To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Thursday, April 30, 2020

Who are you? Who who who who

Internet anonymity is a mixed blessing from the outset, but when tainted with dishonesty it is a troubling area with the potential to betray trust. It is a common theme in psychology that even in real life, we all wear masks. But the anonymity of the Internet allows that 'mask' to become an entire identity, and fake identities can hurt the feelings of real people.




About twenty years ago or more, there was a blog/forum/website "Patty & Ron's Chastity" ostensibly run by Patty. It included personal anecdotes, advice, interaction with visitors, and even photos of the two. After a while two things happened. Naturally guests like myself and others who were engaged in chastity play in RL became a 'family of friends'. But at the same time, there was a troubling series of inexplicable inconsistencies. Every time Patty & Ron went on a vacation, they would post very sexy, even racy photos of the two of them. And there were always pictures of Ron in his chastity cage. But what you never saw was Patty in any of the chastity pictures, not one, not even holding a key.

With all of the pictures of Patty and  Ron published on that forum, you'd think something as simple as this would be routine.......yet even after being requested, it was an image never to be seen.

Some visitors challenged this and were promptly beaten down by Patty's more avid...even rabid... fans. "Patty" also had a friendship with me, with private emails, exchanges of photos, anecdotes and advice. But after a while, even I said to 'her' privately that she should just quell the doubters with a simple shot of her with Ron in his cage. She always had an excuse and eventually her excuses and refusal to do this simple thing made me suspicious as well. So I pulled back and did not participate like I used to....even feeling  foolish for having trusted this person. 



A short while later, I found out from one of the 'family of friends' that things eventually hit a crescendo and Ron confessed to having been "Patty" all along, and that as wild as the couple seemed, and while really a couple, Patty had no chastity interaction with Ron at all and so he was using the website forum as his outlet. One couple I knew.....a very nice husband and wife....were so devastated that they not only quit the site, but the Internet itself. They disappeared from everywhere they used to post feeling that they could no longer trust anyone anywhere.



I tell this story because it is one personal to me......but certainly nothing unique. To say Ron was some rare anomaly would be foolish and naive. The "Rons" of the adult internet circuit abound. And while I understand them, I also despise them. After the things I discussed and shared with Ron, thinking he was someone else, I feel I could easily, guiltlessly bludgeon the fucker if I ever met him.

How many Rons are out there?

I also tell this story as a warning. It's a warning to my fellow cyber-friends to be ever-vigilant lest you be betrayed one day as well. And it's a warning to the Rons out there: You may think what you are doing is helping you, or is fun for you, and is hurting no one. But it is. As Merlin said in EXCALIBUR:


 So stop. And if you come here, come as who you really are and be welcome for who you are, because if I find out you aren't what you say, I will expose you to everyone.

There is another lesson here. Even if you are who you say you are, be careful not to present fiction as fact. Don't even lie about silly stuff for some whimsical reason, because if you lie about one thing, how can anyone trust you about anything?....especially things that seem somewhat unbelievable in the first place? In fact, if you visit an adult blog that posts adventures, I would say that if the adventure is fairly 'out there', adopt the philosophy of one of our regulars here, Merry: "Pictures, or it didn't happen." There is simply no reason in this day and age why a cell phone shot can't be used to confirm the most outlandish of stories....even if heads are cut off for anonymity. And if those shots aren't there? Don't believe the story. The world has enough mendacity, and while it's easy to perpetrate lies anonymously online, the practice is not welcome. At least not here, not with me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

A special image for Danielle:
Aristotle & Phyllis
(there's also a sculpture of this that used to be on exhibit in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC.)


15 comments:

  1. I see two distinct issues here, one that we see alike on and another that we may not. In the scenario you describe with Patty and Ron, the issue is that a friendship of sorts was formed, albeit on-line. Friendships are friendships, and are built and hinge on trust. If someone "earns" your friendship on the basis of supposedly common interests and values, then there is a real betrayal at issue.

    On the other hand, if someone on a blog claims to be someone they're not, while it may make you feel feel foolish to have believed them, does it actually matter? If anything, I think it might just lead one to question how much time and energy we invest in mostly "relationships" with strangers we don't really know. In all the years I've been blogging, there have been maybe five or six people total who I would say I have developed anything like a real relationship with and, yes, if one of them turned out to be a fraud, I'd feel let down. But, as for the other people I've bumped into, followed, exchanged electronic pleasantries with -- if they turn out to be frauds, why should I care other than to question my own values in terms of how I've chosen to use my time over the last few years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct. The sting is greater with someone who one regards as more than just a random blogger. However, even in the case of just a random faker....it's still dishonest. The perpetrator has no honor. Every time someone displays a lack of integrity, it diminishes all of us as a species. I would cull them from the herd.

      Delete
    2. I don't disagree, but there is a pretty low limit on many fucks I can give about it in the abstract

      Delete
    3. I think I can agree with both of you. What a peacemaker I must be...!

      On the one hand, why would I care who anyone is if I will never meet them or know them, and why should I care if a story is true or not.

      But on the other hand, I find that I do care. I don't really care so much about who people really are (like age or where they are from), though I form a mental image of them, and it is then incorrect, but again who should really care? But I do care when people make up stories and pass them off as real, since I guess one main reason that I even go to blogs is to see how our relationship and practice of DD/FLR compares with others who are into this or related things.

      The other thing that I care even more about (in fact it makes me just about insane) is people who post under different personas, so either they leave under one name and come back under another, or they (the same person) posts as both husband and wife. I am not sure why that bothers me so much, but it does! So no, I don't need to know who "redbutt61" (or whatever handle someone uses) is in real life, but I want any one person who writes on a particular blog to use that name and that name only! Anything less, and I have no use for that person or their input.

      -ZM

      Delete
  2. Oh I don't know, I enjoy suspending my disbelief. But I do agree than the occasional pic to shake up the doubters is good!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding suspending disbelief, there's a resource of kinky fiction, that has "fiction" right in its title: The LSF. If I want fiction I go there. If someone tells me of a real life adventure on a blog, I expect it to BE a real life adventure. It's just like your blog. You post stories that you label as fiction/fantasies and then you have your real life adventures. Are you saying it wouldn't matter if those adventures were fantasy as well? If so, then why draw the distinction when presenting them?

      As for that occasional picture as proof? If you feel that way, perhaps you have a shot of your most recent adventure that you'd like to post? I'm sure your readers would drool over it. I mean, hell, they drool even when there's no picture. LOL. I can't imagine that with three adults present, no one had a cell phone handy?

      Delete
    2. I agree one should make a distinction, but ever since writing the blog I have a heightened appreciation for why the story changes when Hollywood makes a movie out of it. You need to make changes to serve the story (ie. like some events ordering, or like me typing up dialog that is roughly what was said, but since I cant remember what was actually said in detail I try not to belabour the point).

      And there's enough of my bare butt, pussy, and tits on the web to last a lifetime! I hate (love?) when I do a web search for an image to match a theme and it comes up as... me!

      Delete
    3. There is a huge difference between those types of changes and whether a story is real or fiction.

      You need not be exposed either with nudity or facially to provide photos that help illustrate and also corroborate a story.

      Delete
  3. KD, thanks for that interesting piece of art about Aristotle and Phyllis. I looked up the story on Wikipedia, which says it is seen as a cautionary tale about the ability of a seductive woman to triumph over the male intellect. It appears that Phyllis was able to dominate Aristotle not because Aristotle had a submission kink but because his desire enabled Phyllis to bend him to her will. Does that imply, I wonder, that sexy women are naturally dominant over men?

    Your story about Ron and Patty is interesting. Do you know whether Patty ever found out that Ron had been using her as a prop in his online fantasy world? The story as you tell it could have promise as the basis of a short story.

    Danielle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many men do indeed act on their carnal impulses. And those men can easily be controlled.....to a degree. Do not forget that two intermingled facts go back to the beginning of history: 1: women have perpetually been shown to have manipulated men using a combination of their wits and bodies, but 2: actual power was kept firmly and solely in male hands for millennia. So, if one is true how can the other also be true?

      I would not dignify that fucker with a story.....unless it was how I found him and slammed my mace into his face once for each time he interacted with me while pretending to be Patty. (He wouldn't look too good by the time I was finished.)

      Delete
  4. KD,I think the two kinds of power you mention can exist simultaneously, and since women have been excluded from "actual power" for millennia, it is all the more understandable that those able to do so would use sexual wiles to try to get what they want by manipulating men. According to Wikipedia, Aristotle warned Alexander the Great, the most powerful man on earth, to beware of the seductive charms of Phyllis. That's why she decided to humiliate Aristotle in Alexander's eyes, right?

    Concerning Ron, I'm sorry if I came across as being dismissive of your anger. I just think it could make an interesting story, with a compelling plotline and the potential for lots of psychological exploration. It's also very topical, I believe. It's almost surprising there isn't a Netflix series that tells such a story. Or maybe there is?
    Danielle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course they can exist simultaneously because they have and still do to a degree. But it is only men who follow their dicks and women who place their value between their legs that end up as competing puppets in this timeless charade.

      I take no offense at your story suggestion. Perhaps if I could be more dispassionate about the situation, I could write something of interest. Alas, I am still pretty angered by it and that is never a good way to begin a story.

      Delete
  5. KD and Danielle,
    There is little doubt about men retaining most actual power for millennia and at the same time women finding themselves able to manipulate men. I think that this coexistence is largely possible because one happens in the public sphere, and the other in the private sphere. In order to attain public power through such manipulation, a woman would have to manipulate the majority of men, without alienating women. And while men, even very powerful men, might even willingly allow themselves to be manipulated by a powerful, sexy women, they also want that attention to be unique to them. As soon as a woman is too publicly seen as powerful and sexy, she becomes less attractive to many men and might be labeled as a bitch or a slut, so the more public she becomes, the less power of seduction she has. But that is just my thought.

    -ZM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The public versus private aspect has truth to it, but one would think it's still odd.

      Delete
  6. That reminds me:

    I'm past due for an updated picture on my blog. Let's see if I can come up with something entertaining.

    ReplyDelete