Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, April 28, 2009
News Headline of the Day
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:55 AM
NBC4 News in Columbus, Ohio:
Man With 40-Year Urine Fetish Starts 60-Day Sentence
The details...
Alan Patton is the sex offender who was convicted of rape years ago. In 2006, he admitted to drinking the urine of young boys and told police that he’s been doing it for more than 40 years.When Patton was sentenced in 2006, he was banned from public restrooms, and on June 14, 2008, he again was arrested for placing plastic wrap on toilet seats and foam cups in urinals of a men’s room at Dublin’s SportsOhio.
Patton would return later and drink the urine collected in the cups and on the plastic wrap. A new law, inspired by Patton, that would make it a crime to collect a person's bodily fluids without their consent is making its way through the Ohio state legislature and looks likely to pass. So... um... one more victory over the pervs.
But... and I don't to come across as soft on urine-quaffing perverts or anything here... particularly ones with a taste for the urine of little boys... but... um... as deeply fucked up as Patton clearly is, and as deeply creepy as his fetish is... was anyone harmed by his actions? Yes, it would be better if we lived in a world where a grown man didn't want to drink the urine of little boys, and it would be better for all involved—particularly Patton—if Patton had, with the assistance of a good therapist and, perhaps, some of those chemical castration drugs we've heard so much about, somehow managed to control his urges/thirst. But if you collect someone's urine—something they were going to dispose of anyway—without their knowledge and, um, repurpose it without their knowledge—and if you can be at it for forty years without anyone figuring it out—was anyone, again, seriously harmed? Does this case require a legislative remedy?
I wouldn't want anyone collecting my son's urine and I certainly don't want urine-collecting perverts hanging out at the mall or the sports center or anywhere else that children congregate. And, okay, maybe some things are so creepy that they ought to be illegal just, you know, because. But reading this story I can't help but wonder if the crime that Patton was charged with—criminal mischief—wasn't good enough and if we really need a special law in Ohio to extra-specially criminalize an act that, while thoroughly revolting and deeply, deeply creepy, doesn't pick anyone's pocket or break anyone's leg.
1
True, it seems like another "that's icky" law. Another reason not to bother with this bill is that, really, who else out there is going to do this?
2
There are plenty of crimes that don't "hurt" anyone but are still uncool/creepy enough that they should be illegal. What about any sort of crime that just involves voyeurism (as long as it goes "unnoticed" for 40 yrs., who does it hurt?)? Putting in video cameras or a peep hole in restrooms? etc. I don't see how this is different or less harmful. The point is, even if it goes undetected, people should be able to feel confident that someone isn't going to sneak in and drink their pee later, or if it does happen, that it's against the law and the person will be punished. It's a violation of privacy like any of those other things, right?
4
I agree, but good luck finding someone willing to offer that rebuttal in the legislature. I guess like the person above said, it ultimately doesn't really matter. No one is harmed by urine-collecting, but I doubt anyone else is harmed by the urine-collecting law either. Much ado about nothing.
6
I think that's invasive enough to be Not Okay even if they don't find out about it. Didn't you just recently say it wasn't ok for a guy to secretly film his roommate naked even if she never found out about it?
7
@5 That's a good point. But don't you have to sign forms when admitted to the hospital? And there are already exceptions in place for someone who's too ill to give consent and has no family member around, right? So I would hope those same exceptions would apply.
11
At least he's getting a 60 day sentence for a 40 year fetish, and not the other way around. But yeah, there oughtta be a law.
13
We are too quick to put people in jail - seems like there should be other ways to deal with this besides incarceration. We have WAY too many of our citizens in jails and prisons.
14
It seems like a waste of time for the legislature to make a new law for this particular incident. I doubt they will ever get a chance to actually enforce it in another case. Unless in the future people are trying to steal other people's genetic code for whatever science fiction inspired reason, or privacy invasion. On the otherhand states have had ridiculous outdated laws on the books for ages, that probably only applied to one incident.
I did a quick internet search of stupid Ohio laws, and I found a very interesting city law in Akron. I can't confirm, the validity of this site, I just googled "weird Ohio laws", but here are some:
Akron
It is illegal to display colored chickens for sale.
No person shall solicit sex from another of the same gender if it offends the second person.
Ohio
It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.
It is illegal to mistreat anything of great importance.
No one may be arrested on Sunday or on the Fourth of July.
Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.
I did a quick internet search of stupid Ohio laws, and I found a very interesting city law in Akron. I can't confirm, the validity of this site, I just googled "weird Ohio laws", but here are some:
Akron
It is illegal to display colored chickens for sale.
No person shall solicit sex from another of the same gender if it offends the second person.
Ohio
It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.
It is illegal to mistreat anything of great importance.
No one may be arrested on Sunday or on the Fourth of July.
Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.
15
@2
Actually the examples that you mention are crimes, that is to say engaging in those activities is a violation of a State or Local law that is on the books.
Often the laws that are already in place are sufficient for most 'newer' or 'unusual variant' type of activities that may be deemed to be criminal.
Enforcing existing laws is more effective than passing new laws that cover instances of activities so rare as to make it almost a waste of the time of the legal and legislative systems to pass a law that is so specific.
Take a look at State and Local laws in almost any community and you will see 'silly laws' that are so specific in their scope as to have no enforceability due to the unlikelihood that all of the conditions for the 'criminal activity' to be met will occur.
Actually the examples that you mention are crimes, that is to say engaging in those activities is a violation of a State or Local law that is on the books.
Often the laws that are already in place are sufficient for most 'newer' or 'unusual variant' type of activities that may be deemed to be criminal.
Enforcing existing laws is more effective than passing new laws that cover instances of activities so rare as to make it almost a waste of the time of the legal and legislative systems to pass a law that is so specific.
Take a look at State and Local laws in almost any community and you will see 'silly laws' that are so specific in their scope as to have no enforceability due to the unlikelihood that all of the conditions for the 'criminal activity' to be met will occur.
16
Do I want creepy old guys stealing and drinking the urine of young boys? No. But do I think it's worth the time and effort to craft and pass a legal ban on doing so? No, not really. I'd imagine that urine theft isn't the most popular of fetishes, so just deal with it on a case by case basis.
17
What if someone's sexual fetish was to go into a public dumpster and eat thrown away food. What if he/she got off while eating some of the food you threw away? Would that bother anyone?
This guy's fetish shouldn't be a crime. He's a creep, yeah, but like Dan says, I don't see how this harms anyone.
This guy's fetish shouldn't be a crime. He's a creep, yeah, but like Dan says, I don't see how this harms anyone.
18
@ 14
I think the reason behind:
(It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.)
Is to dissuade the establishment of Bordellos/Whorehouses.
I think the reason behind:
(It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.)
Is to dissuade the establishment of Bordellos/Whorehouses.
19
I can't help but wonder if making it illegal to bash someone's head in with a fire extiguisher isn't good enough and if we really need a special law to extra-specially criminalize an act that already carries the maximum penalty.
I can't help but wonder if making it illegal to bash someone's head in with a fire extiguisher isn't good enough and if we really need a special law to extra-specially criminalize an act that already carries the maximum penalty.
20
@2: If I discovered that someone had been videotaping me without my knowledge, I would be unhappy about that.
If I discovered that someone had been drinking my urine without my knowledge, I would be sickened, but not especially upset. He can have it.
If I discovered that someone had been drinking my urine without my knowledge, I would be sickened, but not especially upset. He can have it.
22
@20,
I agree, I would be grossed at first, but then I would probably go consume as much black coffee, aparagus, and cheap liquor as I could find. Not to mention a copious amount of methylene blue.
I agree, I would be grossed at first, but then I would probably go consume as much black coffee, aparagus, and cheap liquor as I could find. Not to mention a copious amount of methylene blue.
24
@14 Banning colored chickens and ducks for sale isn't uncommon, at least I know it was also illegal in Illinois when I lived there. It's an animal protection law, to keep people from dyeing chicks and ducklings and selling them for Easter, when they will promptly be abandoned thereafter.
As for the urine law, won't someone think of the tanners? The really, really retro ones?
As for the urine law, won't someone think of the tanners? The really, really retro ones?
25
@20: Fine, you wouldn't be upset. However, I can't help but think that most people would disagree--if I found out someone had been drinking my urine (much less my KID's urine), I would be extremely upset, and the fact that people want to pass this law indicates that most people seem to agree with me.
26
Whatever. Considering the number of sociopaths popping up under ECDAMAF who are willing to sell their children for sex, certainly this perv could've found some parents willing to sell him their son's urine. I bet this guy got off on the implicit violation, and consensual urine collection wouldn't even remotely do it for him.
In short, lock him up.
In short, lock him up.
27
Isn't there a market for urine anyway, for people who want to pass drug tests but still want to smoke? (It was in American Beauty...). So he probably could have gotten it other ways if he wanted it. I think what he wanted to do was be creepy and violating, not just obtain the pee.
28
I'm not the kind of person who's afraid of police, but a law banning the collection of a person's bodily fluids without their consent sounds like a good idea in light of what shenanigans the cops could get up to. That's assuming, of course, that the law would even apply to law enforcement.
29
OMG, I am so going to sue that bastard. I used to go to SportsOhio all the time and now I am traumatized, traumatized I tell you, that this perv was drinking my piss. Let's see, I think a cool, err, piss warm $20 million will help ease the pain and emotional stress that this has caused since I learned of his thirst for my mellow yellow.
30
The reason for these laws is that there are a limited number of state legislators who oppose every law under the sun, but are able once every 10 years to trumpet something utterly stupid like this as a victory for morality/protecting children/The American Way Of Life.
31
Make any law you want about it, why not design the urinals so this action is impossible? Why not get this guy some fucking help? I don't think we gain anything by throwing him in jail, we should try to learn why anyone is acting this way and prevent it in the future. Locking him in jail serves absolutely no purpose.
32
I feel no one has the right to prevent anyone from their own self determination. . . That said, people have the right to go into a public restroom to relief themselves without supporting some pervs fetish.
It's my pee and I want it to go down the drain. Don't oppress me you urine drinking perverts!
It's my pee and I want it to go down the drain. Don't oppress me you urine drinking perverts!
33
Why the hell didn't he just go to the local rent-boys and buy the piss? I'm sure if I had the choice between blowing/fucking some guy and selling him my piss for $20 bucks, piss selling would win hands down.
34
He's obviously really, really fucked up, and potentially dangerous. He's done a lot more than just collect pee and drink it. See more of the shit he's pulled here: http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/con…
It's kind of hard to fault the community for overreacting, although I agree with most others that I wouldn't much care if someone were collecting my pee and drinking it. But that doesn't mean it should be legal to covertly collect urine for personal consumption. It is, after all, MY pee, and I should be allowed to say whose mouth it does and does not go into, no?
It's kind of hard to fault the community for overreacting, although I agree with most others that I wouldn't much care if someone were collecting my pee and drinking it. But that doesn't mean it should be legal to covertly collect urine for personal consumption. It is, after all, MY pee, and I should be allowed to say whose mouth it does and does not go into, no?
35
The specific law is needed so that there is no question that it is a crime. It probably most benefits those whose fluids have been surreptitiously collected in that it makes it easier for those people to report what happened without having to do much explaining about why such an act counts as the more broadly-described violation of "criminal mischief."
I think it's a good idea.
What a fascinating post, though. Such an important topic.
So Dan, was this a slow day for you?
glossypov.blogspot.com
I think it's a good idea.
What a fascinating post, though. Such an important topic.
So Dan, was this a slow day for you?
glossypov.blogspot.com
36
@12
that was exactly my first thought.
i'm going to recklessly assume that a person who needs absolute control of body fluids won't go in public restrooms - and those who do use public toilets won't give a shit (ha!) about what happens to what they leave.
that was exactly my first thought.
i'm going to recklessly assume that a person who needs absolute control of body fluids won't go in public restrooms - and those who do use public toilets won't give a shit (ha!) about what happens to what they leave.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (36) RSS