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.
@AltoFronto
Agreed.
There’s no way this was “expressing his interest”. This was straight up bizarre, boundary violating, sexual thrill seeking.
Wonder if there’s any statistics on this kind of crime, strikes me as being the sort of thing that’s mostly a male crime. I’ve yet to hear about any women rubbing people’s food on their vaginas and then putting it back where it’ll get eaten. They’re probably out there somewhere, but I think they’re strongly outnumbered by men in that department.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there are already MRAs claiming this happened because workplaces aren’t gender segregated.
Oh, gods, how disgusting. What the hell kind of thought process goes in to something like this?!? And hopefully the victim doesn’t have to worry about any STIs…
More on the Sad Puppy/right wing/tangential to Vox Day assing up of the Hugo awards:
Sci-fi’s right-wing backlash: Never doubt that a small group of deranged trolls can ruin anything (even the Hugo Awards) http://zite.to/1FhEc4o
Because, yes, even something this icky can work as brain bleach for an article about semen-tainted coffee.
“”express his interest” isn’t a quote from Lind. It’s David’s line, and I assume it’s a joke. Though Lind does say he did it because he was attracted to her, he seems cogent enough to understand that a secret (and criminal) act is not an expression of anything.
Katzenier, the good news is that this isn’t anywhere near as risky as oral sex. HIV is a blood-born illness; stomach acid destroys viruses pretty effectively, and your stomach doesn’t just feed everything into your bloodstream. When people get infections from oral sex, it’s generally because the virus in question got into their blood through a cut, sore, or abrasion in their mouth or throat; people can have small cuts in their cheeks without noticing it, or thinking about it as a disease vector. Some people have oral sex quite vigorously, so in many cases the injury that the virus enters by happens during the sex itself. Drinking something in dilute solution doesn’t create those fresh stresses and it sends everything to the stomach quickly.
It sounds like other judges in America have managed to make a serious crime out of this. Given that, I’m disgusted that this one didn’t find a way.
@KathleenB
How’ve you been?!! I was just catching up yesterday and saw someone make a tiger/weed reference and was like “I wonder how Kathleen’s doing”. Hope all’s good in the D.
Adding to the chorus that he was “just expressing his interest” is bull-fucking-shit. Just like how some men in Afghanistan claim that they threw acid in a woman’s face because “they loved her”.
Next Lind will be playing the “I’m just socially awkward!” card. And if ANYONE in the MRM tries to claim he has autism GOD HELP ME I WILL END THEM.
@Brittersweet
”It’s in the name! SeMEN is MEN! How dare the bitches be so ungrateful about accepting a man’s holy essence into their unworthy vessel! Misandry!”
@BitterSweet
I thought the same thing from the title. However, I really, really hope the average MRA isn’t far gone enough to somehow make this guy out to be a martyr.
Oh dear gods!!!! That is disgusting! !! Cmon, this is more than just lewd behavior!!! What if he has a disease?!?
@Bittersweet
I’m now sat waiting for someone from the MRM to say exactly that. But it’s more likely that they’ll say:
1) She deserved it for turning him down romantically and should have just slept with him (even though there is no statement of him asking her out AND we all know the “romantic interest” excuse is transparent as fuck, but since when have MRAs let little things like facts affect their views). Thus this is a lesson to ladies everywhere – put out or all the Nice Guys will start splooging in your coffee. But they’re still totally nice!
2) That wimminz do so much worse things, like asking for child support aka ‘divorce rape’, but the courts never address those issues and the fact that they’re addressing this one instead shows what a feminist dominated Third Reich we live it. Also because wimminz do worse things the victim should just shut up and let it go.
3) That this guy was only doing it as a statement of retaliation against aforementioned Feminist Third Reich and thus he is actually a hero/martyr.
Ironically (given that women allegedly take low paying jobs to avoid responsibility, pffft) the MRAs never seem to take any personal responsibility for their own behaviour but expect women to. And that goes both ways – women are expected to take responsibility for their own behaviour (*shrug* this is fine, everyone should) and for the behaviour of guys like this (it’s the woman’s fault, somehow – I’m sure if she’d just let him come in her mouth daily he wouldn’t have had to do it by stealth and then …).
So, to recap:
Semen — not a magic love potion. Also tastes terrible in coffee, therefore not an acceptable substitute for milk or cream (or non-dairy creamer).
Semen in coffee: administering a noxious substance, sexual assault or both? Minnesota law shockingly unclear on the concept. (I’m going with “both”.)
MRA/PUA shitstorm in 3…2…1…
Did I miss anything?
/Users/mlbentz/Desktop/wat.jpg
I think that the furtive nature of these actions shows very clearly the thrill was in him doing something and her not knowing – like a Peeping Tom, or some types of stalkers. As we have seen so often in the Manosphere a lot of these guys find humiliating someone they are attracted to part of the excitement – this is expressing their own issues with sex and sexuality, they likely see it as dirty, and project this onto the girls and women they are attracted to.
This appears to be a primarily a male trait, obviously sometimes women are attracted to men they may not like, and there may be behaviours in there that are aimed at humiliating him, but this indirect stuff and taking pleasure in that does appear to be MUCH more common in men.
I suspect his ‘attraction’ to his victim was something he did not want to express, that he found it much more satisfying to know something she did not. It is not Schadenfreude, as they cause the disgusting situation, and it is just not quite taking pleasure in the distress caused, but in the projection and fantasy that accompanies doing something furtive.
Psychologically it is fascinating, but empathising with the victim all I can do is feel disgust and horror.
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.
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.
It would, if course, be misandrous to describe this guy as creepy.
Maybe he thought he had “super serum”…
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/12/08/misogynists-cant-agree-should-you-guard-your-sperm-with-your-life-or-spread-your-super-serum-as-widely-as-you-can/
Oy. This is so nauseating it calls for industrial duty brain bleach.
http://www.luvimages.com/luvphotos/k/kitten_and_duck_friends-3002.jpg
http://megalife.com.ua/uploads/posts/2010-06/1275661157_1275640977_kittens_yawning_09.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/zGuA0FR.jpg
The most infectious pathogens are fortunately the most fragile ones, in general. Gonorrhoeae? Just look at it and it dies.
But that’s not true for all of them. Chlamydia for instance, can be transmitted through under-chlorinated swimming pools. Hep B is as tough as a virus can get, I wouldn’t put it past it to linger for a while in a coffee.
Or to go more broadly than veneral diseases, tuberculosis can end up in any body fluid, and that thing is indestructible.
Looks like in IL it could play out a couple of ways:
(I’m getting this from reading the statutes themselves, I haven’t actually looked at the case law)
Theoretically this could qualify as criminal sexual abuse (see (2), below):
If that wouldn’t qualify for whatever reason (most likely: it would require an indictment from a grand jury to prosecute which a State’s attorney might not want to risk – in the county where I served on a grand jury the conviction rate is 94% for cases that go to trial)
“Consent” is defined:
also
so boo hoo MRAs Illinois already has an affirmative consent law.
Otherwise, the fact that she caught means public indecency (also considered a sex crime in Illinois) is a reasonable charge:
A criminal sexual abuse conviction (or even being found not guilty by reason of insanity) would require them to register as a sex offender. If convicted of public indecency they would only have to register if it was their 3rd conviction.
The only reference to bodily fluids in the IL criminal code that I could find concerned one definition of aggravated battery:
Huh. Just last week, my coworkers and I were complaining that the new brand of coffee in the office kitchen tasted like used condoms. Coincidence? (please dear god please let it be coincidence)
I accidentally read “express his interest” as “expose his interest” at first. That just adds more meaning to the situation, I think 🙂