I'm going to post this without even reading the rest of the story....

[Don’t Do the Dew

A case involving a pornographer and two teenage girls highlights a legal gray area.](http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/currents/Content?oid=oid:47130)

Thus far, I’ve only read the first paragraph, but already I’m thinking this may be the news story of the month.

And I just noticed that if it was the news story of the month, it would be the month of June, 2003.

Still, funny stuff.

Fabulous. Thanks for the laugh, SenorBeef!

If I were prosecuting this case, I’d argue that his semen touching them was HIM touching them.

There was a tort case a while back in which someone purposely blew cigar smoke into the face of a radio talk-show guest who was an anti-tobacco advocate. The guest brought a battery claim, which requires a touching, and the court held that the “particulate matter” in the smoke constituted a touching in that case. I’d think one’s own semen would be a clearer case of a touching than that (somewhat tenuous) precedent.

It doesn’t look like anyone argued that route, though. “The appellate court held that sexual gratification did qualify as a benefit under § 13-2310.”

My favorite sentence from the case: “No evidence showed that he was associated with any legitimate face cream enterprise.”

The citation, in case anyone’ sinterested: State v. Henry, 205 Ariz. 229.

Clarification of my previous comment, now that I’ve thought about it a bit:

That could really be construed as thoughtless, for which I do apologize. I certainly don’t mean that I’m amused by people who bamboozle other people into unsuspecting contact with bodily fluids. However, the case has so many elements of the absurd about it that it’s one of those things you have to marvel (and maybe laugh) at, even though committing such an offense is obviously not a laughing matter. Plus, some of the wording in that article, including the bit I quoted…sweet Methusaleh. :eek:

So in conclusion: I can see how someone can and would be offended by my comment, but all I can do is assure you that it was not written with malicious intent.

–La Llorona, PC-in’ it up since March of aught-five

I was amazed by how gullible the girls were. A strange man invites you into his house… where he BLINDFOLDS you (I would have backed out right there)… you hear HEAVY BREATHING… then some WARM STUFF shoots onto your face… and then you agree to come back and only realise later that waitaminnit, maybe that wasn’t face cream?

La Llorona, no offense taken on my part. I’m a law student, so my brain automatically goes into lawyer-mode when I hear about a case like this. (Translation: “I am becoming what I promised myself I would not become when I started law school.”) But yeah, I agree: This is funny stuff. I hope I didn’t ruin it by going into law-mode.

And FlyingRamenMonster, I think you’re right: There are enough conflicting statements and suspicious misunderstandings to make me wonder just how “unsuspecting” those girls were.

Whereas these girls didn’t see it coming, legally, the man gave it a shot, beat the rap and came out clean…not necessarily in that order.