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.

132 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
contrapangloss
9 years ago

Re: HIV question.

Banned is right in the pretty low estimate. HIV, for all it’s awfulness, requires a relatively high dose of viable virus. Also, while it can survive quite a bit outside the body in fluid… It’s still not likely.

The hotter her coffee was, the better. HIV gets destroyed by temps above 60C. It also really doesn’t like acidity or alkalinity. Any pH above 8 or below 7 kills it fairly quickly, and our stomachs tend to hang out between 1.5 and 3.5.

If he’d dumped in cold and really weak coffee with tons of sugar and creme, and then she sat and swished it around like mouthwash, then, yes, there’d be a bit more of a risk. Still relatively unlikely, but a risk.

To me (because I only love pathogens in the ‘who’s a cut little virus sense’ and detest them in all others) getting tested for things like hep C (also really unlikely, like really, really unlikely) and HIV would be worth it, because being the one bizzare case would stink, and the sooner you can catch any virus, the better the shot is for sucessful management.

Still, pretty unlikely.

But… incredibly disgusting. Also, any risk is too much risk. Especially when you get chronic exposures.

Chances are, she’s fine, but testing could also provide a little piece if mind, which is something that she’s probably very, very, very short on right now.

I would be very short of it myself.

Like huddled in a corner, shaking, and saying ew-ew-ew-ew… Which, given what I’ve had to see?

There’s a huge heck of a difference between finding out you’ve been unknowingly exposed and between having all the right protective equipment.

weirwoodtreehugger
9 years ago

It was a hardware store. So it was a probably a small space in the back with most employees being out front.

contrapangloss
9 years ago

Actually an even bigger difference. The comparison is between being unknowingly exposed by someone who exposed you, on purpose, for jollies, and knowingly choosing to do things with PPE and a safety officer ready to immediately start the process in case of any accidental exposure.

There’s a huge difference.

All my sympathies for her, and all my scowls for him, and definitely a sign their sexual misconduct laws need to be revamped, if this is really considered just lewd conduct.

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

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

http://dailybunny.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Its-the-Daily-Bunnys-2015-Easter-Mega-Post-1.jpg

PussyPowerTantrum
PussyPowerTantrum
9 years ago

@Bina

Gee, I suppose we should just be glad that it wasn’t roofies.

Maybe he thought his semen was a powerful aphrodisiac? Like, you imprint her genetically or something.

No, still all the nopes. Ew ew ew ew ew.

Katzentier
Katzentier
9 years ago

To M’s question: I think It’d be similar to the chance of transferring it during oral sex, so possible, but a lot less likely than during unprotected intercourse. If the coffee is still scorching hot at the time, it might lower the chance further, from what I’ve found the virus dies at 55 – 70° Celcius (in liquids). That doesn’t make what that dude did any better though.

Bina
9 years ago

Maybe he thought his semen was a powerful aphrodisiac? Like, you imprint her genetically or something.

I certainly wouldn’t put such fucked-up thinking past him…or any MRA, either, come to that. That, and the “Hell yes I’m gonna violate your bodily integrity and personal space, because PENIS” bit.

‘Course, it doesn’t really work that way, and in fact she found the taste of him in her coffee repulsive. Which is quite the appropriate metaphor for the whole situation.

FatMax
FatMax
9 years ago

How does a “man” like that guy even find office employment? Was anyone paying attention when they interviewed him? Who was he related to? (He obviously isn’t sleeping his way to the top…)

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 years ago

@ fatmax

How do you screen for something like that at interview though?

“What would you say your biggest weakness is?”

“Well, I do have a habit of masturbating into women’s drinks”

We know from all the workplace harassment cases that it’s easy for people to slip the net.

misseb47
misseb47
9 years ago

Banana Jackie Cake “Well, it didn’t say he did it everyday, just over six months. It could have been one or two times…or more…”

Still EEWWWWW and more EEWWW! Even once is once too many. ^^;

“Also…how does someone get the idea of jizzing all over someone’s stuff and in their drink is a way to express they like someone? Like, IDK, wouldn’t a note be, you know, sweeter?”

My sentiments exactly. That guy is such a perv!

Paradoxical Intention-I live in Australia. 😀 I have never worked in an office environment (I have been to a few, though), but I guess it would be similar to America. The pleb area would be just too crowded, so she must have a private office or something. I did some digging and it turns out that she was working a hardware store, rather than an office environment. So she probably did have a private/semi private office space. There is NO way someone could do that if she worked in a crowded office full of plebs. 😀

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/minn-hardware-manager-ejaculated-co-worker-coffee-cops-article-1.1928333

misseb47
misseb47
9 years ago

contrapangloss-“Like huddled in a corner, shaking, and saying ew-ew-ew-ew…”

Just reading about it makes me want to do that. O.O No amount of brain bleach is going to remove that image. Eww, eww and more eww!!!!!!!!

misseb47
misseb47
9 years ago

Here’s some brainbleach anyway.

Ibis
9 years ago

Thanks for the law lesson, Alan.

I looked it up and the Canadian Criminal Code has pretty much the same offence as the English:

245. Every one who administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes any person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, if he intends thereby to endanger the life of or to cause bodily harm to that person; or

(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he intends thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person.

So, if he did it without knowing whether he had an STI (or knowing he had one), that would fall under (a) and if he did it having made sure he was clean, that would be (b), right?

Anyway, I still think it should really be a sexual assault as well, since he’s employed deception to force her to engage in a sexual act. Ew.

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

…The sad thing is I already saw that video…

chaltab
chaltab
9 years ago

I read the headline and said “You mean it’s *not*?”

friday jones
friday jones
9 years ago

Is it possible that this dude read some PUA nonsense about using one’s semen as a “love potion?” It sounds an awful lot like the sort of primitive almost-sciency nonsense those guys would come up with.

Spindrift
Spindrift
9 years ago

I seem to recall a story from a while ago where a guy was offering free samples of “yoghurt” and it turned out that some of them were semen. Seriously, nobody wants to have anything to do with your penis or bodily fluids unless they specifically ask you! Why is that so hard(no pun intended) to understand?

I’m glad I don’t drink coffee, cause if I did I’d have to give it up now. All of the squick!

The only positive thing about this that I can think of is that any future employer or potential girlfriend who googles his name will find out what he’s done. Providing he doesn’t legally change his name or something.

Spindrift
Spindrift
9 years ago

I seem to recall a story from a while ago where a guy was offering free samples of “yoghurt” and it turned out that some of them were semen. Seriously, nobody wants to have anything to do with your penis or bodily fluids unless they specifically ask you! Why is that so hard(no pun intended) to understand?

I’m glad I don’t drink coffee, cause if I did I’d have to give it up now. All of the squick!

The only positive thing about this that I can think of is that any future employer or potential girlfriend who googles his name will find out what he’s done. Providing he doesn’t legally change his name or something.

(spelled my email wrong so my 1st post went into moderation, so this may doublepost)

Orion Of Doom
Orion Of Doom
9 years ago

To those asking why this isn’t illegal, it’s because lawmakers are of limited imagination and like seriously what the fuck who would even contemplate this?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 years ago

@ ibis

The Canadian Code is modeled after the 1861 act; hence the similar wording.

The act would fall foul of (a) in the Canadian Code (and S.23 in England) only if there was something inherently dangerous about the ‘noxious thing’. As out medical friends have pointed out, even a ‘tainted’ sample might not be that dangerous. Note that a lot of the judicial commentary on Ss. 23 & 24 arose in a case of knowing transmission of HIV through sex. i.e. the guy knew he was HIV+ and didn’t tell the woman. Must confess, notwithstanding the harm caused to the woman I wasn’t too keen on that decision. It encourages people not to be tested so they can claim ignorance that they were a risk. In that case though the man was convicted under S.18 of the 1861 Act of intentionally causing grievous (serious) bodily harm rather than S.23.

As to the sexual element, at present in England it wouldn’t be a sexual offence as the law stands. We do have a ‘lewd conduct’ law that could cover the actual masturbation though; it’s pretty much the same as the one the man was convicted of in this case. A conviction under that doesn’t put a person on the Register though.

I did wonder whether you could make a case under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is the relevant section:

Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally causes another person (B) to engage in an activity,
(b)the activity is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to engaging in the activity, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

All hinges on 1(b). Does the victim engage in activity that is sexual? Well, don’t want to get into TMI mode, but swallowing semen can certainly be a sexual act; but in coffee?

If whether something is a sexual act is considered to be a matter of fact then it would be up to a jury to decide (as arbiters of fact) whether on the facts of this case a sexual act had occurred. If that issue is a matter of law then it would be up to a judge to decide.

Unfortunately I suspect we’ll get a case here before too long where these exact considerations will arise.

BritterSweet
BritterSweet
9 years ago

The title made me think there would be actual quotes from MRAs/MGTOWs/whatever saying how uppity women are for wanting to make it a crime to sneak semen into someone’s coffee, or insulting the victim. As likely as they are to say something like that, it’s a little misleading that that’s not what the post features.

BritterSweet
BritterSweet
9 years ago

All hinges on 1(b). Does the victim engage in activity that is sexual? Well, don’t want to get into TMI mode, but swallowing semen can certainly be a sexual act; but in coffee?

I’d say it could easily be interpreted as a sexual act since the perpetrator had a sexualized intent, manifested by 1.) him choosing to use semen of all things, and 2.) his own excuse being that he was attracted to her and wanted to “express his interest.”

blanktie
blanktie
9 years ago

Gag, this is pretty nasty stuff. It really makes you think about all those little moments that your food isn’t being watched by you. Like when you’re food is being processed, packaged, or cooked behind that friendly yet (for reasons you can’t explain) ominous kitchen door at that restaurant you like. And of course, that unattended lunch/coffee left behind during a bathroom break. Wtf.

I think I’m just going to bring a mini lab kit with me to test all of my food now. They sell those, right? Right?

lith
lith
9 years ago

Just assuming for a moment that he genuinely found this the easiest way to express his interest in her… In what sort of society do we live that it’s easier to secretly and repeatedly jerk off into someone’s coffee than to just ask them out? Or admit to ourselves we’re never going to ask her out and let it go.

AltoFronto
AltoFronto
9 years ago

Can’t find a gif to accurately sum up my disgust.

http://reactiongifs.com/?p=10805

http://reactiongifs.com/?p=18004

http://reactiongifs.com/?p=12321

I can’t wait for society to stop making excuses for these creepy, sinister perverts. I mean, how did he ever expect people to believe he was just “expressing his interest” by secretly jacking off into her food?

Never mind workplace harassment, could he be done for food contamination? I mean, that’s got to be on a par with hiding razor blades in an apple, or lacing Hallowe’en candy with PCP, or deliberately spreading disease, right??