Categories
creepy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny sexual assault sexual harassment whaaaaa?

Uppity women want to make ejaculating into someone’s coffee count as actual criminal sexual conduct

erwer
John Robert Lind: Coffee adulterator

Last Thursday, John Robert Lind of Blaine Minnesota pled guilty to misdemeanor “lewd conduct” charges. Lind’s “lewd conduct?”

He repeatedly, over the course of six months, jacked off into a co-worker’s coffee, and onto her desk, when she wasn’t there.

She eventually caught him standing next to her desk with his hands near his junk and what she called a “deer-in-the-headlights look” on his face, the local CBS affiliate reported. After he hurried away, she noticed “a puddle on the desk” and realized that it hadn’t been spoiled milk that had been making her coffee taste bad. For six months.

Lind, who fessed up to it all, was originally charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct. But a judge threw out both counts because the statute under which he was charged didn’t define his particular acts as a kind of “sexual contact.”

He could have been charged with criminal sexual conduct if he had ejaculated on her directly. But not for ejaculating on her desk — or into the coffee that she later, unknowingly, drank. And so the New Brighton City Attorney had to resort to a lesser charge.

The victim in this case, Pat Maahs, went public in an attempt to get the law changed. State Representative Debra Hilstrom has taken up this crusade, introducing a bill (now in committee) to close this loophole, making “adulteration by bodily fluid” a felony if an unknowing victim actually eats or drinks the food in question. But in the meantime, at least as Minnesota law sees it, Lind’s actions only count as misdemeanor “lewd conduct,” and won’t even put him on the sex offenders’ registry.

In some ways the creepiest part of the whole story is that Lind, the awkward ejaculator, says he did it not to harass Maahs, but because he was attracted to her, and evidently this was the best way he could think of to express his interest.

EDIT: Fixed wording in one place; corrected the spelling of the victim’s last name.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

132 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Supposedly, he had been making inappropriate comments to her. She told him to cut it out or she’d report him. He may have claimed it was about expressing attraction. But it wasn’t. It was retaliation.

Ah, that makes sense. Horrible sense, but sense nonetheless.

Tessa
5 years ago

Ugh. I wonder if this is another example of one of these guys thinking their semen is some kind of elixir women get addicted to. Seriously, how many posts here have had guys have talked about women becoming addicted to their semen, or spit. Women can’t just enjoy sex, it’s gotta be something from a man that makes them want it.

So he came in her coffee thinking that after a while she’d start liking him because his magical semen was inside her.

Tessa
5 years ago

That should be “seriously how many posts have we had here where guys have talked”

But…

Supposedly, he had been making inappropriate comments to her. She told him to cut it out or she’d report him. He may have claimed it was about expressing attraction. But it wasn’t. It was retaliation.

This seems much more realistic.

Arctic Ape
Arctic Ape
5 years ago

Ugh, since anyone reading this thread is already grossed out, I guess I can add a related anecdote I read from a local (Finnish) newspaper not too long ago.

Some guy was going around assaulting random women by squirting “white liquid” (probably milk or cream?) from his mouth on them. The report said that, if he got caught, he’d be charged for property damage (soiled clothes) and whatever is the English legal term for misdemeanor personally offending communication.

I was thinking, “Holy fuck, how is this not seen as an assault, and a sexual assault at that? It’s not like there’s clear allusion to a famous porn trope that itself alludes to sexual conquest and humiliation of women by men.”

Tanya Nguyen
5 years ago

“Holy fuck, how is this not seen as an assault, and a sexual assault at that?

Cause our laws (in general, world wide) haven’t caught up with society seeing “rape culture” “bully culture” and in general, patriarchal “culture” as true crimes and not just “now tommy, be nicer to your sister” type slap-on-the-wrist crimes.

reymohammed
reymohammed
5 years ago

It is, at common law, both criminal and tortious battery. If she can’t prove she drank it before, it can at least be downgraded to criminal and tortious assault.

yutolia
yutolia
5 years ago

Most of what’s been going through my head ever since reading this post is “ick!”

Hambeast, Social Justice Hoo-Ha Glitterer
Hambeast, Social Justice Hoo-Ha Glitterer
5 years ago

♪♫All my nopin’ — I will send to you
All my nopin’ — like, seriously, ewww♫♪

This wins the thread for me; I loves me some Beatles! Also, how do you get the little musical notes in there??

Also, thanks so much for the cat videos, they really help!

Another thing that makes me feel a (little) bit better is knowing that this loser will be side-eyed by many for the foreseeable future

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

@BritterSweet

I thought of that too, but I got distracted by the ewwww to care whether or not MRA really think the woman is “uppity” or not.

KathleenB
KathleenB
5 years ago

Shadow: We’re doing pretty well. My mom and I were just talking about my uncle! He’s gone legit – as much as an old dope peddler/used car salesman can, anyway – and selling legal recreational weed in Colorado! The nephew is going on five, and has achieved a combination of obnoxiously loud and bossy that has to be heard to be believed.

Tracy
Tracy
5 years ago

Ok, sorry, haven’t read comments yet, I am just so horrified by this. Very little makes me cringe; this is so disgusting and violating. I’d feel violated in a way that I wouldn’t if someone urinated in my coffee – I’d be horrified and grossed out, but wouldn’t feel violated in the same way. *shudder*

Robert
Robert
5 years ago

This reminded me of a minister in NYC (Manning, I think), who has been claiming that Starbucks puts semen in the lattes as part of the Vast Homosexual Conspiracy.

The idea of something not being illegal because nobody ever thought that anyone would actually do it certainly applies here. And yes, I’m sure some flaking napstitch is going to come* to his defense.

*Pun intended.

epitome of incomprehensibility

Gross. And yes, I agree it’s an issue of consent, and not just sexual consent. You’d think there would be a law against putting anything in anyone’s food or drink without their permission (under most circumstances).

BritterSweet
5 years ago

@ Arctic Ape

I also read an article about a man in Japan who had been squirting mayonnaise on school girls because he got a rush from dirtying their uniforms. And another about a guy (also in Japan) who seemed to have a fetish for throwing cups of urine on random women.

The fuck?

Subtract Hominem, the Renegade Misandroid
Subtract Hominem, the Renegade Misandroid
5 years ago

Hambeast:

Also, how do you get the little musical notes in there??

When in doubt, you can always copypasta them from a unicode chart o’ miscellaneous symbols.

Jenny (@dontgiveah00t)

I’m curious, cause I don’t know much about this, well… odd set of circumstances. Could a person consuming someone’s sperm & fluids, without their knowledge, be at risk to any kind of illness. Not necessarily HIV which would likely die in the hot coffee, but a host of other blood born/fluid born illnesses.

I was wondering this too – apart from the inherent gross-out factor, isn’t he liable for potentially and deliberately exposing her to any disease he has?

Hambeast, Social Justice Hoo-Ha Glitterer
Hambeast, Social Justice Hoo-Ha Glitterer
5 years ago

Oh, thank you Subtract Hominem! This is kind of awesome.

Look, a nope:

*closes eyes, crosses fingers* aaaaaand post comment…

Hambeast, Social Justice Hoo-Ha Glitterer
Hambeast, Social Justice Hoo-Ha Glitterer
5 years ago

Hmmm. Okay, one more try:

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

@Hambeast

XD

misseb47
misseb47
5 years ago

Here’s one. Lets see if it works

misseb47
misseb47
5 years ago

It did! 😀 Awesome! I thought that symbol would be appropriate under the circumstances.

bluecat
bluecat
5 years ago

Ugh!

The excuse that he “was attracted to her” sounds like a desperate defence lawyer trying to pull the incel line (or the, “hey lady, just relax and take it as a compliment,” excuse of harassers the world over).

He made her swallow his semen without her consent, due to her not knowing that’s what was happening. Not once, but repeatedly over several months.

There is certainly a health issue/endangerment issue there, but how the hell is this not a sexual assault?

Also, expressing your interest in someone implies that you let them notice your interest. So, furtively concealing what you are doing to them is not an expression of interest.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

*Fidget*

Also, expressing your interest in someone implies that you let them notice your interest. So, furtively concealing what you are doing to them is not an expression of interest.

*fidget fidget*

*ahem*

Perhaps he was using a different definition of the word “expressing.”

I’ll see myself out now.

bluecat
bluecat
5 years ago

Heh heh heh.

Don’t go – good to see you kirbywarp.

Next time I find a pool of random jizz on my worktop I’ll say “oooh, someone must like me! Cuuuuuuuute!”

(I say “next time” – there has never been a time. And my workspace is the bit between my ears plus laptop. But, y’know, dramatic license).

freemage
5 years ago

Blerrgg.. I came from vacation for this. Yeesh.

Yeah, the law is an ass. Specific wording gets all kinds of wonky. I’m also recalling that case in, I think it was Massachusetts, where the state law against voyeurism didn’t cover using a spycam up a skirt, so long as the woman was wearing underwear. A lot of it just boils down to the fact that you can’t just have the law say, “Apply common sense.” For one thing, it’s not as common as we’d like to think. So every word is defined someplace else, and if that definition happens to create a loophole that someone hadn’t forseen, well, there you go.

(And, of course, the laws are mostly written by men, which means they tend to favor things men are concerned about–it’s not usually a deliberate snub, it’s just that heavily gendered concerns are often invisible to the dominant gender. Kind of like Siri being able to find escorts and condoms, but not abortion clinics.)

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@freemage:

I remember that case. From what I recall, “peeping tom” laws did apply to people in their underwear, but only when they were in places with a reasonable expectation of privacy (like a home). Apparently “under your clothes” is not a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

With the various legal cases I’ve been following recently, I’m starting to realize that the law is really just a (poorly maintained) instruction set, not a moral code. The goal of the justice system is to apply a bunch of if-then rules; IF this crime meets this definition THEN the sentence must be something like this. The job of the prosecutor is to figure out which laws might apply and then argue that they do, not figure out what the crime actually is.

I kinda wonder what it’d be like if laws actually had a side-by-side “intent” section written in plain language, so people wouldn’t have to assume the law is written literally and completely. I guess it’d be more complicated to argue that a law does or does not apply, and you’d still have to do some interpretation of the intent, but I wonder if the cost would be outweighed by the benefits.

freemage
5 years ago

Kirby: Exactly. That’s one reason I mentioned the Siri-abortion debacle; the lawmakers, like the programmers, are so resoundingly male that they write those if-thens without considering what ‘ifs’ are likely to come up for women.

The peeping tom laws are an example of what happens when laws become technologically obsolete–once upon a time (in my lifetime, really), getting a camera lens into that position required a lot of effort and expense, and even then was almost certain to be found out. Usually, voyeurs made use of peepholes and ‘magic’ mirrors–hence, the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ was written with rooms in mind, rather than angles. Nowadays, there’s half a dozen different affordable options for the wannabe creep, most of which can be nigh-impossible to detect if used carefully.

As for ‘plain language’… A big part of the reason the laws are like this in the first place is that ‘plain language’ usually has lots of options for willful misinterpretation. A biased judge is a terrible thing, and it can be ten times worse in the case where there’s no hard-and-fast restraint. Torture an interpretation out of the ‘plain language’ section, then declare that, having read it that way, you can ignore the if-then instructions of the actual law, based on the lawmakers’ ‘intent’. Go far enough, and you’ll get overturned on appeal, but waiting for an appellate court can often make things that much dicier.

Also, prosecutors rarely seek appeals on rulings, unless exceptionally egregious. There’s a reason for that–if you appeal and lose the appeal, then the ruling becomes precedent for all courts within the appellate court’s jurisdiction. Let a bad ruling stand in a local court, and the next district over (or even other judges in that district) can rule differently. Get enough good rulings, THEN appeal if it still is being done ‘wrongly’ in some districts; that way, you have a solid case for why your way is right.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

*fidget fidget*

*ahem*

Perhaps he was using a different definition of the word “expressing.”

I’ll see myself out now.

GROANNNNNNNNNN.

Very punny.

acrannymint
5 years ago

Sorry if this has already been posted but Frangela is all over this NSFW and hopefully not upsetting to anyone

Raichu
Raichu
5 years ago

ew

ew

ewwwwwwwww

SevenSixTwoNATO
SevenSixTwoNATO
5 years ago

Eesh. Depending on the legal language of the bill(s) amending the requisite laws governing illicit sexual conduct–i.e., if bodily fluids being (justly) considered potential vectors for infectious disease–I can see the MRA/RedPill/MGTOW outrage already:

“SJWs Furious at Office Romance, Propose Law to Reclassify Sperm as ‘Infectious Pathogen’ in Retaliation”

Onelessvictim
Onelessvictim
3 years ago

Just to let you know that on May 22, 2015 the Governor of the state of Minnesota signed into law 2 things that would cover this behavior. Now it is criminal sexual conduct to make contact with someone else with seminal fluid when it isn’t consensual contact and it is illegal to adulterate someone’s food with bodily fluids when there is expectation of someone else consuming it.

The bills went into effect August 1, 2015