I’m sure we’d all agree what happens between a consenting adult and their pool float in the privacy of their own home is their business. But in this case, one man just couldn’t resist sharing his carnal love in the open for neighbors to see:
HuffPo — Tobergta’s wet and wild trysts first made a splash in 2011 when the then-32-year-old was caught getting freaky with his neighbor’s pink, inflatable raft in an Ohio alleyway. The neighbor called police to report that Tobergta was on top of the floatational device with his pants “down around his ankles.” The suspect fled — with the raft — and was arrested a short time later.Today, Tobergta was indicted by a Butler County grand jury after a child witnessed him last month stepping out his back door, naked, then having “sexual relations with a rubber pool float,” police told WHIO. The same “rubber pool float” he’d de-felated in 2011.
Now before anyone gets all pious and preachy here, you have no idea what the facts are in this case. First of all the float may have started the whole thing. It’s entirely possible the pool float was all dolled up and just asking for it. Besides, once you see this guy, you’ll understand that maybe his options were limited. But if there are some floats out there looking for a good time, my guess is he’s single and available right now.
I just think its adorable that he took the raft as he ran off, its like they were eloping
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s pool float. ;)
Honestly, if he put up a fence or just kept his lusty activities in the house, I’d say “More power to him”. But trespassing, theft and getting freaky in front of a kid? Not OK.
Aliasalpha… or he was well aware there was DNA evidence on the raft….
Hey, if the guy wants to get off using a pool float, whatever floats his boat.
That said, what I would get pious and preachy about his habit of exhibitionism, which he appears to be unable to kick.
Ordinarily I’d have not problem with this, but he forgot an important rule for being kinky “Don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses”
Non-consensual exhibitionism (especially if there’s a kid present) is not ok.
If we allow gays to marry, next thing you know we’ll have to allow guys to marry pool floats!
… after a child witnessed him last month stepping out his back door, naked, then having “sexual relations with a rubber pool float,” police told WHIO.
Are those the words of the police in quotes, or the child?
And yes, a pink pool float is rather slutty. How much more “dolled up” can a pool float get?
I just think its adorable that he took the raft as he ran off, its like they were eloping
It’s a committed relationship. You wouldn’t want this guy having sex with just any pool float he saw, would you?
People loving and marrying inanimate objects is not new… Just look at Mrs Eiffel.
I read about a case where a woman who fell in love with a fairground ride had to be given some of “his” nuts and bolts as well as a picture of him so that she could climax in private as opposed to in public, around children.
It would be interesting to hear more about this case… Is he an exhibitionist or not? Inquiring minds…
“If we allow gays to marry, next thing you know we’ll have to allow guys to marry pool floats!”
We can’t let pool floats marry! What if they seduce our children into the floatysexual lifestyle?
Is this better or worse than someone having sex with a horse?
http://gawker.com/man-arrested-two-times-in-3-months-for-having-sex-with-665508881
@ 10
“Is this better or worse than someone having sex with a horse?”
Neigh.
What a clarifying way to put it – framing the act of watching sex / being watched having sex as a sexual activity in itself, which naturally requires informed consent.
Adding to Robert B’s comment…
I don’t know about that. I don’t suppose we can really say with certainty what with the lack of information, but this ‘non-consensual exhibitionism’ may actually be ‘some kid looked over the back fence of a private residence and got a surprise’.
Anyway, I hope the blossoming romance has a good ending, or at least conjugal visit rights.
P.S.
What the hell is this ‘de-felated’ term? Did he simply deflate it, or did he perform the opposite of fellatio on a pool float? If the latter, what is the opposite of fellatio anyway? Personally, I hope it is the latter, and this brave man is redefining sex itself. Or something.
Indicted for what? He was on his property, doing something that is totally legal. I thought public nudity laws only applied to *public* places. His back yard is his private property (it says he was stepping out his back door). From the facts listed, it is unclear if he was an intentional exhibitionist or this incident was accidental. I guess the first incident was probably illegal, since he was in an alleyway where people walk, and not on his property, but the second case is not necessarily a crime.
On a related note, any lawyers want to comment on whether nudity and sexual activity are criminal acts if they take place on private property owned by the nude or sexually active individual(s), but in full or partial view of neighbors/pedestrians/drivers? Is there some provision for “whether people can easily, without any deliberate voyeurism, see the nude/sexual actions”? What if the nude/sexual act is only visible from a few certain specific angles (that may or may not be easy to discover or avoid), and is therefore mostly private, and easily ignored by people who might unfortunately glance along one of those angles? Finally, if exhibitionism is legal in nudist colonies and nude beaches where it can be seen by members (lol, intentional pun) of the public who unintentionally expose themselves (again, totally intentional pun) to the nekkid-ness, how is a private citizen, on his private property, seen by unsuspecting people who are unlucky (or lucky) enough to look his way, any different? Is it the fact he was making sweet love to an inflatable pool item that makes this a criminal act?
DAAS explained the love for an inflatable raft years ago:
Tim: (SITS AND THOUGHTFULLY BRINGS OUT A PIPE) What we really need down here is a little bit of excitement – what we need is a woman.
Richard: A woman? What’s a woman?
Tim: (SMOKING PIPE) Well Fnord, it’s time we had our little talk… A woman is a marvellous, graceful, powerful thing. They are pointy at one end and blunt at the other. They can do things that pimply weaselly men could never dream of. Women are our great companions on the ocean of life. And though the waves pound against you and storms rise up, women are unshakeable. When things get rough, they can make you queasy, but there’s one thing they all have in common – no two women are the same, and, of course, they all have rudders.
Richard: What do you do with women, Tim?
Tim: Well you can fill them up with sheep and send them off to Arabia… you can sit in them and go sailing – they glide through the water as if by magic.
– DAAS Kapital, episode 1 1991
Gobi, that quote was rather detailed, you don’t happen to have episode one do you? Its the only one I’m missing.
And cuttlefish, I expected a poet to have more romance in their soul
@ Aliasalpha
The whole series has just been re-released on DVD (at least in Australia) – the script excerpt was found on the interwebs ( somewhere – I forget…)
And for those who aren’t in on the joke: Tim later turns up to a ball with his “inflatable date” which is actually an inflatable raft. DAAS could very often be the opposite of clever but the whole sad, pathetic, confusion between girls and ships was a nice bit of writing. ‘Boys’ that are completely ignorant of women? Can such a thing exist? …snark…
In Every Dream Home a Heartache.