Clients with hidden cameras

Posted by: AspX

Clients with hidden cameras - 01/22/20 03:46 AM

This was posted by an escort but could be just as relevant to our Pro Dommes:

Clients with hidden cameras Twitter thread

Just another thing that they have to put up with that I, as a client, would never think of...
Posted by: MsRoseWoods

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 01/22/20 06:07 AM

AspX, It's a concern. However, unlike escorts I don't conduct illegal activities during my professional sessions.
Posted by: Will2020

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 01/22/20 09:36 AM

Regarding illegal activities in a Dom/Sub session, how would anyone ascertain what a state like CT. says is illegal ? I assume strapon is considered sex but I could be wrong. I would think certain states would consider full toilet training to be illegal as well. Is there a source to go to determine what CT says is illegal in domination ? Thanks to anyone who can help. The lack of clarity on these issues has concerned me for a while now.
Posted by: Mistress Ayn

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 01/22/20 07:07 PM

There was a thread on here that gave some details by state regarding what is considered illegal. I am sure some industrious poster can find you the link if you are unable to find it.

However, what is really important is knowing what is enforced in a particular area and for that you probably have to depend on your local Domme to know and be on top of that.

I can tell you what activities should not be done/offered in my area, but I haven't the foggiest idea about say, Des Moines Iowa.
Posted by: Komodo

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 01/23/20 03:11 AM

I am one of the clients with unconcealed cameras. In real life the space of the session is under the control of the dungeon or of the mistress much more than of the sub, so the sub is at much greater risk of being recorded against his wishes. And it does happen.
Posted by: Mistress Ayn

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 01/23/20 10:05 AM

You know, the crazy thing is, I wouldn't care if the guy just told me. I've allowed clients to set up cameras and film their session many times. However, doing it covertly like this is wrong on so many levels in an environment that is so much about trust.

Several years ago a young guy did a session with me and he wore these thick owlish glasses throughout the session. I was laughing with UV about how ridiculous they were after the session and she said he was probably filming it. I really didn't know there was such a thing but I have been on the lookout for it ever since.
Posted by: Will2020

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 01/23/20 10:11 AM

Mistress Ayn -
I found the thread with the state laws. It was very helpful. Thanks.
Posted by: Mistress Tissa

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 02/02/20 05:21 AM

Originally Posted By MsRoseWoods
unlike escorts I don't conduct illegal activities during my professional sessions.


Respectfully, Ms. Rose, how *we* may be violating the law isn't necessarily the only concern here. Filming someone in a private setting without their consent can be illegal. It's also a gross violation of trust.

Also, never underestimate someone else's malice. A disgruntled or sociopathic sub could use it to harm you in several ways.
Posted by: Mistress Tissa

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 02/02/20 05:22 AM

Originally Posted By Komodo
I am one of the clients with unconcealed cameras. In real life the space of the session is under the control of the dungeon or of the mistress much more than of the sub, so the sub is at much greater risk of being recorded against his wishes. And it does happen.


You secretly film Dommes?
Posted by: Poester

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 02/02/20 04:12 PM

"Unconcealed", but it's not clear if all parties are made aware of it.
Posted by: Mistress Tissa

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 02/02/20 09:04 PM

Originally Posted By Poester
"Unconcealed", but it's not clear if all parties are made aware of it.


Yes, that's why I asked.

I'm not sure I understand having an unconcealed camera if you're not using it. Is it a threat?
Posted by: Poester

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 02/03/20 03:26 PM

Maybe Komodo should answer. I would say if it's legit, inside security camera?
Posted by: junglebeast

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 02/11/20 10:05 AM

Originally Posted By Mistress Ayn
You know, the crazy thing is, I wouldn't care if the guy just told me. I've allowed clients to set up cameras and film their session many times. However, doing it covertly like this is wrong on so many levels in an environment that is so much about trust.

Several years ago a young guy did a session with me and he wore these thick owlish glasses throughout the session. I was laughing with UV about how ridiculous they were after the session and she said he was probably filming it. I really didn't know there was such a thing but I have been on the lookout for it ever since.


Google glasses have been around for a while but I'm not sure if they record anything. Videoing a session, secretly, is absolutely a violation of trust and probably illegal. When I was a lot younger, and a lot more paranoid about sessions, I worried that if I saw a new Mistress at a dungeon there might be secret taping going on. (Of course it was paranoia.)

Once I was asked to do a video with a Domina who was a bodybuilder about a decade ago. I wore a mask and it was consensual. She did the entire video herself, I helped a bit with the camera work. Plenty of cutting. She was getting programming for her site, to sell them online. Alas mine was never released. She met someone and retired around a year later.

P.S. - Komodo should answer his post.
Posted by: MsRoseWoods

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 02/12/20 04:10 AM

Originally Posted By Mistress Tissa
Originally Posted By MsRoseWoods
unlike escorts I don't conduct illegal activities during my professional sessions.


Respectfully, Ms. Rose, how *we* may be violating the law isn't necessarily the only concern here. Filming someone in a private setting without their consent can be illegal. It's also a gross violation of trust.

Also, never underestimate someone else's malice. A disgruntled or sociopathic sub could use it to harm you in several ways.



Mistress Tissa, I agree that being recorded against your will is unacceptable.

My point is, and will always be, real Dommes and prostitutes have nothing in common. Prostitutes are not our sisters. They are willful lawbreakers, who are exploited by men and shunned by society.

I hate to see articles on Domme boards about prostitutes.
Posted by: Mistress Tissa

Re: "prostitutes" - 02/14/20 12:47 AM

Originally Posted By MsRoseWoods
My point is, and will always be, real Dommes and prostitutes have nothing in common. Prostitutes are not our sisters. They are willful lawbreakers, who are exploited by men and shunned by society.

I hate to see articles on Domme boards about prostitutes.


Ahem. Let me try to be a polite about this as I can muster.

I would not have such a superior attitude about your job as a Dominatrix. Ms. Woods. Your average person make little to no differentiation between what a "prostitute" does and what you and I do.

"willful lawbreakers"

In some jurisdictions, you can get arrested for being a BDSM professional. And in other jurisdictions, in the right circumstances, which ended up not going in your favor, you could be prosecuted for accepting payment for providing what some people consider a "lewd" act. In that case, you will be charged as "prostitute".

Because you don't see "prostitutes" are your "sisters" doesn't mean the rest of us don't. I support all sex workers, adult professionals, or whatever words you want to describe the kind of word we do, and I fight for our collective human rights.

Exploited by men and shunned by society? This is standard anti-sex work activist rhetoric. They, like you, don't realize that this is exactly what the Patriarchy wants you to do: Shame women about using their bodies and sexuality in the way they choose and then gaslight them by saying they're "exploited", thereby erasing their agency.

Please rethink your view here. We don't need any more hatred and vitriol directed at *anyone* in this industry.
Posted by: Miss Adah Vonn

Re: "prostitutes" - 02/14/20 02:23 AM

Hear, hear! Well said, M. Tissa, thank you. I wholeheartedly agree.

Upholding the whore-iarchy benefits no one, whereas supporting others in the industry who are different from you is good not only for your personal image but the community as a whole.

Whorephobia is not exclusive to civilians or clients, and deserves to be examined and dismantled. How can we change society's perception of us if there is stigma amongst sex workers ourselves? Like it or not, Dommes are sex workers. Sexual wellness is healthy and needs to move beyond stigma for the safety of all involved. If you've never done outside work, consider yourself lucky. These attitudes cost people's lives.
Posted by: MsRoseWoods

Re: "prostitutes" - 02/14/20 05:55 AM

Mistress Tissa, I won't change my opinion in this lifetime, or the next!

The simple fact is LE dictates that a group of prostitutes discussing their collective enterprise, is by law criminal conspiracy!

The further Dommes move toward prostitution by word and deed, the less LE, and the community as a whole sees a difference.

There was a time, not so distant when Dommes conducted sessions fully clothed. My mentor never sat on clients faces nude, or in a nonexistent thong! She didn't fuck on twitter or make kink porn clips!

I was taught to be proud of being a Dominatrix!

The concept of sisterhood with lamppost lizards, erodes the chasm that divides the worlds oldest profession from Female Domination!

Although I respect your opinion, we will simply have to agree to disagree on this subject.
Posted by: BentOver

Re: With a certain amount of trepidation - 02/14/20 08:23 AM

Being a man, I weigh in here with a certain amount of trepidation.

In most jurisdictions, "prostitution" is defined, roughly, as "performing a sex act for money." Just what a "sex act" is may or may not be enumerated. In any case, there's enough uncertainty for LE to do pretty much do whatever it wants.

What I'm asserting is that the common Domme website disclaimer, "Domination is not prostitution" has no legal meaning. Sex work of all types (and even mass-market musical performance, consider the holy roller suing the NFL over the Super Bowl halftime) is stigmatized by someone, somewhere. If that someone is the district attorney in an election year, watch out. If a defendant can afford a really good lawyer, she can argue her case in court. Good luck.

I suggest that we ought not to judge what sort of sexual behaviors grown-up humans consent to do of their own free will in private. In fact, I'd go further to say that we ought to respect their agency and vigorously support their choices.

(Just realized this is my first post over here. So I probably should say I've been posting over at MF, although not often, for many years.)
Posted by: subspace

Re: "prostitutes" - 02/14/20 01:13 PM

Originally Posted By MsRoseWoods

Although I respect your opinion, we will simply have to agree to disagree on this subject.
Your opinion, and Mistress Tissa's, and mine, are wholly irrelevant. In some jurisdictions, BDSM when done for money is prostitution, full stop. In the state of Nevada, for example, prostitution is "Engaging in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee, money, or something else of value." And "sexual contact" is "Sexual intercourse, oral-genital contact, or any touching of the sexual organs (or another intimate part) of a person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of either party." (https://statelaws.findlaw.com/nevada-law/nevada-prostitution-and-solicitation-laws.html). If you tweak a client's nipples in the State of Nevada and accept payment for it, you are legally a prostitute. Full stop, no opinions needed or requested by the state.
Posted by: DominaAdmin

Re: Clients with hidden cameras - 02/14/20 01:33 PM

This series of posts has gone completely off topic.

The topic has been locked.

Thank everyone for their comments.