Did you see the story about a man arrested for having sex with a bicycle?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/26/nsex126.xml
I imagine the police interviewing him after his arrest. It probably went something like this:
Detective: Do you confess to having sex with a bicycle?
Bike Humper: Yes.
Detective: Was it a woman’s bicycle or a man’s bicycle?
Bike Humper: Dude, I’m not gay.
I have to wonder if the perpetrator is exclusively attracted to bicycles, or are other inanimate objects just as sexy? If so, I envy him on some level. There would be no such thing as a boring night at home. “Hellooooo, Lamp!”
He probably has his own set of private jokes he uses around the house: “Well, there’s nothing on TV tonight,” …pause for humorous effect…”except ME!”
If the perpetrator gets jail time, I would hate to be the other prisoner in his cell. I’d be afraid to fall asleep and appear inanimate for more than a minute. And I’d tape my toothbrush and tin cup to my chest. That would be a long five years.
My theory is that the perpetrator has a neighbor who keeps borrowing his shit, and this was his way of dealing with it. It almost worked. I’m practically certain no one will ask to borrow that bicycle. And his family will probably bury his bowling ball with him.
Or perhaps the man was too cheap to buy a bicycle lock and he was worried the cleaners would steal the bike. He had a choice of paying $12 for a lock, or humping the bike in front of them. Either way, the odds of bicycle theft plummeted. The thing he didn’t count on was the cleaners turning him over to authorities. I can see how he’d make that mistake. If you tell me you knew there was a law against loving your bicycle too much, you’re lying.
This story disturbs me on many levels. I was already concerned about becoming impotent from riding my bicycle. Now I’ll only ride my bicycle standing up, so no one will accuse me of teabagging it. I have enough problems.
[The joke I forgot to include: He would have done a unicycle, but his mother told him it would make him blind.]
"That would be a long five years."
The article made no mention of any prison term. So tell us Scott, what crime are you yet to be caught for that carries a specific sentence of five years? :)
Posted by: Pete | March 25, 2008 at 08:52 PM
A racing bike is good for "gettin there" fast
Whereas A mountain bike is more rugged & handles the "Humps" better :-)
Posted by: Tony in Tasmania | November 11, 2007 at 07:36 AM
good job
Posted by: seks shop | November 09, 2007 at 12:49 AM
I think "bike humper" is a phrase that will make me laugh no matter how many times I hear it.
Sorry for the late post, I'm behind on my reading.
P.S. I bought your new book and I love it.
Posted by: Glenn Acheson | November 05, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Hey, it was consentual wasn't it? He just needs to bring the bike indoors....
Posted by: Dan | November 05, 2007 at 06:40 AM
How Ironic that the guy humping the bike's name was actually Bike Humper...wow...
http://awritersblock.com
Posted by: John | November 03, 2007 at 04:29 AM
Or maybe he mistook what the "bi" in bicycle meant....
Posted by: V | November 02, 2007 at 04:34 PM
See link above to "Is it wrong to have sex with your bicycle?"
Amazing stuff really. We all had better watch out when having sex in private, just in case.
I wonder if it was a toddler's bicycle. I guess then we can;t have him working in schools. At least not ones with bike sheds.
Posted by: David Carr | November 02, 2007 at 09:09 AM
This is completely retarded.
They burst in on a guy in HIS room and he ends up the sex offenders register.
I don't care if a guy is shoving pineapple up his arse sideways as long as he does in the privacy of his own room it's between him, his god and the bike.
Whats more screwed up that the guy wanted to shag a bike or that we care enough to stop him?
Posted by: Ben | November 02, 2007 at 02:52 AM
I wonder how many speeds it had..
Follow my two week road trip around Europe
http://ramblingsofanofficeworker.blogspot.com
http://lonelyplanet.evolutiondirectory.com
Posted by: Oli | November 02, 2007 at 02:18 AM
I guess this means a man needs a bicycle...like a fish needs a bicycle.
Posted by: Michael Webb | November 01, 2007 at 04:15 PM
Bike sex is odd enough, but the last two lines of the article are the best.
"He is not the first man to be convicted of a sexual offence involving an inanimate object, however. Karl Watkins, an electrician, was jailed for having sex with pavements in Redditch, Worcs, in 1993."
I can't think of any worse place to have road rash.
Posted by: Pender | November 01, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Jail? He's on the sex offender registry. I think that's worse. Now he's not allowed near kids, but bikes are fine so long as they aren't kids bikes. Does this make sense to you? He was masturbating in a novel way in his own room and this is somehow an appropriate reaction?
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | November 01, 2007 at 12:34 PM
What would happen if that guy saw this?
http://www.curbly.com/DIY-Maven/posts/2902-The-Bicycle-Seat-Sofa
Posted by: Jack | November 01, 2007 at 11:39 AM
The obligatory NAMBLA (North American Man Bike Love Association) joke would work here if this didn't happen in the UK.
Posted by: Brad | November 01, 2007 at 09:39 AM
If you have sex with a tricycle, does that make it an orgy?
There are too many places to go with this.
Posted by: Shawn | November 01, 2007 at 09:00 AM
[That's a good analogy if you like reading the same book over and over in the way you like the same soup more than once. Otherwise, the value of a book you already read for free is trivial. I acknowledge the rightness of your argument in a trivial sense. -- Scott]
And I forgot to remark that I think your free-with-ads distribution of dilbert.com was brilliant.
That many of us have personal libraries full of books we already read (I'm reading that word as being past tense) leads me to believe that the value is non-trivial. (And am I the only one who goes back weeks and months after I read an insightful quote on a webpage?)
Would the quality and quantity of the feedback from your users decrease significantly if this blog only had a webform to send private message (vs. publicly viewable and searchable comments)? That delta explains the disappointment/anger of some of the readers when their and other comments get removed.
You probably have access to the data, I'm just speculating. Good to see you at mark thoma, btw.
Posted by: peatey | November 01, 2007 at 08:29 AM
Scott, as a master of the absurd can I recommend a book by Flann O'Brien "The Third Policeman"....
I quote:
The gross and net result of it is that people who spend most of their natural lives riding iron bicycles over the rocky roadsteads of this parish get their personalities mixed up with the personalities of their bicycle as a result of the interchanging of the atoms of each of them and you would be surprised at the number of people in these parts who nearly are half people and half bicycles.
Posted by: Dave R | November 01, 2007 at 08:23 AM
[If your waiter asks you how you liked the soup, and you give him your valuable input, do you expect to share the restaurant's profit? -- Scott]
If the restaurant publishes my input in a for-profit book? Yeah, I expect a share.
[No one published anyone's input. -- Scott]
Posted by: Craig | November 01, 2007 at 07:34 AM
On a related vein, it is now a crime for an American to send an email to a foreigner if they meet via an internet dating site unless the American first has a sex offender check done on him or her and he or she provides a certification of many highly personal history matters, all of which must be translated into the foreigner's language and at that point the foreigner can allow the American to communicate with the foreigner.
The law was passed to protect American women from competition with foreign women for the affections of American men. Scott, for accurate details about the law please go to our website at www.onlinedatingrights.com
And for a dose of outrage read this press release from 2004:
Promoters of the INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT strategically link international matchmaking organizations with human trafficking rings in effort to gain bipartisan support.
Strategic linking of marriage brokers with human trafficking rings aids in gaining bipartisan support for law intent on eliminating international matchmaking companies and websites.
(PRWEB) July 4, 2004 -- To gain bipartisan support for the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act or IMBRA, we endorse the strategies of (1) using "womens' protection" as the main theme of the law; and (2) claiming that American-based marriage brokers are part of global human trafficking rings, however unfounded.
We also support provisions of the Act that will require brokers to conduct large quantities of consent verifications and background checks before American men can write love letters or make any contact with foreign women. These provisions will make it very difficult for American-based marriage brokers to organize those disgusting overseas introduction "parties" where women outnumber men 100 to 1. These provisions will also drive up costs to the point of putting most brokers out of business. In addition, this law effectively places "warning labels" on American men thus decreasing demand for them among foreign women over time.
Although this law is long overdue (and hopefully not too late), we welcome the Marriage Broker Regulation Act as a means to regulating the often arrogant and brazen international marriage broker industry. This industry has gone from the fringe to the mainstream. The American male population is now overly exposed to the message that it is acceptable to desire and actually marry women "unspoiled" by American materialism and most troubling, "uninfected" by American feminism. This message may impede the progress of feminism here at home and give American men the idea that it is acceptable to not respect feminist principles that took so long to instill upon them.
The marriage broker websites promulgate the "message" that American men are highly desirable outside the U.S. and can have access to women not intent on upholding over 30 years of hard won womens' rights. These sites also offensively elaborate on the reasons for rejecting American women as part of a campaign to promote the desirablity of foreign women. We find this to be most appalling.
Certainly, the existence of this industry is indicative of the sad state of romantic relationships between men and women in North America; however, it by no means should be allowed to continue unregulated.
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw138739.htm
Posted by: Looking for the rational | November 01, 2007 at 07:19 AM
Maybe he tried to chat up a lady in the hotel bar, and she told him to 'get on his bike'?
Posted by: Simon Robert | November 01, 2007 at 07:18 AM
I'd like to thank Raye for the link to Least That I Can Do. To think I used to be Rayne twenty years ago.
Posted by: Kevin Kunreuther | November 01, 2007 at 06:24 AM
New post isn't up yet, so I'm posting on yesterday's.
PEATEY -- get a life for your sorry ass.
D. MENTED -- Penis. Thanks for reminding me.
Rita Mae
Posted by: rita mae | November 01, 2007 at 06:22 AM
I wonder what would happen if genetics was used to spawn a human from the genetic material of Scott Adams and Stephen Colbert. Ultimate satirist?
Posted by: Beatrice Blake | November 01, 2007 at 06:10 AM
[If your waiter asks you how you liked the soup, and you give him your valuable input, do you expect to share the restaurant's profit? -- Scott]
Well done Scott. *claps* Only thing I would of added was Stupid lemon eater.
Posted by: Steve | November 01, 2007 at 05:48 AM