Sorry, “they” refers to more than one individual.  Sinful Sunday creator Molly Moore has learned that comments from both individuals came from the same IP address, suggesting that a single party was behind both blogs and both Twitter accounts.  When confronted, rather than answering for his or her actions the individual deleted all of it, essentially erasing evidence of what he or she had done.

Some have asked why this is such a big deal.  The simplest answer is that Sinful Sunday expressly forbids such images.  Per the official rules:

In other words, a photograph taken by your father of the house in which you lost your virginity wouldn’t be eligible, unless you happen to be standing on the front lawn.  Even if you own the rights to the photograph, it goes against the first rule of Sinful Sunday.  (Technically speaking, it also goes against the second rule, which states that eligible photographs must have an “erotic/sensual feel”, though provided the “loss of virginity” connection was played up, the photo would almost certainly be allowed.)

Beyond that, however, taking an image from an unrelated website and passing it off as one’s own is theft.  It may be easy to justify stealing from some big faceless porn site – not that the size or corporate facelessness of the victim does in fact justify theft – but these aren’t high-resolution publicity photos of handsomely-paid porn stars that are being misappropriated.  They are photos taken by amateurs, like virtually all of us who participate in the meme.  They are generally uncompensated financially for their artistry, and stealing their photos – whether for pay or otherwise – is an egregious offense.

When I expressed my outrage on Twitter Friday afternoon, somebody brought up the pre-Twitter days of online flirting, when one might log into IRC, ICQ, or a similar chat service for the purpose of finding a stranger with whom to talk dirty while masturbating.  It was undoubtedly common for a horny young male to believe he was chatting with a swimsuit model, never knowing that his online paramour was in actuality a man using the internet at the local library in violation of the terms of his parole.  In the 1990s this was such a common phenomenon that it essentially became a comedy cliché.

While I am unequivocally against the sort of deception that I have just described, in most cases a single online encounter with someone who is not what he or she claims to be is probably a case of little or no harm done.  As long as the person who is misrepresenting him- or herself isn’t asking for money, attempting to provoke an emotional response that will not be requited, or setting up the other person for humiliation by revealing the truth, I fail to see the damage such a lie will cause. 

Additionally, I’m guessing that most guys who partake in semi-anonymous chat sessions understand that the supposed women with whom they’re exchanging fantasies are probably men.

Additionally, there is little if any expectation of candor from a virtual one-night stand.  By definition there is no ongoing relationship, nor is there any actual physical contact between the two individuals.  A quick, meaningless dirty-talk-and-masturbation session is unlikely to include much in the way of an emotional connection, and when it’s all over there is usually no further communication between the parties.  Without any deliberate emotional manipulation or acceptance of money or gifts under false pretenses, it seems like a victimless crime.  Which is not to say that such deceit is justifiable.

I may not condone it, but I can understand at least in theory why someone might get a sexual thrill out of pretending to be someone else online.  For some I’m guessing this sort of charade serves as an abstract role-playing exercise, while others undoubtedly derive power or control from deceiving another person.  For this sort, perhaps it is simply the knowledge that things are not as they appear that provides emotional or sexual satisfaction.

The most obvious motive that I can think of, however, is the exchange of pictures.  As someone who has spent his fair share of time using these chat services, I know all too well that for some users “Got any pics?” was as likely a lead-in as “a/s/l?”  For an unscrupulous user, a cache of stolen pictures was the equivalent of currency, suitable to be used in trade for more of the same.

So what benefit might one derive from setting up a fake blog and a fake Twitter account, and inventing a new persona?  Sorry, make that multiple fake blogs and fake Twitter accounts, as well as multiple new personas.  It seems like a lot of work just to pull the wool over the eyes of a trusting cohort, even if you’re not actually creating original content.  (I have no idea whether these blogs featured any other posts beyond their weekly participation in Sinful Sunday.  It’s difficult enough for us to come up with a couple new posts each week; I can’t imagine having to write twice as many, each in a unique voice.)

I can probably rule out that the motive was trading pictures, as beyond commenting on all the other posts, participation in Sinful Sunday carries with it no implied quid pro quo.  Nor does blogging in general.  Nor does Twitter.  If an individual wants to see erotic photography (or read erotic writing) shared by another, there is no need to offer up something in return.  While a user can certainly spend much time visiting multiple blogs and collecting pictures should he or she wish to do so, there is no need to pretend to be someone else or even to interact in any way with those sharing them.

In my admittedly amateur opinion, it seems most likely that the perpetrator of this charade simply wanted to engage in role-playing, likely for sexual purposes.  If that is the case, he or she should have obtained consent from his or her partners, i.e. everyone who unwittingly went along for the ride, who commented on a Sinful Sunday post under false pretenses or interacted with him or her on Twitter.  There, as well as in the blogging community, long-term connections are easily made.  It is not uncommon to build strong, lasting friendships.  Because of this, trust is paramount amongst members.

And make no mistake, it is a community.  For some, it may be the only social network they have, either online or off.  For others, the connections and friendships made through Twitter and blogging are essential to their emotional or sexual development, as these are perhaps the only places where they can be completely honest about who they are.  In light of this, the violation of trust that has taken place is inexcusable.  Like most if not all of our fellow bloggers, and presumably most people in general, we place a premium on honesty.  We don’t like having our trust abused.

It is disappointing that, for whatever reason, a shady individual sought to infiltrate Sinful Sunday in such a deceptive fashion.  However, it is not discouraging.  Having taken part in the meme since January 2012 and gotten to know many of my fellow bloggers, I realize that this is the exception as opposed to the rule.  Despite this revelation I can’t see myself looking upon newcomers to this community with distrust.  It seems a horrible way to live.

If I’m wrong and the person (or conceivably people, though hereafter I will continue to refer to the individual singularly) created these accounts for the best possible reasons, perhaps wanting to belong but lacking the confidence to be herself, I wish she had taken the time to read a few blogs before she fabricated a false identity and forged a chain of untruths.  If she had done so, it would have quickly become clear that this is a very welcoming community.  I refer not just to Sinful Sunday and those who participate therein, but blogging in general.  In the circles in which we travel, all body types, shapes, sizes, and persuasions are accepted without any reservation.

In short, we trusted her to be straightforward.  I wish she would have trusted us to be accepting.