COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Crimes of Passion

To recap:

The poster Recidiva shared with us one of her Crimes of Passion...

...while well into her 20s, she began an online BDSM relationship with a male, was informed that the male was 14-years old, chose to continue the online BDSM relationship with the minor anyway, and then also chose to meet the kid in person two years later when he was 16, when they then fooled around in the front seat of a car.

The poster Recidiva's husband, Ulaven_Demorte, then shared with us that he, too, communicated with the male online.

So, to summerize, in her own words:

Recidiva said:
Believe that or don't, I'm not here crowing about it being a great thing everybody should do. I'm listing it under "crime" and it's not something I'm proud about, but it is something that happened. To me it was an emotional and not a physical relationship, but was it still outside of what is considered lawful? Yes.

Do I think I did the kid some good? Yeah, actually I do. Do I think I could have been charged with a crime? Yep. If my daughter or son had a relationship with a person that much older, would I freak out? Hell yes.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the federal age of consent in the US is 18...

...and any sexually-explicit communication (text, image, voice) between an adult and anyone under 18 is a federal offense.

Thus, when Recidiva admits that it was a "crime", that her online relationship with the 14-year old was "outside of what is considered lawful", and that she "could have been charged with a crime"...

...believe her because she is exactly right.
 
eyer said:
Keep in mind that the federal age of consent in the US is 18...

...and any sexually-explicit communication (text, image, voice) between an adult and anyone under 18 is a federal offense.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties reside within the same state but use an instant messenger program whose servers are located in another state.

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)} forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts in which a person can be charged. This subsection is ambiguous on its face and seems to apply only when the minor is transported across state or international lines to a place where the conduct is already illegal to begin with. The United States Department of Justice seems to agree with this interpretation.

{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-to-15-year-old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-to-15-year-old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. ...

The Protect Act § 503 makes it a federal crime to possess or create sexually explicit images of any person under 18 years of age, this creates a federal age of consent of 18 for pornography.
Click to expand...
 
Byron In Exile said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

Of course you are, Byron...

...hey, btw:

Did the perps ever answer your queries about which state(s) they and the 14-year old were living in when Recidiva decided to maintain her online BDSM relationship with the minor?

Can you name the states that allow sexually-explicit relationships - of any kind - between adults and 14-year olds?

Did they tell you which state(s) Recidiva and the 16-year old were living in when they decided to rendezvous in person and fool around in the front seat of a car?

You know how many states hold 18 as the age of consent, Byron?

Did they ever let you know how many sexually-explicit messages/texts/images/phone calls flew between the adult(s) and the 14-year old, and were exchanged up until he was 18?

Ulaven_Demorte obviously got off on this illegally illicit deal...

...but I'm wondering how you'd handle it if you discovered your adult wife engaged in an online BDSM roleplay relationship with a 14-year old, and then she agreed to meet him and fool around in the front seat of a car with him when he was 16?

Would you enjoy talking to him online, too, like U_D posted he did?

And...

...would you defend me so pseudo-gallantly if I admitted I entered into a BDSM online relationship with a girl, found out she was 14 and chose - anyway - to continue role playing sexually with her for years (knowing it was illegal all the while), and finally met her in person when she was 16 and fooled around with her in the front seat of a car?

No, of course you wouldn't...

...and therein lies the betraying contradiction to your pitiful play.
 
Byron In Exile said:
Sorry, Charlie, you are.

Read the law.
Click to expand...

You do make an able pubic defender...

...but your pathetic client has already publicly admitted her guilt:

Recidiva said:
Believe that or don't, I'm not here crowing about it being a great thing everybody should do. I'm listing it under "crime" and it's not something I'm proud about, but it is something that happened. To me it was an emotional and not a physical relationship, but was it still outside of what is considered lawful? Yes.

Do I think I did the kid some good? Yeah, actually I do. Do I think I could have been charged with a crime? Yep. If my daughter or son had a relationship with a person that much older, would I freak out? Hell yes.
Click to expand...

And good job intentionally avoiding pertinent questions asked of you...

...just like the perps themselves.

Now...

...go console the perp and fortify her with your feelings that she committed no crime with a minor.
 
eyer said:
You do make an able pubic defender...

...but your pathetic client has already publicly admitted her guilt:
Click to expand...
If my client doesn't understand the law any better than you do, that doesn't make him or her guilty of a crime. You might admit that any sort of thing you do is a criminal act, but that won't make it so.

And good job intentionally avoiding pertinent questions asked of you...
Click to expand...
When you make a patently false statement and refuse to acknowledge the error of it, I stop reading at that point.
 
Byron In Exile said:
If my client doesn't understand the law any better than you do, that doesn't make him or her guilty of a crime. You might admit that any sort of thing you do is a criminal act, but that won't make it so.

When you make a patently false statement and refuse to acknowledge the error of it, I stop reading at that point.
Click to expand...

Nothing but fluff...

...which is not surprising at all coming from an ambulance chaser working pro boner.
 
Recidiva said:
Despite the idea that I was 27 fucking a 13 year old, in reality the guy was online from when he was 13, I started talking to him as a person when he was 14 and I really, really love this guy. Really love him. He's smart and funny and awesome and I'm lucky to have had him in my life.
Click to expand...

Tell us again about how good this 14-year old was with a whip...
 
JAMESBJOHNSON said:
[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.]

Its true. Early in my career I worked at the Juvenile Detention Center, then moved to doing therapy with severely disturbed kids, and theyre all corrupt and experienced perverts.
Click to expand...

Yer right on there Jimmy all them sum'bitches auta' go directly to hell, do not pass go. Or is that some other game?
 
Loring2 said:
Yer right on there Jimmy all them sum'bitches auta' go directly to hell, do not pass go. Or is that some other game?
Click to expand...

Old man? Sarcasm isn't your suit. If you got something stuck in your craw spit it out or serve your hostility fresh and hot.
 
Oops...

...wrong thread.


Last edited by eyer :10-23-2013 at 09:40 PM. :)D)
 
eyer said:
Nothing accidental...

...'bout the bump or the mimicked edit.

Oops, again...

...back to the top.
Click to expand...

Yeah after lurking a bit more after my last post I figure out why the not so accidental bump occurred. Never underestimate the power of denial. Or douchebaggery. Or delusion.
 
cleaver said:
yeah. y'know...?
like riiiight?

guess it was about time.

something about
the big hand touching the little hand again...
Click to expand...

Of all the cogent, sly, heavily fraught gems you've dispensed over the years, this may be the cogentest, sliest, and heavily fraughtest of all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Looking for a story
Replies
1
Views
93
likes2watchU
likes2watchU
MarkDaShark8900
How secure are wigs?
Replies
6
Views
246
KatieDoes
KatieDoes
F
totally unexpectedly
Replies
10
Views
524
gtnlynn
gtnlynn
HotwifeBrooksideKC
Hotwife in Mexico.
Replies
13
Views
471
HotwifeBrooksideKC
HotwifeBrooksideKC
Brains_N_Boobs
Non-fiction Dystopian quotes, taken out of context. (Post them from any source you can find them.)
Replies
0
Views
200
Brains_N_Boobs
Brains_N_Boobs
Back
Top