Who are you to expose someone?

“Who are you to expose someone?” was written for BDSMforyou.nl by Mistress Moriah.

Definition
Exposing means publicly revealing or putting someone on display, often by sharing personal information or compromising images in order to shame or punish them.

It comes up fairly often on social media: (commercial) ladies, particularly in the Findom scene, who “expose” subs. They publish compromising photos or messages of subs who have not kept to their agreements. The message is clear: “He wanted to play, but he didn't pay - so now I'm showing him for what he is.”

But is that actually allowed? And more importantly: as a Dominant or Mistress, do you even want to do that? Where is the line between justice and abuse of power?

Why this is sensitive

BDSM is about trust. About consent. About a dynamic that, however commercial or playful, always requires a form of vulnerability. As a sub you open yourself up - emotionally, physically, sometimes financially. Even when it concerns commercial arrangements, there is a form of trust underneath.

And what happens when that trust is betrayed? When a sub makes agreements but then doesn't stick to them? Of course that causes frustration. Of course that's unfair. But does that justify nailing him to the pillory in public and exposing him?

Is exposing ever justified?

There are people who say it is: “He knew what the consequences were. He chose it.” But there is a dangerous element in that. Because even if someone has done something wrong, does that mean you can simply decide how far you go in punishing him? Are you his judge and executioner at the same time?

And imagine this: what if you are mistaken? What if someone genuinely had money problems or no longer dared to respond out of shame? What if, in your anger or frustration, you publish something you can't undo later? Because the internet doesn't forget. A photo that starts circulating keeps circulating.

The question is not whether it is understandable to be angry. The question is: Is it proportionate?

The legal side

Legally speaking, you're on thin ice. Publishing recognisable photos without permission can be seen as a violation of privacy and in some cases as defamation or slander. Even if someone has broken agreements, that doesn't automatically give you the right to make his personal information or photos public.

Even unrecognisable posts can be risky. If someone can still be identified in another way (through tattoos, clothing, location), you can still be held liable.

If you take photos during a session, it is always wise to make explicit agreements beforehand about what may and may not be done with those photos. Even if someone is wearing a mask, the rule remains: no recognisable details without clear, written consent.

But what if the sub is wearing a mask?

Photos in which a sub is completely unrecognisable - no face, no distinguishing features - are generally safe to publish, especially if you respect anonymity. Think of close-ups of hands, back, clothing or a pose that gives nothing away. This can even be a lovely way to share your work without harming anyone's privacy.

But here too: always ask first. Because sometimes the recognisability isn't in the face, but in small details you overlook yourself.

Power and responsibility

What preoccupies me most is the question: who are you to expose someone? Yes, someone may have abused your time or trust. But as a Dominant you carry responsibility, including in how you deal with disappointment. BDSM gives you power. But power without ethics is dangerous. If you casually put your subs on display online, are you still a trustworthy Mistress - or someone who uses her power for revenge?

And honestly: what does it say about the professionalism of the scene if this is considered normal? Trust is fragile enough already.

What does this do to the community?

Imagine you're a sub who does have serious intentions, but you're unsure whether you dare. If he sees how easily someone is put online, how do you think he feels? This kind of action reinforces the stigma. It confirms exactly that image of BDSM as dangerous, untrustworthy and vindictive.

And that, when we should be showing that BDSM is about consent, safety and integrity.

Worth discussing

I don't want to say that subs never make mistakes. Of course that happens; believe me, after so many years of experience as a Pro Domme, I really know all about it. But how we deal with those mistakes determines how safe this world is. Perhaps that is the real question: Do you need your power to punish someone publicly? Or can you also let him go and move on with those who do show respect?

And if you make a commercial arrangement: shouldn't you communicate much better beforehand about expectations, payment terms and consequences? Because if that is clear, exposing may not be necessary at all. A deposit, for example, can at least compensate for some of your time and the room hire in the case of a "no-show".

Cutting corners

Let's be honest: sometimes it's far more nuanced and it isn't even about anger or frustration. There are subs who find being exposed exciting. They crave that danger, that tension of recognition and shame. For some, that fear is the trigger that touches them most deeply, perhaps even more than pain or humiliation itself. The idea that the world could suddenly see what they secretly are can be a powerful mental game - a fantasy that arouses them to the bone. But then comes the question: as a commercial Mistress, should you go along with such a desire?

What does this sub really get out of this? Is it pure arousal, a boundary-pushing game, or is there a deeper emotional layer underneath that he doesn't yet understand himself? And how do you stay honest and principled in a dynamic that is so legally and ethically complex? Even if there is direct or indirect consent, it remains a thin line. Because how voluntary is such a yes, if the sub is at that moment in a state of surrender or arousal in which he would say anything?

And what does it say about you as a Mistress if you let yourself be seduced by a desire that is perhaps more risky than exciting? Sometimes as a Dominant you have to be the strongest by not going along, however exciting it may seem. Because power also means being able to refuse when something could harm you or the other in the long term.

And what follows after the sub's release? When horniness is no longer his driving force and that photo is still just online...?

Fake accounts and fake profiles

And one more thing. If you have only spoken to someone online, you never know 100% for sure whether the image you have of them - literally or figuratively - is accurate. You don't know whether that photo is really theirs. Or whether, in your indignation or on impulse, you'll end up throwing online the identity of someone who has absolutely nothing to do with your story. Then you not only risk destroying someone publicly, but also being responsible for a gross mistake yourself. And no, “it really looked like him” is no excuse. It is careless, dangerous and irreparable.

Your own responsibility

At the same time… it is also part of the job a little. This line of work comes with risks, especially in the commercial sphere. There's a reason a hefty hourly rate goes with it. You're not only selling time or play, you also carry responsibility, intuition and knowledge of people with you. And yes, it is also up to us to separate the wheat from the chaff in advance. Something that sounds too good is often simply too good to be true. I have seen exposés where a sub just promised a thousand euros for five minutes of dominance. Then you may well want to scratch your head: how serious are those words?

Actively checking, thinking logically, asking for deposits, researching backgrounds - it all comes with the territory. As a freelancer you simply carry part of the business risk as well. But if you are sharp beforehand, nobody needs to be put in the pillory afterwards.

How do I deal with visual material myself?

During sessions I often take photos - because it's lovely to capture a moment. But I never publish them in a recognisable way. No faces, no details that could give someone away. Always completely anonymous. Because the privacy of my subs is sacred. Even if I were disappointed, that principle stands. Because ultimately BDSM is about trust. And trust is something you protect, not something you use as leverage.

Even if a sub says he has no problem with me posting an exciting photo of him with his full face visible, I don't do it. It is not up to me to expose someone. So I put a mask over it anyway. At least as exciting.

What do you think?

Is it ever justified to expose someone? Or does it always remain not done, however annoying it is when someone doesn't keep his agreements? And how far does your responsibility as a Dominant go - also outside the session?

Frequently asked questions

Mistress Moriah

Source

Text & photography: Mistress Moriah