• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Alleged Library Foot Kisser Indicted

F

fttickler

1st Level Orange Feather
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Messages
2,062
Points
0
Alleged Library Foot Kisser Indicted
Tue Jul 25, 9:25 PM
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio - A grand jury has accused a man of sucking on a woman's toe at the public library in nearby Boardman after he asked to kiss her feet to see her reaction as part of a sociology project.

A Mahoning County grand jury has charged Joseph Colella, 28, of suburban Poland Township, on a charge of gross sexual imposition. If convicted, he could be face up to 1 1/2 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

A 27-year-old woman told police that on July 11 Colella asked to kiss her feet. She turned him down but said she relented when he repeatedly insisted, and he began kissing her foot and then sucked on a toe.

She pulled her foot away and the man asked her reaction, to which she replied she was freaked out.

The woman left to clean her foot and he was gone when she returned. She called police and picked him out of a photo lineup.

Detective Michelle DiMartino said Colella also was a suspect in a similar case in 2000.

Colella could not be reached for comment. A message seeking comment was left Tuesday at his home.
 
Given the possible jail sentence and the certainty of huge legal bills, he would have been much better off going to a Mistress for a foot worship session. :feets: 😀
 
This is an outrage! lets pool our money together to provide funds for his defense! if this case stands up, what am i to do in libraries now? :sowrong:
 
"gross sexual imposition?"

That's a new one and it seems WIDE open for lots of different behaviors, including, ahem, tickling.
 
fttickler said:
A 27-year-old woman told police that on July 11 Colella asked to kiss her feet. She turned him down but said she relented when he repeatedly insisted, and he began kissing her foot and then sucked on a toe.
Click to expand...
She relented and then called the police??? 😕

Hey, I think what he did is f*cked up and all, but if she gave him permission how is it a crime?
 
What is it with people. How many "breast guys" would try and pull something like that? I just don't get it.

[shakes head]
 
she gave her permission..so why call the police? hmm weird..
 
of all the places to do that why a library..plus if she said no in the begining let it go
 
MrPartickler said:
She relented and then called the police??? 😕

Hey, I think what he did is f*cked up and all, but if she gave him permission how is it a crime?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'll buy that.

I wonder if they reported the events correctly... Non-consentual contact is assault - but she gave consent. 😕
 
sole seeker said:
Yeah, I'll buy that.

I wonder if they reported the events correctly... Non-consentual contact is assault - but she gave consent. 😕
Click to expand...

The events or charges were likely uncorrectly reported. The Model Penal Code (condensed US Statutory Law) states under section 213.1(2) - “Gross Sexual Imposition” (3rd degree felony) is a lesser offense under rape that occurs if a male compels intercourse “by any threat that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution”.

I don't think his actions can be held quite to that standard, although they are nonetheless inappropriate to a very high degree. This is the type of event that makes people misunderstand and stereotype people sharing this fetish. There are plenty of places one can go if they absolutely cannot live without sucking on a toe. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic...I certainly feel for the guy. But this doesnt even fall under the "thin line of appropriateness". He was lucky enough she let him kiss her feet (I mean keep in mind this is in public and he's a stranger)...but he had to take it one step further. As much as I understand where he's coming from, I can't condone it.
 
Last edited:
Garbage dudes!

Im sorry that the guy did it in a shady manner but I mean she said OK at first. She consented to it then changed her mind. But nothing happen after she changed her mind so I can't really see this being anything in court. The dude definetly needs a g/f or something but I have to stand by his corner on this one for sure man. He didn't really do anything wrong in my opinion. I think he just needs to find a better way to satisfy his fetish then making up a sociology project. haha :yawnface:
 
Come on now.

Frenzy7772003 said:
Im sorry that the guy did it in a shady manner but I mean she said OK at first. She consented to it then changed her mind. But nothing happen after she changed her mind so I can't really see this being anything in court. The dude definetly needs a g/f or something but I have to stand by his corner on this one for sure man. He didn't really do anything wrong in my opinion. I think he just needs to find a better way to satisfy his fetish then making up a sociology project. haha :yawnface:
Click to expand...

As a human being, I definitely hear everyone who stands by the guy. Unfortunately many times what seems "human" doesn't always fall under the protection of the law. The guy asked to kiss...she said no...he insisted (which sets him up for harrassment as well)...she relents...he kisses AND SUCKS :shock: . The sucking was what did it. So, for all intent and purposes, he shot himself in the foot...even though the situation sucks (pun definitely intended).
 
I guess your right

You make a fine and valid point my friend and now after hearing that I'd say that I'd have to agree. He needs to just cool it on the whole creepy stranger thing and prolly introduce himself to the girls and get to know them before he goes trying to shove his mouth onto their ligaments, regardless of which one he chooses. haha
 
Giving consent to kissing means one or two kisses, not a sucking marathon.
 
Reality Check in 3...2...1....

Here goes, kiddies....
The victim gave "consent" because he told her it was part of a sociology project. He didn't say, "Excuse me; May I, a total stranger, kiss and suck your feet because it makes my dick hard?" She gave consent to something non-sexual, or so she thought. Since his request for consent was based on a lie, her consent is invalid, and not to be considered. Keep in mind, the word "relented"....as in, she had to be pressured....c'mon, guys, are you that insensitive?
I don't feel sympathetic to this idiot at all. (Then again, I'm not into feet, maybe that's the key to compassion in this case, but I doubt it.) If he can't find a woman to consent to what he likes sexually, and he can't afford to pay for it, why is it okay, or even "not so bad", to trick strangers into getting you off? What if it was your mom, your sister, your wife, or your girlfriend? Or, would that still be okay, since it's "just" feet?
To those who want to defend this creep (that's what he is, a creep), let me ask you: What if a guy came up to you in a library and asked you to participate in a survey about testicular cancer, at first, you didn't want to be bothered, but he insisted; after all, cancer's serious business, right? So, not wanting to seem uncaring, you relent, and he asks questions about if you'd felt any lumps in your balls, if you felt your balls for lumps regularly, if you'd done it in a shower, etc....then, he starts rubbing himself....and has an orgasm in front of you. Is that ok? After all, he just asked questions, right? And you consented, right??
And how is that different from what the foot sucker did? Sorry if I've offended anyone, but I get very tired of people justifying bad behavior just because it turns them on.


: stepping off my soapbox :

Postscript: You know, I forgot one important point....as he's not convicted yet, everything should be taken with the presumptive "IF he did this...."
 
Last edited:
I could SWEAR I read an account somewhere - either here, Tickletheater, or maybe the Mousepad - where a guy was bragging about talking some girl he didn't know into letting him suck her toes at a library. I did a search at the Pad but came up empty. Anyone else recall this?
 
Wolf said:
Here goes, kiddies....
The victim gave "consent" because he told her it was part of a sociology project. He didn't say, "Excuse me; May I, a total stranger, kiss and suck your feet because it makes my dick hard?" She gave consent to something non-sexual, or so she thought. Since his request for consent was based on a lie, her consent is invalid, and not to be considered. Keep in mind, the word "relented"....as in, she had to be pressured....c'mon, guys, are you that insensitive?
I don't feel sympathetic to this idiot at all. (Then again, I'm not into feet, maybe that's the key to compassion in this case, but I doubt it.) If he can't find a woman to consent to what he likes sexually, and he can't afford to pay for it, why is it okay, or even "not so bad", to trick strangers into getting you off? What if it was your mom, your sister, your wife, or your girlfriend? Or, would that still be okay, since it's "just" feet?
To those who want to defend this creep (that's what he is, a creep), let me ask you: What if a guy came up to you in a library and asked you to participate in a survey about testicular cancer, at first, you didn't want to be bothered, but he insisted; after all, cancer's serious business, right? So, not wanting to seem uncaring, you relent, and he asks questions about if you'd felt any lumps in your balls, if you felt your balls for lumps regularly, if you'd done it in a shower, etc....then, he starts rubbing himself....and has an orgasm in front of you. Is that ok? After all, he just asked questions, right? And you consented, right??
And how is that different from what the foot sucker did? Sorry if I've offended anyone, but I get very tired of people justifying bad behavior just because it turns them on.


: stepping off my soapbox :

Postscript: You know, I forgot one important point....as he's not convicted yet, everything should be taken with the presumptive "IF he did this...."
Click to expand...


LOL Bravo. Good arguments, good analogy 😀 .


Horatio said:
I could SWEAR I read an account somewhere - either here, Tickletheater, or maybe the Mousepad - where a guy was bragging about talking some girl he didn't know into letting him suck her toes at a library. I did a search at the Pad but came up empty. Anyone else recall this?
Click to expand...

Whoa! I remember that :shock: ! Come to think of it, there was also one from the same guy where he set up a hidden camera and walked past girls and touched their feet :sowrong: .
 
Wolf said:
Here goes, kiddies....
The victim gave "consent" because he told her it was part of a sociology project. He didn't say, "Excuse me; May I, a total stranger, kiss and suck your feet because it makes my dick hard?" She gave consent to something non-sexual, or so she thought. Since his request for consent was based on a lie, her consent is invalid, and not to be considered. Keep in mind, the word "relented"....as in, she had to be pressured....c'mon, guys, are you that insensitive?
I don't feel sympathetic to this idiot at all. (Then again, I'm not into feet, maybe that's the key to compassion in this case, but I doubt it.) If he can't find a woman to consent to what he likes sexually, and he can't afford to pay for it, why is it okay, or even "not so bad", to trick strangers into getting you off? What if it was your mom, your sister, your wife, or your girlfriend? Or, would that still be okay, since it's "just" feet?
To those who want to defend this creep (that's what he is, a creep), let me ask you: What if a guy came up to you in a library and asked you to participate in a survey about testicular cancer, at first, you didn't want to be bothered, but he insisted; after all, cancer's serious business, right? So, not wanting to seem uncaring, you relent, and he asks questions about if you'd felt any lumps in your balls, if you felt your balls for lumps regularly, if you'd done it in a shower, etc....then, he starts rubbing himself....and has an orgasm in front of you. Is that ok? After all, he just asked questions, right? And you consented, right??
And how is that different from what the foot sucker did? Sorry if I've offended anyone, but I get very tired of people justifying bad behavior just because it turns them on.


: stepping off my soapbox :

Postscript: You know, I forgot one important point....as he's not convicted yet, everything should be taken with the presumptive "IF he did this...."
Click to expand...
Actually I'm not a foot guy. I also think it's ironic that you can find threads where TMFers have done similar things (e.g., ask random college coeds to fill out questionnaires about tickling, or sneaking tickles from strangers by surreptitious means) yet read mostly outrage and shock from posters when someone like this gets arrested for it. IMO, it's unethical (at best) and, at worst, despicable behavior.

I just questioned the legality of it; legal vs. illegal, of course, is different than "right vs, wrong." Your analogy is good, but it goes too far. He didn't do anything overtly sexual--unlike the guy in the example you gave. If the person questioned me as you suggested, didn't do anything overtly sexual, but I suspected foul play, then I'd end the Q and A and leave. I'd be offended too. (Maybe there's a harassment law for this?) According to the article, this is what the woman did when she suspected he was too "into" the foot kissing for his excuse to be true. However, she also called the police. I just didn't think there was an actual crime there. NYvice tried to address that, but (I believe) found it still was technically not "Gross Sexual Imposition." Perhaps it should be a crime, but that's another matter.
 
A lil tidbit.....

In most, if not all states, *any* non-consensual contact with another person that is intended to bring sexual gratification to the "offender" can be charged as (usually misdemeanor) sexual assault. (e.g, in Colorado, what he did would be 3rd Degree Sexual Assault...a reasonable DA would most likely plead them down, but the law is clear.) The language and terminology differ from state to state ("gross sexual imposition", etc, but it's generally the same in spirit. So, in most juristdictions, it isn't just wrong, it is illegal, and prosecuteable. But most people don't know that. And, of course, it's hard to prosecute. A case like this wouldn't be that hard.

And, yes, I'm aware my analogy was extreme. Sometimes I speak too large. 🙂 But how was the foot sucker not doing anything overtly sexual? He was getting off, wasn't he? Licking and sucking her feet wasn't overt enough?
 
Wolf said:
In most, if not all states, *any* non-consensual contact with another person that is intended to bring sexual gratification to the "offender" can be charged as (usually misdemeanor) sexual assault. (e.g, in Colorado, what he did would be 3rd Degree Sexual Assault...a reasonable DA would most likely plead them down, but the law is clear.) The language and terminology differ from state to state ("gross sexual imposition", etc, but it's generally the same in spirit. So, in most juristdictions, it isn't just wrong, it is illegal, and prosecuteable. But most people don't know that. And, of course, it's hard to prosecute. A case like this wouldn't be that hard.

And, yes, I'm aware my analogy was extreme. Sometimes I speak too large. 🙂 But how was the foot sucker not doing anything overtly sexual? He was getting off, wasn't he? Licking and sucking her feet wasn't overt enough?
Click to expand...
I'm actually not sure what a court would deem is or is not "overtly sexual" when it doesn't involve the standard sexual organs. However, debating this issue at all any further puts me in the rather undesirable position of seeming like I'm defending these actions--which couldn't be farther from the truth. So, suffice to say, if he did it, he'll hopefully get what's coming to him. Let's also hope that no one here tries anything like it.
 
Clarification

I would never imply that you were defending his actions, as your comments have indicated the exact opposite. Sorry, I tend to debate some things a little more sharply than others. And, as you have quite rightly pointed out, members of this forum have posted/bragged about similar exploits. Food for thought, huh?
 
MrPartickler said:
NYvice tried to address that, but (I believe) found it still was technically not "Gross Sexual Imposition." Perhaps it should be a crime, but that's another matter.
Click to expand...

That's correct. My reasoning followed that Gross Sexual Imposition required and offensive act that was in essence, entirely nonconsensual on the part of the victim. For example, if the perp held her ankle tight enough that she couldn't resist or break free...that's what the statue holds one too in order to prosecute. Thus, I found either the media report, or the court's finding in err.

Wolf said:
In most, if not all states, *any* non-consensual contact with another person that is intended to bring sexual gratification to the "offender" can be charged as (usually misdemeanor) sexual assault. (e.g, in Colorado, what he did would be 3rd Degree Sexual Assault...a reasonable DA would most likely plead them down, but the law is clear.)
Click to expand...

These statute undoubtedly vary widely from state to state both in prosecutorial requirements/defendant burdens of proof and also in degree of severity. However, the nuts and bolts bring us to three main charges. Sexual Assault, as you said Wolf...Criminal Sexual Contact...and Lewdness. The tricky part is as follows:

In order to prove:

Sexual Assault: Penetration is necessary unless the victim is 13 or under and the perpetrator of the act is 4 or more years older. In the latter case, only sexual contact is required (wide range of actions).

Criminal Sexual Contact: Any acts of sexual contact with circumstances similar to those required under sexual assault (ie. use of coercion, weapons, accomplices, force, etc.)

Lewdness: Any flagrantly lewd and offensive act which he knows or reasonably expects is likely to be observed by other nonconsenting persons who would be affronted or alarmed (ie exposing ones self, etc).

My contention is that only "lewdness" thus far applies to the case as we have heard the details from MrPartickler. The act was certainly nonconsensual by the victim once he proceeded to suck on her toe(s), and it most likely would be considered offensive or alarming to other members of the public caught off guard by the oddity of the situation. I stand by my assertion that it does encompass harrassment, if not other disorderly persons offenses besides lewdness, but according to the rule of law I believe the courts held the accused to a higher standard than neccessary by using the "Gross Sexual Imposition" statute. One must look at this and realize they are making a statement--that this type of behavior should not and will not be tolerated under any circumstances--consensual or not, sociology project or not. The lesson here is obviously people need to think before they act, especially in this day and age. Whew. I'm spent lol.
 
Last edited:
Serves me right for thinking locally

You are correct, of course. I was thinking on too small a scale. Here in Colorado, as far as I know, "sexual assault" covers all the variations you mentioned. I think we're just simpler folk, up here in the thinner air....

But, your final point is well taken. If he did it, what he did was wrong. And that is beyond argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
What's New
9/8/25
Visit Door 44 for a wide selection of tickling clips!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
streaming tickling videos on demand at the TMF!
Tickling videos on demand!
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1704 ***
 The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top