Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Republicans Rossi and Hastings... | Morning News »

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Let This Be a Warning To All the Mattress Humpers Out There

posted by on October 27 at 8:07 AM

This is nuts.


A man has been placed on the sex offenders’ register after being caught trying to have sex with a bicycle.

On Wednesday Mr Stewart admitted to sexual breach of the peace in Ayr Sheriff Court, where depute fiscal Gail Davidson described how he had been found by the hostel workers. She said: “They knocked on the door several times and there was no reply. “They used a master key to unlock the door and they then observed the accused wearing only a white T-shirt, naked from the waist down.

“The accused was holding the bike and moving his hips back and forth as if to simulate sex.”

Both witnesses, who were extremely shocked, notified the hotel manager, who in turn alerted the police.

Mr Stewart was placed on the sex offenders’ register but his sentence was deferred until next month.

This is appalling. Not Stewart’s actions, but the actions of the cleaners, the hotel manager, the police, and the courts. It seems clear that Stewart didn’t answer the door because he was rubbing one out and didn’t want to be disturbed. And if someone wants to hump an inanimate object in private—behind a locked door!—who is harmed? How is it a “sex offense” to hump a bike—or a mattress or a pillow or a ATV—in private? Or does some jerk taking offense transform a harmless solo sex act—a sex act being enjoyed in complete privacy!—into sex offense that can land someone on a sex offender’s registry?

Stewart isn’t the first man in the UK busted for having a “sex offense” involving an inanimate object.

Karl Watkins, an electrician, was jailed for having sex with pavements in Redditch, Worcs, in 1993.

RSS icon Comments


I guess masturbation is a crime in the UK.

Posted by Y.F. | October 27, 2007 8:41 AM

Over the past century, the Brits have given up their civil rights one by one. The UK is a police state now.

On the bright side, I think bumperstickers saying "Masturbation Is Not a Crime" would sell fairly well.

Posted by Civil liberal | October 27, 2007 8:57 AM

There must be a great idea here for next year's HUMP! Festival. Bumpy roads sound painful, however.

Posted by Francis Fart Copulate | October 27, 2007 8:59 AM

How the hell do you hump a bike?

Posted by info3000 | October 27, 2007 9:00 AM

well, the really important question is ... "Was it a fixie?"

Posted by bakfiets | October 27, 2007 9:10 AM

It looks like the Puritans never needed to leave England after all. Huh.

Posted by Michigan Matt | October 27, 2007 9:16 AM

Doesn't the Stranger have any problem with the fact that they have accepted and put an ad on their site that says "Barely There" with a photo of a girl who looks to be barely legal dressed only in barely there underwear? I guess they don't mind enticing pedophiles. Okay. Whatever. It seems obvious to me why they used the words "Barely there" and a younger than 21 year old model in underwear in a submissive position.

Posted by Kristin Bell | October 27, 2007 9:29 AM

Especially troubling because a recent survey in Britain said that British men rub one out 8 times a week!

Posted by orangekrush | October 27, 2007 9:44 AM

Nora Ephron said of her Carl Bernstein character, "That man could have sex with a Venetian blind."

Posted by Tim Appelo | October 27, 2007 10:08 AM

A 21-year-old woman is hardly "enticing pedophiles".

If only there was some to to signal to the staff of a hotel that you did not wish to be disturbed. Something like a little sign you could maybe hang on the doorknob outside the room.

Posted by Fnarf | October 27, 2007 10:09 AM

Umm. Maybe laws are diffferent over there, but that particular bicycle is clearly not at the age of consent.

Posted by Heather | October 27, 2007 10:40 AM

Kristin, thanks for making me waste my time looking for that ad.

Posted by disgruntled masturbator | October 27, 2007 10:41 AM

Of course the guy could have yelled that he was busy and didn't want to be disturbed.

Then again, the article says he was in a hostel, not a hotel, so maybe he had no right to a private room. In that case it's just a case of public masturbation and while I don't think that should count as an offense to register for, the rest of it isn't so outrageous. But if he did have a private room, then the whole thing is fucked.

Maybe someone who's been to Britain lately knows whether their hostels have private rooms...

Posted by Matt from Denver | October 27, 2007 10:52 AM


Very carefully....
and I imagine lots of lube.

God forbid you should get it caught up in the chain and the gears...

My question of how would rather lie with the pavements....

Carpet burn is bad enough...can't imagine road rash...or is that part of the allure?

Posted by Perplexed... | October 27, 2007 10:53 AM

More Kink, in today's Seattle Times:

A man was arrested after a government agent allegedly found him in an Iowa office building restroom lying next to an inflatable, anatomically correct doll with his pants down. Craig S. McCullough, 47, was charged Wednesday with indecent exposure, a misdemeanor. McCullough's criminal record includes a 2004 conviction for burglarizing a bridal boutique. Shortly after the burglary, police officers found McCullough in a nearby alley, carrying a mannequin wearing a bridal dress.

Posted by Glossy | October 27, 2007 10:55 AM

What this guy needs is a good lawyer who will help him to sue the shit out of a) the hotel, b) the police, and c) the sex registry. This is clearly a case (sort of like a certain Senator's, except much worse) where the guy was intimidated into pleading guilty to an imaginary crime and subsequently humiliated for no good reason. There are legal remedies for this.

Posted by The Gay Recluse | October 27, 2007 11:20 AM

Well, technically, what he needs is a good barrister.

Be that as it may, I'm still completely unclear as to how one can be charged as a sex offender (at least as the term is applied in this country), when there is no victim. Has Great Briton now ascribed human rights to inanimate objects? Or is the mere fact of the hotel maids "shock" at the perp's admittedly pervy, but nonetheless completely harmless actions sufficient to consider them to have been somehow victimized by his behavior?

The charge itself, "sexual breach of the peace" seems rather problematic as well. Given the man was inside of a locked hotel room, and not say, out in the middle of the street (in re the pavement fucker), wouldn't there be at least some presumption of privacy on his part? Granted, the cleaners did verbally announce their presence, which he didn't acknowledge, but it certainly wouldn't have been the first time an unsuspecting hotel employee accidentally walked in on someone in the throes of passion - albeit, probably not in the exact manner described. Does it then follow that ANY person so discovered would be similarly guilty of this offense? If so, there must be a fair number of criminal sex offenders running around Great Briton whose only real crime was being espied by the help with their pants down or skirts up in what they most probably assumed was a "private" hotel room.


Posted by COMTE | October 27, 2007 11:50 AM

And I thought W was making the US a police state.

Note to self: When in the UK, remember to put the chain on the door.

Posted by Wolf | October 27, 2007 12:02 PM

So THAT'S what people mean when they say they were "Huffing"!

Posted by Packratt | October 27, 2007 12:17 PM

I'm proud you guys didn't make any Pavement The Rock Band jokes.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | October 27, 2007 12:28 PM

Yeah, well, it's the UK. They have no Bill of Rights, no Lawrence v. Texas decision, and more surveillance cameras per square foot than any other nation in the world AFAIK. That they don't seem to make any particular demands regarding individual privacy is ultimately their problem.

Posted by tsm | October 27, 2007 12:48 PM

I'm a Brit

we'd like to join your club / country, sorry!

second amendment, right ??

oh dear, since when is fucking a collection of steel tubes a crime??

on the point of giving up

oh, say have you seen --- the twats running our home......

Posted by Boz | October 27, 2007 1:12 PM

@20 - Probably because humping a section of sidewalk is so obviously a more appealing thought than humping Stephen Malkmus - any day of the week.

Posted by Wowee | October 27, 2007 2:25 PM

The pic did make me consider something though. What if the bike wasn't just something he bought? What if he was masturbating to the idea of someone riding that little kiddie bike? Granted it's bordering on thoughtcrime but that may be a decent thing to charge him for if he outright stole that bike.

I'm just a little more cautious now since the stranger report on that 13 year old forcibly being pierced by mom leaving out the fact that SHE AGREED. You can argue that she was still forced into it by pressure and all but c'mon..

Posted by arandomdude | October 27, 2007 2:41 PM

The poor bicycle is scarred for life, now. Lock him up for life!

Posted by mla | October 27, 2007 3:32 PM

@22 The second amendment is the one where we can have any weapons we want because it is our goddamn right.

I think you're jonesing for the 4th. And maybe the 14th.

Posted by exelizabeth | October 27, 2007 3:49 PM

Yeah, maybe we don't have the protection of a constitution on our rights, but they did have pavement-fucking on Doctor Who. We broadcast it as Family TV when we break the law.

Posted by Rebecca | October 27, 2007 5:10 PM

where does this madness end. the next thing you know animal control will be taking puppies to the pound for humping stuffed animals and pillows. little pug likes to hump a giant yellow pikachu stuffed toy every now and then and sometimes he humps a stuffed Gumby that I gave him for christmas. He even humped a classic 80's pac man that I have. Who's to say this law will not soon be used on your precious dogs...It might happen....beware

Posted by rover | October 27, 2007 7:47 PM

@15: Well, I can understand getting arrested for having sex in a public restroom. Whether it's with an actual person or an inanimate object, people do get in trouble for that sort of thing. I also don't see anything weird about the fact that the guy who was having sex with the pavement got arrested. Imagine you're walking down the street, and you see a guy with his dick out, humping the sidewalk! That is definitely indecent exposure.
That being said, I don't think it was right for that guy to be arrested for having sex with a bike in the privacy of a hotel room. I definitely think it was an overreaction to make him register as a sex offendor. Maybe they thought that, since the bike wasn't able to give consent, it was rape!

Posted by Anna | October 27, 2007 7:50 PM

Fnarf @ 10: Forgetting to hang the Do Not Disturb sign on his outside doorknob while engaging in a sexual act with an inanimate object makes him stupid; it shouldn't make him a criminal. As others have pointed out, if he is behind a locked door he should have a reasonable expectation of privacy while indulging his bizarre but essentially harmless hobby.

The sign does, however, give me a thought. Maybe when applied to this guy it should read "Do Not Disturb Any Further".

Posted by david | October 27, 2007 11:49 PM

exelizabeth @26

We'll take those as well, thanks, but I did mean 2nd. I used to own several.

Posted by Boz | October 27, 2007 11:53 PM

Of course he should be on the sex offender's register, the man's a velocipedophile!

Posted by bluejay | October 28, 2007 5:04 AM

Bluejay @ 32

Surely, Pedalphile ??

Posted by Boz | October 28, 2007 7:57 AM

It occurs to me that having sex with pavements would constitute some sort of crime. Public indecency, at the very least.

Posted by Rei | October 28, 2007 4:46 PM

I thought it rather insensitive that the victim's photo had the caption "So Sweet".

I guess everyone's a huffer...

Posted by Packratt | October 28, 2007 6:46 PM

I didn't see any description of the bike in the article. I think the kiddie bike was a Slog addition.

Posted by Ben | October 28, 2007 9:19 PM

Heh. Sorry for making you look for the ad. It wasn't related to this article by the way for anyone who was confused. It just popped up when I saw this article. I think the ads randomly pop on and off, so I don't know how you can find the ad I was talking about. And I use "under 21" just to be generous. The girl in the ad could have been like 12 years old, which IS pedophile material. Not to mention the photo was taken from a position which made it look like the girl was in a submissive position, like someone older and stronger was towering over her.

Posted by Kristin | October 29, 2007 3:29 AM

Ewwww... #28. Get rid of those pillows!! Now all your friends know and won't touch them. Gross. I for one am no longer coming (cuming) over your house...!

Posted by subwlf | October 29, 2007 1:23 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).