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.
Ah, that makes sense. Horrible sense, but sense nonetheless.
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.
That should be “seriously how many posts have we had here where guys have talked”
But…
This seems much more realistic.
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.”
“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.
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.
Most of what’s been going through my head ever since reading this post is “ick!”
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
@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.
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.
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*
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.
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).
@ 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?
Hambeast:
When in doubt, you can always copypasta them from a unicode chart o’ miscellaneous symbols.
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?
Oh, thank you Subtract Hominem! This is kind of awesome.
Look, a nope:
*closes eyes, crosses fingers* aaaaaand post comment…
Hmmm. Okay, one more try:
⛔
@Hambeast
XD
Here’s one. Lets see if it works
☣
It did! 😀 Awesome! I thought that symbol would be appropriate under the circumstances.
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.
*Fidget*
*fidget fidget*
*ahem*
Perhaps he was using a different definition of the word “expressing.”
I’ll see myself out now.
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).
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.)