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.