY going on here, folks.....

I enjoy when the ladies from the L.A. dungeons post. I don`t care if they are promoting themselves or their place of employment. Its all good to me. I have visited the dungeons four times and have always enjoyed talking with the ladies before and after the sessions. I actually became email friends with one that used to work at Passive Arts. Another thing I wanted to point out is that several women from this forum have quit posting in recent months, and its been noticable, at least to me. The attention is good for the remaining ladies, but more more females are desperately needed. The last thing we need to do is chase any of them away. Just my 2 cents.

you are right unclebill, and childish, personal vendetta threads like these do absolutely nothing to help our efforts to recruit more ladies here, which is what I really care about, not something simple and silly like trying to discern their "intentions and motivations".....

look....we are all adults here, and since we are talking about "intentions and motivations", it's about time that we all get to the TRUE motivations for this silly ass poll question....

An individual on this thread (and if his identity is not obvious by now, it will be obvious after he responds to my post) had a "one time" paid tickle session with a local los angeles fetish club female employee, and after the session this guy requested that the lady meet in the future for some FREE, private tickle play at a hotel or other "gathering" spot. The fetish club lady refused this "first time" clients offer, and she gave the explanation that she was under contract with the fetish club, and could be subject to termination for private play outside the facility with clients, under many circumstances....this is true, by the way, in some circumstances...I have been told this by many fetish club ladies, and most folks who frequent BDSM clubs should already know this information.....

I think that the lady was politely trying to tell this guy that she just wasn't interested in his request for free tickle play, and she was kind enough to try to give him a rational explanation, to "let him down easy".....she wasn't really required to give him shit for an explanation, she could have just said, "no, I'm not interested", but she's really a nice lady, and I think she just did not want to appear rude to the guy.....

so this spurned guy is insulted, and now has this childish, petty ass vendetta against fetish club ladies here, because his feelings were hurt, and this open forum is the only way he can lash back at these club ladies for his being rebuffed by some of them.....

one guy here (I cant recall who) who got the "vibe" that there was a "personal matter" in the tone of this thread was dead on correct......


I know the fetish club lady personally, and if anyone here is interested in any other specifics regarding this petty, personal 'dirty laundry" issue (I don't know why, most of you I am sure have better things to do), then you can p m me and I will tell you more about whats going on with this silly situation.....

and please read new TMF member "Genevieve's" (who is a los angeles fetish club employee) "welcome" thread entitled "New to the forums....very ticklish" in our "tickling discussion" section, to hopefully end the speculation about this "personal matter" masquerading as a "poll" thread question....

 

[dtrell]

(I don't know why, most of you I am sure have better things to do), then you can p m me and I will tell you more about whats going on with this silly situation.....

jaba, please mind your own business when you dont know what youre talking about. i thought you were done with this thread. dont be answering any pm's about something you know nothing about. go ahead people, pm "always on the tmf" jaba if you want to get the story from someone that doesnt know what hes talking about. again, this is a simple question being blown out of proportion. i am not going to get into name calling, because unlike you i am not using terms like "petty ass" that violate the golden rule. however, if you want to know what that term means, go check out the multitudes of "which tmf lady laugher is this" threads. those are for people with nothing better to do (again, youre phrase). now i am done replying to you, i am not going into getting baited into name calling as you already have. the mods might want to take note of who is doing the name calling this time.

 

[dtrell]

characterization of the poll question at face value? I didn't comment on your intent. I commented on the implication of the question. And I think it is a fair interpretation. I don't really care if you originated the poll, the question or anything else. I think the question implies that professional doms, subs and switches are less honest than the tickling community as a whole. I could care less what you claim you intended.

1. yes you did, implication and intent are the exact same thing.
2. no it isnt a fair interpretation. anyone can make up anything they want about what someone means. only the person that said it really knows the truth.
3. who originated the question is the only one that counts. he is the one that knows what its intent was.
4. no it doesnt imply that. you made it up in your own mind. everyone on the internet is assumed dishonest until proven otherwise. i dont care what their profession is.
5. i know you dont care what i intended. thats patently obvious. i am now leaving this thread and will leave it to the trolls who can continue to decide on their own what my intention was and before i totally lose my cool and break the golden rule into a million pieces. you and jaba and the others can now have a field day with it. enjoy. ive gotten the answer i intended. the split is about 50/50 supporting my opinon, including stephanie locke who is one of the most well known pro-dommes there is. and i am obviously NOT the only one that believes it. good enough for me to prove my point. if you want to continue to post among the "amen chorus" go ahead. i wont be reading it. make yourselves feel good. its all yours.

adios.

 

[jaba]

finally....some true "honesty"......

jaba, please mind your own business when you dont know what youre talking about. i thought you were done with this thread. dont be answering any pm's about something you know nothing about. go ahead people, pm "always on the tmf" jaba if you want to get the story from someone that doesnt know what hes talking about. again, this is a simple question being blown out of proportion. i am not going to get into name calling, because unlike you i am not using terms like "petty ass" that violate the golden rule. however, if you want to know what that term means, go check out the multitudes of "which tmf lady laugher is this" threads. those are for people with nothing better to do (again, youre phrase). now i am done replying to you, i am not going into getting baited into name calling as you already have. the mods might want to take note of who is doing the name calling this time.

well......it certainly appears that this thread has gotten a little too "honest" for some folks around here......


I don't care, I just don't want any more of our fetish club ladies, or any other ladies around here, for that matter, to feel that they are unwelcome, or feel harrassed into leaving this forum.....as I and others have stated, we like, and need, more ladies around here (even "multitudes" of "TMF lady laughers".....thanks for the "plug", dtrell 😛 )


and I don't think that I need to post a silly "poll", to come to that conclusion.....

 

[Blackrook]

1. yes you did, implication and intent are the exact same thing.

Show me the text. Implication and intent are not the same thing. What a statement implies may not be what the subjective intent of the writer, though in your case, I think it was.

2. no it isnt a fair interpretation. anyone can make up anything they want about what someone means. only the person that said it really knows the truth.

In your opinion. Jaba and Active Verb's contribution shed considerable light on this. And because we are talking about implication, not subjective intent, it is the reader who knows what it implies to him or her.

3. who originated the question is the only one that counts. he is the one that knows what its intent was.

Again, arguing intent, not implication. What effect does the question have the reader.

4. no it doesnt imply that. you made it up in your own mind. everyone on the internet is assumed dishonest until proven otherwise. i dont care what their profession is.

If you don't care what their profession is, why single them out? You haven't answered my original question. Is that because you are unable to? It's a simple question.

5. i know you dont care what i intended. thats patently obvious. i am now leaving this thread and will leave it to the trolls who can continue to decide on their own what my intention was and before i totally lose my cool and break the golden rule into a million pieces. you and jaba and the others can now have a field day with it. enjoy. ive gotten the answer i intended. the split is about 50/50 supporting my opinon, including stephanie locke who is one of the most well known pro-dommes there is. and i am obviously NOT the only one that believes it. good enough for me to prove my point. if you want to continue to post among the "amen chorus" go ahead. i wont be reading it. make yourselves feel good. its all yours.

adios.

Dtrell, take it easy. And I would head Myriad's advice carefully before raising the uncomfortable question of intent with a new member of the community in the future.

Rook.

 

[Bagelfather]

Business on this side of the line, pleasure on the other.

i am talking about them hiding behind a contract where they say that just because they meet a guy at the dungeon, that automatically means they are not allowed to see that guy EVER again outside the dungeon. and i am talking for NO monetary gain. im saying to meet as a friend or whatever they want to meet as. i think there is no such thing in their "contracts". they have personal lives and they have a right of free association, regardless of how hey met the person in question. so when they say this is the reason, i dont believe it. i am also talking about not attending a gathering at a rival dungeon (again for no money but as a private citizen) because the sub in question is into tickling and wants to participate in a gathering.

hope that helps clear it up, and thanks for your opinion and vote.

Once again I point out to business contracts and conflicts of interest. The person has a choice not to work at a dungeon and agree to these things. There are many professions where this type of crossing the line between business and social is not allowed.

Maybe someone can shed the light if a doctor can see his or her patient outside the doctor's office or hospital on a social basis or not or is that a breech of ethics?

Is the core complaint that you met someone in a dungeon and you wanted to have them around in a social setting and they turned you down?