Crimes of Passion

[Byron In Exile]

You just can't un-explain this:

If he was 16, then sexual intercourse would have been legal in most States.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Nerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd

At university, a friend and I gained privileged access to their timesharing system. We recompiled some of the system programs to make sure we could keep it, and others to do things like make us invisible in the system status so that not even the administrators could see when we were online. After that, we cut down on using the main labs that had dozens of terminals to avoid arousing suspicion (being there working while not showing up as online was a bit of a giveaway), and used a smaller lab in the Psych building that just had three terminals.

From there, we wrote a utility program that could perform all sorts of system functions which would produce a system violation if run from a non-privileged account. There was one other guy that figured out the hole we'd exploited before the administrators closed it, but he wasn't as clever, and spent most of the time he had privilege trying to spy on us and rip off our programs. We watched him do this one evening, and after he'd copied several source files to his account, we deleted them. He immediately consulted the system status several times, which showed us as not being online, so he copied the files again. And we deleted them again. Then he composed an angry letter to an administrator recounting his version of what had just happened and how it had to be us even though we weren't showing up as online and we'd infiltrated their system and they'd better wake up and recompile the entire system to flush us out and blah blah etc. Then he logged off. And then we deleted his message.

Our three most fun ideas, beyond the things that were practical and useful, were the commands "ring," "roll," and "panic." The roll command would send continuous line feeds to any terminal, or all terminals. So whatever the person was doing would scroll off the screen, and each time they hit a key, that would scroll off, too. The ring command would send continuous BEL characters. Using "ring all" in one of the large labs had a spectacular effect.

But by far, "panic" was the most fun. It would kill every job one by one, hang up every phone (you could hear the clicking relays and see the lights go out on data sets all around the lab), and disable logins so if they dialed back in, they wouldn't get a login prompt, but a message saying the system was currently unavailable. Lastly, it would kill the job running on the operator's console and open the console for binary input, which meant the operator couldn't do anything and couldn't control-C out of it. And I'm here to tell you: that system was blisteringly fast with just one active terminal.

The panic command actually did have a purpose, though: it was necessary to reduce the system to running a single job in order to use the "halt" command. What that did was execute a function that stopped the CPU at a fixed address. No diagnostic dump, no record of what had happened or how it got there. And, of course, when you write this stuff, you have to test it to make sure it works properly. Which we did. Twice. And that was probably what spurred the administration into action, unfortunately.

It wasn't a crime at the time, but we were definitely passionate about what we were doing, in addition to being inconsiderate and arrogant. Regrets? Some. If I could go back, we could have shut down the system at night, when there were only a few people on it, instead of midday when almost every terminal was occupied. And we didn't really need to do it two times.

You were fapping the entire time you were typing this, weren't you?

 

[pointless]

If he was 16, then sexual intercourse would have been legal in most States.

if you want to go that route at 14 it would've been legal in several countries in europe.

 

[RobDownSouth]

if you want to go that route at 14 it would've been legal in several countries in europe.

...and probably 10 in certain African kingdoms!

 

[Byron In Exile]

if you want to go that route at 14 it would've been legal in several countries in europe.

It didn't happen in Europe.

 

[Byron In Exile]

You were fapping the entire time you were typing this, weren't you?

Of course not.

Is that what this thread has come to: nobody can confess a non-sexual crime in here, now?

Besides, if it were a sexual crime, you know I'd have logged in as you to confess it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It didn't happen in Europe.

Colonel Mustard, in the parlor, with the dildo.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Colonel Mustard, in the parlor, with the dildo.

Saint Peter, in the basement, with the ass-hook.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Of course not.

Is that what this thread has come to: nobody can confess a non-sexual crime in here, now?

Besides, if it were a sexual crime, you know I'd have logged in as you to confess it.

I've only got three left to confess, if they need any more than that, we'll have to log in as you and work through your stockpile.

I'd caution you to recall that bestiality is on Laurel's "no-no" list as well. (That's why JamesBJohnson hasn't posted more here).

 

[Phelia]

At university, a friend and I gained privileged access to their timesharing system. We recompiled some of the system programs to make sure we could keep it, and others to do things like make us invisible in the system status so that not even the administrators could see when we were online. After that, we cut down on using the main labs that had dozens of terminals to avoid arousing suspicion (being there working while not showing up as online was a bit of a giveaway), and used a smaller lab in the Psych building that just had three terminals.

From there, we wrote a utility program that could perform all sorts of system functions which would produce a system violation if run from a non-privileged account. There was one other guy that figured out the hole we'd exploited before the administrators closed it, but he wasn't as clever, and spent most of the time he had privilege trying to spy on us and rip off our programs. We watched him do this one evening, and after he'd copied several source files to his account, we deleted them. He immediately consulted the system status several times, which showed us as not being online, so he copied the files again. And we deleted them again. Then he composed an angry letter to an administrator recounting his version of what had just happened and how it had to be us even though we weren't showing up as online and we'd infiltrated their system and they'd better wake up and recompile the entire system to flush us out and blah blah etc. Then he logged off. And then we deleted his message.

Our three most fun ideas, beyond the things that were practical and useful, were the commands "ring," "roll," and "panic." The roll command would send continuous line feeds to any terminal, or all terminals. So whatever the person was doing would scroll off the screen, and each time they hit a key, that would scroll off, too. The ring command would send continuous BEL characters. Using "ring all" in one of the large labs had a spectacular effect.

But by far, "panic" was the most fun. It would kill every job one by one, hang up every phone (you could hear the clicking relays and see the lights go out on data sets all around the lab), and disable logins so if they dialed back in, they wouldn't get a login prompt, but a message saying the system was currently unavailable. Lastly, it would kill the job running on the operator's console and open the console for binary input, which meant the operator couldn't do anything and couldn't control-C out of it. And I'm here to tell you: that system was blisteringly fast with just one active terminal.

The panic command actually did have a purpose, though: it was necessary to reduce the system to running a single job in order to use the "halt" command. What that did was execute a function that stopped the CPU at a fixed address. No diagnostic dump, no record of what had happened or how it got there. And, of course, when you write this stuff, you have to test it to make sure it works properly. Which we did. Twice. And that was probably what spurred the administration into action, unfortunately.

It wasn't a crime at the time, but we were definitely passionate about what we were doing, in addition to being inconsiderate and arrogant. Regrets? Some. If I could go back, we could have shut down the system at night, when there were only a few people on it, instead of midday when almost every terminal was occupied. And we didn't really need to do it two times.

This is riot. I can imagine you guys reading the message and cracking up. Twice. Evil. Awesome.

 

[Noor]

At university, a friend and I gained privileged access to their timesharing system. We recompiled some of the system programs to make sure we could keep it, and others to do things like make us invisible in the system status so that not even the administrators could see when we were online. After that, we cut down on using the main labs that had dozens of terminals to avoid arousing suspicion (being there working while not showing up as online was a bit of a giveaway), and used a smaller lab in the Psych building that just had three terminals.

From there, we wrote a utility program that could perform all sorts of system functions which would produce a system violation if run from a non-privileged account. There was one other guy that figured out the hole we'd exploited before the administrators closed it, but he wasn't as clever, and spent most of the time he had privilege trying to spy on us and rip off our programs. We watched him do this one evening, and after he'd copied several source files to his account, we deleted them. He immediately consulted the system status several times, which showed us as not being online, so he copied the files again. And we deleted them again. Then he composed an angry letter to an administrator recounting his version of what had just happened and how it had to be us even though we weren't showing up as online and we'd infiltrated their system and they'd better wake up and recompile the entire system to flush us out and blah blah etc. Then he logged off. And then we deleted his message.

Our three most fun ideas, beyond the things that were practical and useful, were the commands "ring," "roll," and "panic." The roll command would send continuous line feeds to any terminal, or all terminals. So whatever the person was doing would scroll off the screen, and each time they hit a key, that would scroll off, too. The ring command would send continuous BEL characters. Using "ring all" in one of the large labs had a spectacular effect.

But by far, "panic" was the most fun. It would kill every job one by one, hang up every phone (you could hear the clicking relays and see the lights go out on data sets all around the lab), and disable logins so if they dialed back in, they wouldn't get a login prompt, but a message saying the system was currently unavailable. Lastly, it would kill the job running on the operator's console and open the console for binary input, which meant the operator couldn't do anything and couldn't control-C out of it. And I'm here to tell you: that system was blisteringly fast with just one active terminal.

The panic command actually did have a purpose, though: it was necessary to reduce the system to running a single job in order to use the "halt" command. What that did was execute a function that stopped the CPU at a fixed address. No diagnostic dump, no record of what had happened or how it got there. And, of course, when you write this stuff, you have to test it to make sure it works properly. Which we did. Twice. And that was probably what spurred the administration into action, unfortunately.

It wasn't a crime at the time, but we were definitely passionate about what we were doing, in addition to being inconsiderate and arrogant. Regrets? Some. If I could go back, we could have shut down the system at night, when there were only a few people on it, instead of midday when almost every terminal was occupied. And we didn't really need to do it two times.

Yes, totally understood. Not going to say much because I don't want to out myself too much.

For several years in the late 70's the operators of this major university's computer system would bet us that we couldn't take down the system by graduation. It would start in Sept, first thing we would have to do was get into our accounts and add more time, if we weren't at least 1/2 way there by Jan they would give us small hints, if we got too close too soon, they would actively block us, we always succeeded, sometimes we would be kind and wait to shut it down without a trace during the nothing week of graduation.

During college we would sometimes do small projects to help make tuition and we discovered quite early on that some companies would try to get out of paying because we were kids. So we tied stuff to the system clock that would shut down our projects within 45 days. If they paid up and on time, we would think of a cool free tweak which we would do for free and remove it, otherwise we would point out that they hadn't paid, and only "fix it" when after we had cashed their check.

Some of the computer and phone law written in the 80's was inspired by some of my and my friend's activities, and if the person who wrote it is on here, remember I have serious dirt on you too

We were elite kids? Yes.
Were we in the right place at the right time? Yep.
Did I use this to my advantage? Nope, not really.
Did I have a blast? Oh yeah!

Do I still love a challenge of taking something down? Yes, but only when invited to, in writing.

 

[Recidiva]

Thank you for the PM. I really do think some people are still confused and curious, so for their edification, I'll respond here. With Reci's permission, I will share that she was clarifying to me some details about the progression of their relationship and that he was an aggressive personality that initially pursued her, and presumably others. Their relationship online was a role-playing game relationship. I am still unclear as to whether "role-playing game relationship" means it was asexual. There was specific mention of maintaining an adult game relationship with him before he knew she knew his age because anonymity was important and customary in the community (which is also why she did not tell the other members and instead encouraged him to spend more time with her in an isolated, non-sexual roleplay setting). She reiterated that initial confusion may have been caused by definitions of terms that aren't familiar to non-gamers.

First, if you did not have a sexual relationship with anyone underage, I don't see why you wouldn't have been able to post your PM on the board, or how your original post would have violated to TOS.

More importantly, though, you don't owe me an explanation. You made some decisions that I fundamentally disagree with, but as I mentioned previously, I'm not really caught up in the specifics of what happened twenty years ago. I found the ensuing reaction and prevaricating very odd and disturbing. Not just yours, for the record.

Your PM was very respectful, and I appreciate that. Some parts of my post were sarcastic and snotty, and I apologize. I described what I was reacting to, but that is not an excuse for my own behavior.

Thanks to you and to many who took a moment to clarify and believe me.

No, I don't owe anybody anything and in the cases where I thought people were crossing a certain line I would either ignore them or reiterate something.

However, there are only so many times I can say a certain thing to a person before it is obviously a question of I said, they think and there's nothing I can do about if they do not believe me.

I tried to progress with each individual and treat them according to how they treated me.

I had a lot of fun on the way and if people clarified, they were laughing with me and at me, which is the point of telling an embarrassing, if not felonious story.

 

[Recidiva]

I would assume that Laurel received a great number of complaints about a post that was about content about a minor in sexual situations.

That doesn't mean that the fact that the post was removed means it was true, it meant there were complaints.

She removed the post, but left the thread because from the post she put in earlier, people were having fun and she thinks that's a good thing.

But in reality, the concept of an underage person being involved in a sexual context means:

I can't post about seeing Rocky Horror when I was an unspecified age.

I can't post the lyrics to "Fat Bottom Girls"

I can do these things probably and nobody says anything, but if someone complains, Laurel can and should remove it on request.

It's drawn a line in my head that wasn't there before and I'm aware that the line's there for good reason and I just made a mistake by posting a funny story about not having sex.

My inability to really lay out things except in metaphor and parable and "Think I'm Mal and he's Saffron" is because I'm really trying to do the gymnastics in my head to follow that imaginary line now, that I wasn't as aware of a few days ago.

 

[Disgustipated]

The line is only imaginary in your twisted dome.

 

[Noor]

My inability to really lay out things except in metaphor and parable and "Think I'm Mal and he's Saffron" is because I'm really trying to do the gymnastics in my head to follow that imaginary line now, that I wasn't as aware of a few days ago.

That happens. Sometimes you need to test things out and Lit is a great place for that because people will challenge your assumptions and poke at your defenses to the point where you have really think about it.

There is someone who I wish would come clean here because while I see lots of stuff, I am not in a good position to point it out.
I am too biased, can't hurt them and could not be as harsh as needed to make them really think about what is happening but the GB could.

 

[cleaver]

That happens. Sometimes you need to test things out and Lit is a great place for that because people will challenge your assumptions and poke at your defenses to the point where you have really think about it.

There is someone who I wish would come clean here because while I see lots of stuff, I am not in a good position to point it out.
I am too biased, can't hurt them and could not be as harsh as needed to make them really think about what is happening but the GB could.

somebody (other) in this thread.
yes?

yes.

 

[Noor]

somebody (other) in this thread.
yes?

yes.

not saying...

do you have something to confess, cleaver?

 

[neci]

one time i carried on a cyber relationship with a pedophile, because i wanted to understand how his head worked. in the end, i cut ties, because i was becoming physically ill. he was very upfront about his preferences. initially, he called it role playing. then he began telling me about real life crushes. i was able to figure out who he was based on the limited information he gave me. he never admitted to having sex with a minor (different country and age laws than US,) but my guess is he most likely did.

 

[eyer]

If he was 16, then sexual intercourse would have been legal in most States.

Recidiva posted that she began an online BDSM relationship with a male...

...she then was informed the male was 14-years old, had no reason to doubt that info, and yet she decided to continue the online BDSM relationship with the minor anyway.

One reason is telling: he evidently was good enough at the BDSM game, eg, that Recidiva posted she still remembers his talent with the whip. Remember: this is an adult woman getting off on being submissive to a 14-year old...

...ring any problem bells for ya there yet, Byron?

I've asked twice now for the name of the state the 14-year old resided in when Recidiva testified she began her online BDSM relationship with the minor, I've also asked which state she lived in; nothing but...

~ SILENCE ~

The federal age of consent is 18...

This makes it a crime to use any form of communication between states to try to get a minor to have sex with an adult. Even if the minor and adult are in the same state, if the communication leaves the state, it is a crime. For example, if both people live in the same state and use an instant messaging program to communicate. If the server used for the communication is in another state, this is a crime.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_sexual_consent_in_the_United_States

But, no worries...

...Recidiva says now that she was just joking about trying to get the 14-year old to give up his virginity, and that anything sexual between her and the minor was just a part of the game they were both playing.

It is also a federal crime to exchange any type of improper communication (text, image, voice) with a 14-year old kid in the US...

...did Recidiva exchange any sexually-themed texts with her play master? Did they share any adult images between them? Did they talk on the phone about anything sexual?

I would believe her if she said absolutely not!...

...I mean, a grown woman getting-off by playing the sub of a 14-year old kid? You'd have to be a vengeful, hating person to even think anything sexually-themed was going on - especially on the part of such a sane, rational-thinking adult; or, of course, a 14-year old male who knew how to handle a whip.

Any conversations between the two, any messages at all between the two - the adult woman and the minor - which had any sexual reference(s) discussing meeting in person - NO MATTER IF HE WAS 16 - were all violations of federal law enacted to try to protect 14-year old - AND 16-YEAR OLD - kids from adults like Recidiva who want to meet-up with minors and "fool around".

It's interesting that Recidiva and her supportive husband proclaim they're eager to discuss the facts...

...but, then, refuse to freely offer facts that might just put more holes in the wiffleball of a tale they're now obviously committed to.

Eg: as you've read in this thread, Byron, when you, too, asked for the states the minor and the groomer were residing in at the time of the physical meet-up, suddenly the denial of the previous free offering of facts became instantly a matter of protecting possible harmful personal information from being issued...

...yet, there's not any reasonable danger which can result from the telling of those truths - unless it's incriminating.

I don't doubt that previous unpublishable information will be eventually offered by the groomer and her supportive husband, after they take a hint from you and come up with states which've enacted 16-year old age of consent laws...

...but that still won't let them off the criminal federal hook and state age of majority laws.

For I don't know of a state with 16-year old age of consent laws that still doesn't mandate that the age of majority is 18...

...which means - at the very least - that if an adult woman and a 16-year old kid physically meet-up and the parent disapproves, the law will issue a restraining order against that adult woman from approaching that 16-year old kid again.

You seem to think once in a great while, Byron...

...what do you think is going on in the mind of an adult woman who loves to play online to the whip wielded by a 14-year old kid? And then agrees to meet-up with him?

If you had a 14-year old son and discovered he was involved in an online BDSM relationship with an adult...

...what would you do?

If you discovered your 16-year old kid had been maintaining an online BDSM relationship with an adult for 2 years and they had finally decided it was time to meet in person...

...what would you do, Byron?

I've staunchly defended an adult female/LIT member who began a gaming relationship online with a male...

...and who then chose to plead guilty to sending a 14-year old kid a pic of her breast - because she admitted she did.

But she also maintained she never knew his age until after she refused to send him anything more graphic - that's when she said he told her how old he really was and threatened to go to the cops if she didn't cooperate. She knew she was screwed, but she told him no more - he kept his word and ratted her out to a school counselor, and big-fished his tale by also adding she had sent him a lot of pictures - the prosecutors thought they had a pornographer in their hands...

...the cops, despite searching through everything they could get their hands on, found nothing else; the kid could produce nothing else; the only piece of evidence in the whole deal was one cell phone picture partially showing a breast.

But that poster didn't pimp her tale in any crimes of passion thread like this one; no, none of that story would've aired on the GB if it wasn't for a snitch who threw his punk buddy SeanH a bone in the form of a link to a newspaper story about the female poster, a link the punk SeanH then posted here on the GB intentionally to expose the poster because he considered her "a racist cunt" and she deserved the outing in his eyes; GracefullyYours was then villified on this Board as a pedo for that crime and immediately - in shame - disappeared...

...so I know the GB well enough to realize that even if Recidiva would've related her crime of passion as something she did that she terribly regretted, many here still would've jumped her - but I wouldn't have been among them any more than I jumped on the only other GB female I've ever read on this great site who also confessed to an illicit online relationship with a 14-year old kid.

Recidiva simply doesn't have the integrity to disappear...






[I used "groomer" just for you, Recidiva, cuz I noticed how you latched onto it so instinctively the first time I posted the term ]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Recidiva posted that she began an online BDSM relationship with a male...

...she then was informed the male was 14-years old, had no reason to doubt that info, and yet she decided to continue the online BDSM relationship with the minor anyway.

One reason is telling: he evidently was good enough at the BDSM game, eg, that Recidiva posted she still remembers his talent with the whip. Remember: this is an adult woman getting off on being submissive to a 14-year old...

...ring any problem bells for ya there yet, Byron?

I've asked twice now for the name of the state the 14-year old resided in when Recidiva testified she began her online BDSM relationship with the minor, I've also asked which state she lived in; nothing but...

~ SILENCE ~

The federal age of consent is 18...



But, no worries...

...Recidiva says now that she was just joking about trying to get the 14-year old to give up his virginity, and that anything sexual between her and the minor was just a part of the game they were both playing.

It is also a federal crime to exchange any type of improper communication (text, image, voice) with a 14-year old kid in the US...

...did Recidiva exchange any sexually-themed texts with her play master? Did they share any adult images between them? Did they talk on the phone about anything sexual?

I would believe her if she said absolutely not!...

...I mean, a grown woman getting-off by playing the sub of a 14-year old kid? You'd have to be a vengeful, hating person to even think anything sexually-themed was going on - especially on the part of such a sane, rational-thinking adult; or, of course, a 14-year old male who knew how to handle a whip.

Any conversations between the two, any messages at all between the two - the adult woman and the minor - which had any sexual reference(s) discussing meeting in person - NO MATTER IF HE WAS 16 - were all violations of federal law enacted to try to protect 14-year old - AND 16-YEAR OLD - kids from adults like Recidiva who want to meet-up with minors and "fool around".

It's interesting that Recidiva and her supportive husband proclaim they're eager to discuss the facts...

...but, then, refuse to freely offer facts that might just put more holes in the wiffleball of a tale they're now obviously committed to.

Eg: as you've read in this thread, Byron, when you, too, asked for the states the minor and the groomer were residing in at the time of the physical meet-up, suddenly the denial of the previous free offering of facts became instantly a matter of protecting possible harmful personal information from being issued...

...yet, there's not any reasonable danger which can result from the telling of those truths - unless it's incriminating.

I don't doubt that previous unpublishable information will be eventually offered by the groomer and her supportive husband, after they take a hint from you and come up with states which've enacted 16-year old age of consent laws...

...but that still won't let them off the criminal federal hook and state age of majority laws.

For I don't know of a state with 16-year old age of consent laws that still doesn't mandate that the age of majority is 18...

...which means - at the very least - that if an adult woman and a 16-year old kid physically meet-up and the parent disapproves, the law will issue a restraining order against that adult woman from approaching that 16-year old kid again.

You seem to think once in a great while, Byron...

...what do you think is going on in the mind of an adult woman who loves to play online to the whip wielded by a 14-year old kid? And then agrees to meet-up with him?

If you had a 14-year old son and discovered he was involved in an online BDSM relationship with an adult...

...what would you do?

If you discovered your 16-year old kid had been maintaining an online BDSM relationship with an adult for 2 years and they had finally decided it was time to meet in person...

...what would you do, Byron?

I've staunchly defended an adult female/LIT member who began a gaming relationship online with a male...

...and who then chose to plead guilty to sending a 14-year old kid a pic of her breast - because she admitted she did.

But she also maintained she never knew his age until after she refused to send him anything more graphic - that's when she said he told her how old he really was and threatened to go to the cops if she didn't cooperate. She knew she was screwed, but she told him no more - he kept his word and ratted her out to a school counselor, and big-fished his tale by also adding she had sent him a lot of pictures - the prosecutors thought they had a pornographer in their hands...

...the cops, despite searching through everything they could get their hands on, found nothing else; the kid could produce nothing else; the only piece of evidence in the whole deal was one cell phone picture partially showing a breast.

But that poster didn't pimp her tale in any crimes of passion thread like this one; no, none of that story would've aired on the GB if it wasn't for a snitch who threw his punk buddy SeanH a bone in the form of a link to a newspaper story about the female poster, a link the punk SeanH then posted here on the GB intentionally to expose the poster because he considered her "a racist cunt" and she deserved the outing in his eyes; GracefullyYours was then villified on this Board as a pedo for that crime and immediately - in shame - disappeared...

...so I know the GB well enough to realize that even if Recidiva would've related her crime of passion as something she did that she terribly regretted, many here still would've jumped her - but I wouldn't have been among them any more than I jumped on the only other GB female I've ever read on this great site who also confessed to an illicit online relationship with a 14-year old kid.

Recidiva simply doesn't have the integrity to disappear...






[I used "groomer" just for you, Recidiva, cuz I noticed how you latched onto it so instinctively the first time I posted the term ]

http://media.tumblr.com/bf17f1b3761888fcb43eac1d8ce7c958/tumblr_inline_mt1k5449mK1qz4rgp.gif

That's really...dedicated of you, Eyer.

Ultimately futile in the aftermath of it all, but...it's very "just do it" Nike poster-level dedicated!

 

[mamasota]

ad nauseum

 

[Recidiva]

http://media.tumblr.com/bf17f1b3761888fcb43eac1d8ce7c958/tumblr_inline_mt1k5449mK1qz4rgp.gif

That's really...dedicated of you, Eyer.

Ultimately futile in the aftermath of it all, but...it's very "just do it" Nike poster-level dedicated!

Here we go.

You know, I knew this guy Eyer on this adult-themed site and he used to hammer at me all the time. Sometimes he'd go at it all night.

Therefore Eyer and I were lovers on Lit. Not just virtual lovers, but real lovers. It happened. I'm just too ashamed to admit it.

Obviously, there's no two ways to interpret that.

If people don't know the difference between a "roleplay" relationship or a "cyber" relationship or a "sexual" relationship or a "gamer" relationship, that's okay, because most of you guys only know half of those options.

"Playing" and "screwing around" and "running around" and "fooling around" and so on...can all also be used to describe a game of tag or D&D.

 

[evesdream]

Here we go.

You know, I knew this guy Eyer on this adult-themed site and he used to hammer at me all the time. Sometimes he'd go at it all night.

Therefore Eyer and I were lovers on Lit. Not just virtual lovers, but real lovers. It happened. I'm just too ashamed to admit it.

Obviously, there's no two ways to interpret that.

If people don't know the difference between a "roleplay" relationship or a "cyber" relationship or a "sexual" relationship or a "gamer" relationship, that's okay, because most of you guys only know half of those options.

"Playing" and "screwing around" and "running around" and "fooling around" and so on...can all also be used to describe a game of tag or D&D.

Why post about it in the "Crimes of Passion" thread then?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

one time i carried on a cyber relationship with a pedophile, because i wanted to understand how his head worked. in the end, i cut ties, because i was becoming physically ill. he was very upfront about his preferences. initially, he called it role playing. then he began telling me about real life crushes. i was able to figure out who he was based on the limited information he gave me. he never admitted to having sex with a minor (different country and age laws than US,) but my guess is he most likely did.

Your comment reminds me of a Baptist Revival Confession/Testimonial.

 

[evesdream]

Here we go.

You know, I knew this guy Eyer on this adult-themed site and he used to hammer at me all the time. Sometimes he'd go at it all night.

Therefore Eyer and I were lovers on Lit. Not just virtual lovers, but real lovers. It happened. I'm just too ashamed to admit it.

Obviously, there's no two ways to interpret that.

If people don't know the difference between a "roleplay" relationship or a "cyber" relationship or a "sexual" relationship or a "gamer" relationship, that's okay, because most of you guys only know half of those options.

"Playing" and "screwing around" and "running around" and "fooling around" and so on...can all also be used to describe a game of tag or D&D.

Just for clarity-

If "cyber and "role play" meant playing shoot-em-up games with friends, and "fooled around" meant a hug while wearing winter coats in sub-zero temperatures, why post about it in the "Crimes of Passion" thread?