Personally I just think it comes down to physical damage and permission.

Though I’m certainly good to move on. I respect everyone’s opinion here and understand folks certainly see things differently than I.

Definitely my last post on this thread and look forward to going back to just chatting about kinky stuff!

Truly appreciate the civil discussion here especially on such a hot button topic imo. (I mean that sincerely, hope it comes across that way).

All of this boils down to the importance of respecting others in their space and expecting the same in return. And, yes, we need to move on.

I started a fun thread on Amazon women fantasies. See you on the other thread that is about fun stuff. In fact, I just might lock this one. The conversation has run it's course.

I have absolutely never defended the priest, his role in this or in anyway said that his behavior wasn't the root of the entire thing. I resent the implication that I did by your lumping him in with my defending Ming and Lady Vi.

I have stated MY opinion that the women were given an opportunity to create what would have been very good, and legal, fetish content by someone who they probably assumed had the authority to allow them to do that in that space. Which, in MY opinion, was the focus of their participation rather all the motives you have assigned to them.

The Priest absolutely violated the trust of his flock in the most basic way. Whether that rises to a violation of the law or not is a different question rather than just a fireable offense, but there is no doubt that it was an egregious violation of his position regardless of whether it was prompted solely by his crotch or his desire to give his Mistress this opportunity as a gift.



First off... Cheyenne didn't say that here, she wrongly speculated that on Max... where I defended myself and she responded "As you say it is your opinion, oka...ntention." Quoting her over here, without that context or linkage, is just poor etiquette on any site.

My full response to her (for anyone that cares) can be seen here.

There I went into detail about why I view things the way I do... But, here I will say that I resent any implication that I cannot think for myself or hold my own opinions on matters.. that idea is deeply insulting.

Also, to clarify over here as well, I started this thread without prompting or communication from either of these women based on the fact that this incident was discussed when it occurred and each time there was an update. I referenced and quoted Vi's 4 Twitter posts (which came across my feed from others since I do not know nor follow her), then added MY OWN opinion on it including the statements that they should be supported by us as a community.

I appreciate Cheyenne reopening this thread so I could respond to your insinuations that I can't or don't speak for myself and will ignore the rest of your statements with one exception since she will be closing it again after I post this.




This is just false. There was zero vandalization or destruction of property by anyone involved that night.

Saying they did something that the church felt "desecrated the altar" and those acts drove the church leaders to destroy the property the next day is valid. Saying that the church members felt violated is valid. But, neither of those things is either vandalism or destruction of property in anyone's definition other than your own.

It couldn't have been easy being a lone voice on such a heated subject. Thank you for being civil yet standing up and speaking your mind. I'm locking the thread back up. The topic seems to have run it's course.

The infamous demonic duo volunteer to testify against defrocked priest!


From the Daily Mail. By JANON FISHER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 16:47 EDT, 10 August 2022 | UPDATED: 16:58 EDT, 10 August 2022


Professional dominatrix duo Lady Vi and Empress Ming arrested for having sex with a Catholic priest on a church altar plead guilty to New Orleans church sex desecration charges, agree to testify against former clergyman

Empress Ming, and Lady Vi, who offer dominatrix services, pleaded down to misdemeanor charges.

They have agreed to testify against former Catholic priest who was charged with felony counts of institutional vandalism and obscenity

The three were caught with sex toys and a video camera on the altar of Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church the priest, who was suspended from the priesthood, will go on trial in January

He was also accused of defecating on a rug at the altar of the Pear River church.

A pair of dominatrices arrested for having sex with a Catholic priest on the altar of a New Orleans church in 2020 have taken a plea deal with prosecutors in exchange for their testimony against the kinky clergyman.

X professionally known as Mistress Ming, and X AKA Satanatrix or Lady Vi, each entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of institutional vandalism.

They also agreed to return to court next year as a witness for the prosecution of the priest. the former pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Pearl River.

The priest, is charged with obscenity and institutional vandalism, both felonies, for his role in the raunchy romp.

Lady Vi and Empress Ming had also faced felony charges before their pleading on July 26 - the same day that they were issued summonses to appear at the Priest's trial in January, according to the news city NOLA.com.

Both women received suspended sentences and two years of supervised probation. They will avoid any jail time. Empress Ming lives in Atlanta and Lady Vi is based in Seattle, according to their online profiles.

A call to St. Tammany Parish District Attorney requesting comment was not immediately returned. Ming and Lady Vi's lawyers could not be reached for comment.

Lady Vi, also known as Satanatrix, has agreed to plead guilty and will testify against the priest.

Empress Ming, agreed to two years supervised release in exchange for her charges being reduced to misdemeanor institutional vandalism, and will testify against the priest.

The fallen holy man foresaw his alleged partners in crime turn against him and his lawyer filed a motion to split his criminal case from theirs, saying that he believed that they intended 'to exculpate themselves by placing all the blame on the priest for both the institutional vandalism and the obscenity.'

A lawyer for the two dominatrices said that they had been hired for 'role-play' and were performing consensual acts when they were arrested on the night of September 30, 2020.

A passerby noticing lights on in the Pearl River church was stunned at the scene.

According to the prosecutors, the witness saw the priest stripped down on the altar engaging in sex acts with the corseted women in high-heeled boots.

Police seized sex toys, lighting and camera equipment during the arrest.

The attorney who represented both women, said that the acts were on private property out of the public eye.

The case against T going forward seems to hinge on how he vandalized the church.

In one motion filed by the district attorney, they claimed that the former priest 'defecated on the carpet,' according to NOLA.com.

Prosecutors showed a $400 bill that the church paid to clean the carpet, according to the publication.

'Cleaning would be the minimal effort required to restore the carpet's function,' NOlA reported the filing saying. 'Replacement would be ideal.'

The priest's lawyers have questioned whether the acts were obscene or in public view.

'See video,' the prosecutors responded, according to court papers.


Google "Dominatrix pearl river catholic church 2022"

His identity, and what they did, was already pubic knowledge.

Before they pled down to a misdemeanor, they faced up to three years in prison for a felony offense. That's a lot of pressure to cooperate. Testifying may well have been part of the deal to get the reduced charge.

Seriously, this is just a ridiculous statement that should not be acceptable on this site as you are attacking Dommes in a way designed specifically to hurt their livelihood.

We all know that this wasn't a "session" and have endlessly debated the details of the event. You want to call them "Rat Finks" for taking a deal for a reduced sentence after 2 1/2 years of intense legal fuckery by the New Orleans DA? Fine... but, framing it as you have above is designed specifically as a personal attack that has specific meaning in this community (and you know it).

In addition, the reporting in this article from an English news source can be easily seen as bad just by these statements:







That kind of misrepresentation of facts as a "threesome" a "sex frolic" and for "having sex with" can easily put this article into the category of fake news and brings ALL the details within the article into question, so transcribing it here as some authoritative account has little value. But, using their real initials (while adding in their working names) in your transcription is much more suspect. Especially since you gleefully provided the link to the article that blasts their legal identities across the very top of the article.

I thought we were done with this topic and it had been locked, but apparently unlocking a thread to allow someone to blatantly attack and provide links to the real identities of Dommes is now a Domina.ms thing?

At this point, this smacks more of political/religious debate with all the same tricks and BS we used to see in the Politics section before it was dumped for bringing more harm than good to this forum. You hate these Dommes on a visceral/personal level because they offended your religious beliefs with their actions... that's your right. However, personal attacks on Dommes, like you have done, should never be acceptable on this site for any reason no matter how offended you get.

If you wish the content of the article to stand as part of this thread, I am ok with that. I would, however, call on you (or a moderator to force you) to do the following:

1) Remove your personal comment personally attacking Dommes in a way that could effect their livelihood as a Domme from the top of your post

2) Remove the initials of the people involved and only use either a nickname (or their professional name) in your transcription

3) Delete the link to the published article that exposes the legal identities of Dommes (which is really unnecessary if you are already transcribing it)

+1

It was not my decision to unlock this thread. I hadn't wanted to participate. But, I have to ask, please do not include the "Community" in the same category as these women. And this has zero to do with religion or politics. From an agnostic, prodom and long time femdom video producer, what these ladies did was repulsive. It was incredibly poor behavior. Most kinksters have more respect than to enter someone else's home, without proper permission, and film videos that make fun of their closely held belief system. The fact that they did it for profit is even worse. Most kinksters I know have respect for other people, regardless of their belief system, and expect the same in return. Between here and MF, the folks that feel these women had a right to do this, are in the stark minority. The lashing out at the members of the church, for what they choose to believe, smacks of bigotry.

In response to other parts of this thread, I accept this as valid comment.

However, this has nothing to do with to my post that you are replying to... Which is specifically about what should be allowable to be said about ANY Domme or sub on this board.

Posting the legal name of a sub?

Posting the initials of Dommes legal names?

Posting a link to an article that continually outs the legal identities of Dommes?

Posting a statement that indicates booking a general session with a Domme will turn you over to the police?

In MY opinion, all of this should be violations of the communities standards on this type of board regardless of how you feel about the Dommes or subs in question. Period.

As a moderator in general, and the one specifically for this board, it is also MY opinion that you should be correcting his behavior within that particular post and asking him to adjust it to avoid these issues. What your opinion is of the behavior of these women, my "bigotry" or whether I should be allowed to use the word community in a sentence is honestly irrelevant to the general objections I voiced.