Man dupes woman into changing his diapers & bottle feeding 4 three months (played disabled)

[Liberal_in_LA]

I have to admit - this story made me laugh just a little bit :rofl:

http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2009/08/10/man-dupes-woman-into-changing-his-diapers/

Man dupes woman into changing his diapers
August 10, 2009 • 12:24 pm
By Diana Fasanella

A Florida woman was duped into changing an adult man’s diapers and bottle feeding him for three months when she thought he was disabled and needed care.

Janet Schulte of Melbourne said she agreed for $600 a week to look after the 40-something, disabled man whose brother placed an ad on Craigslist seeking care, Florida Today reports.

The brother, who only communicated with Schulte by phone, told her his sibling had diminished mental capacity but was able to come to her house on his own because he lived with an aunt nearby and knew the neighborhood.

She later discovered the man and the brother were the same person after her husband noticed some personality changes in the supposedly disabled man. Schulte’s husband then followed him and saw the man get into a car two blocks from their house and drive away.

-----------------------------
Schulte said never once during the three months of care did the man break character while she “rubbed his head while he was falling asleep,” or changed his diapers. She added that his behavior was never sexual in any way.

------------------------------
http://cbs4.com/local/janet.schulte.melbourne.2.1121186.html

After a while Schulte and her husband got suspicious and found the man out after subtle behavior changes and a few late payments. They contacted police but were told though he lied, the man's actions didn't constitute a crime since she was paid $600 weekly for her services.

[foxfeet]

1. Paging David Vitter. . .

your Pampers are ready.

[SoCalDem]

14. GMTA.. that was my first thought too...

[Liberal_in_LA]

16. size 200-237 lb. lol

[Quantess]

2. "the man's actions didn't constitute a crime since she was paid $600 weekly for her services."

But, was he soliciting prostitution?

I mean, just look at the David Vitter case. Diaper fetish, HELLO!

[MNDemNY]

4. "she admitted the behaviour was never sexual in any way"

So. no.

[Quantess]

7. Not sexual to her.

She obviously was a good person who intended to help a disabled man. But did he dupe her into being a sex worker?

[Nay]

10. Zackly. It was certainly sexual for HIM. I find it interesting that the cops

aren't prosecuting -- this is a fairly common male sexual fetish (witness Vitter), and I suspect any woman who advertised that she would wash, diaper, and "care for" men in this manner would be getting a cop visit pretty shortly.

[Quantess]

11. Well, maybe the cops decided they have bigger fish to fry?

But, given cops' penchant for going after prostitution, it does seem odd they are ignoring this one.

[dem629]

24. "Authorities are continuing the investigation into the case."

Right in the article.

[LisaL]

25. Yea but she agreed to do it.

I don't think he can be prosecuted since she agreed to do it.
Even though she thought he was disabled, it doesn't change the fact that she agreed to do it.

[Stephanie]

29. Nurses change diapers every day out of compassion for the ill and disabled

But they don't sign on to do it so some fetishist can get off.

[Stephanie]

17. Diaper fetish:

Apologies in advance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaper_fetishism

[nightrain]

6. or exhibitionist

[Quantess]

9. She may be able to sue the guy for something if she really wanted to.

He subjected her to indecent exposure under false pretenses.

But, oh well, it is kind of funny. I can see why the cops aren't charging him with anything. It's good they realize there are bigger crimes to pursue.

[Stephanie]

18. She's been sexually abused

If I were her I would press charges.

[dem629]

21. You're diminishing the claims of actual sexual abuse victims.

That's not a good thing.

Is this guy fucked up? Yeah. Was the woman duped? Yeah. But sexual abuse? Gimme a break.

[Stephanie]

26. Is tricking someone into touching your penis sexual abuse?

Pretending to be disabled so you can expose yourself to a healthcare worker and get her to touch your dick is not sexual abuse? Yes it is.

[dem629]

28. Which law are you referring to?

[Stephanie]

30. Indecent exposure, to start.

[dem629]

33. No. That has to occur in a public place.

And in some states in the private homes of others. But those are special circumstances and would not include a case with an agreement.

Do you actually know there was a crime here or are you just hoping there was?

[Stephanie]

36. Well you seem to know a lot about it

I think tricking a health care worker into paticipating in one's fetish, exposing oneself, getting her to touch your genitals under the pretense that you have a medical condition and are unable to use the toilet, must be a crime. But I am not a lawyer so I don't know what he could be charged with. But that woman has been used and abused and I'm surprised you have no sympathy for her.

[dem629]

37. Figures. You can't back up your position so you resort to "you must know" bs.

It doesn't matter whether you or I think it's weird, gross, wrong, etc.

You said you would press charges, so what matters is whether it's a crime. Clearly you aren't concerned with that. You just want it to be a crime, law be damned.

I guess your last line (about sympathy) reveals that you aren't looking at this logically or legally or rationally. Sorry, but emotions don't decide law.

Now you can get all hysterical and flustered and accuse me of whatever you wish. Have at it. The floor is yours! :hi:

[Stephanie]

38. WTF?

You're correct, it doesn't matter if I think it's weird, gross or wrong, so long as both participants are consenting adults. But this woman did not consent. She was deceived into believing the man was disabled and needed care. She didn't sign on to be a sex worker. What is so hard to understand about that? It's sexual exploitation and it's WRONG.

[dem629]

46. You still haven't made the case that a crime was committed.

We agree that it's sick and wrong. No argument there.

But in order to prosecute a crime you need a crime.

The act itself didn't change because he lied.

[Stephanie]

49. Ok well when it happens to you I'm sure you'll say, no worries.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer so I can't pinpoint what the exact crime is, but I know it when I see it. A woman was sexually exploited by a man who hired her for health care services but instead used her to get his rocks off by exposing his genitals and having her touch them. But I guess it's okay, since the checks didn't bounce.

[LisaL]

31. But if he was actually disabled clearly you would agree

it's not sexual abuse.
I frankly don't see how it becomes sexual abuse if he wasn't disabled.
She voluntarily did something for money.

[Control-Z]

39. And had she

volunteered to do the same to a perfectly healthy man, for money, she would be arrested for prostitution.

[Stephanie]

43. Actually I don't think she would

You can run a dungeon and not be arrested for prostitution if there are no sexual acts occurring. I can tie you up but I can't get you off, i.e. But that is an instance of consenting adults. This woman did not consent.

[Liberal_in_LA]

48. Agree. Play acting occurs at Renaissance fairs. It's not illegal for adults to dress up and

role play.

[LisaL]

50. I don't think so.

Unless she was having sex with the man, which she wasn't, what on Earth would make it prostitution?

[SpiralHawk]

3. He's got to be a Republicon Homelander with, um, Family Values Syndrome

As they have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt, and as everyone knows, the Repubs are into giving Standing Os in appreciation of Diaper Sex Dandys.

[DefenseLawyer]

5. People are strange. n/t

[KamaAina]

8. Why did I know it was gonna be Florida?

Again? :eyes:

[Critters2]

51. LOL! nt

[armyowalgreens]

12. O'Reilly and his fetishes...

:hide:

[SpiralHawk]

22. "Felafel sex is tastier than diaper sex. Smirk." - Bill 'Chickenhawk' O'Reilly (R)

"You lib-ruls just don't get it." - Billy 'Chickenhawk' O'Reilly (R)

[Autumn]

13. Good thing she didn't breast feed him n/t

[Liberal_in_LA]

15. no, but she did rub his head. ewwwww

[marshall]

19. She wasn't duped, she was paid for a service

Had she done it for free then I would agree that she was duped. She got paid and now she's trying to squeeze more money out of him.

[Stephanie]

20. She was led to believe it was a disabled person who medically needed to wear diapers

When in fact it was a fully able fetishist who got off on exposing himself to her and having her wipe his butt. She didn't sign up as a sex worker, she signed up as a health care worker.

[LisaL]

27. Yea but what is the crime on his part?

Generally people aren't charged for misleading someone. And she did get paid for the service provided, so it's not like he swindled her out of money.

[Stephanie]

35. So you are a nurse and I hire you to take care of my "disabled" husband who's "incontinent"

But he's not disabled at all, he just has a diaper fetish and gets a thrill out of exposing himself to you and having you touch him. You think it's okay so long as I write you a check?

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=diaper+fetish&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0

If a nurse provides this assistance to a genuinely disabled person, it's a selfless act of compassion. If she's tricked into doing it for a fetishist, I call that a crime.

*Edit* Edit to say, if she does it *willingly* for a fetishist, I have no problem. The problem is the deception. She did not agree to participate in his diaper fetish.

[LisaL]

45. Generally deception is not a crime, unless it involves money

(fraud). But in this case she was paid.

[Control-Z]

41. WTF

Are you serious? The man violated her, in more ways than one.

[dem629]

47. You might get an organized march out of this, but that's about it.

[LisaL]

23. Baby man.

:rofl:

[reflection]

32. That's both creepy and hilarious.

Moral: Nothing good ever came out of Craigslist.

[Robb]

34. Life imitates Reno 911. nt

[Blasphemer]

40. He didn't have to lie

I'm quite sure he would have found someone willing to take his money even if he told the truth. Heck, he could even have found a fellow fetishist to do it for free. Clearly, the deception was part of the thrill. I can understand being disturbed about it.

[GaYellowDawg]

42. Once again, Florida. What the fuck is in the water down there?!? nt

nt

[Initech]

44. I think we've found Vitter a playmate...