Poll of the Day > 30 y/o Pretended to be HANDICAPPED so Girls would change his WET DIAPERS!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

30 y/o Rutledge Deas was given a 5 year probation by a New Orleans judge after he tricked women into changing his DIAPERS by pretending to have physical and mental disabilities!!

He goes by "Rory" and was arrested last year by Louisiana Police for convincing women to change his diapers for his "sexual arousal"

He was charged with 10 counts of sexual battery and human trafficking and one count of schedule 2 controlled dangerous substance

He plead guilty to 4 counts of human trafficking, possession of meth and drug paraphernalia

He was also ordered to maintain employment, undergo internet addiction counseling and to stay off social media as well 400 hours of community service

2 women spoke in the court as one said "I used to believe that almost everyone in he world was inherently good..in this case, i was wrong"

He used an online app called "UrbanSitter" to hire a college student to looka fter a fabricated 18 y/o brother named Cory and would then pose as Cory and pretend to be handicapped while a home help worker looked after him and changed his soiled diapers for around a year

Deas said he had trauma during his childhood years being treated like an infant brought him "back to a time and a place where he was at peace"

He told a 20 y/o girl that "Cory" needed a person to dealw ith him with "tough toddler gloves" as he pretended to be Cory and sent texts to her saying he needed to be potty trained and his "diapee" changed and required a booster seat

Deas was AROUSED the whole time and would suck on a baby pacificer while she performed diaper changes.

The female victim never met the "older brother" as he made payments through the app but then questions arose after Deas attempted to use another method to pay her and that's when she saw his profile and saw another exchange of money between Deas and another man and looked on a facebook group

That's when he was busted and his fool to trick women ended

Do you miss being a kid (17 or younger)?

https://i.imgur.com/84ix0bT.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/niTdKjy.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/mMdkVQg.jpg
---

Ok, what he did was wrong and all...
But how was that "human trafficking"?

mrduckbear posted...

2 women spoke in the court as one said "I used to believe that almost everyone in he world was inherently good..in this case, i was wrong"

She actually believed that? Well, now she knows better...

When did this story originally run? Two years ago? Three? Oo

I guess the closure is kinda interesting, but... meh

mrduckbear posted... Do you miss being a kid (17 or younger)?

Sometimes.

---

Eww gross. Couldn't he have just waited till he was in an old folks home? And he was a human trafficker? What a sick pos. Long may he stay in prison.

---

say no to meth
jeez

---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Eww gross. Couldn't he have just waited till he was in an old folks home? And he was a human trafficker? What a sick pos. Long may he stay in prison.

Im sure if he looked hard enough he coulda found some people freaky enough to willingly go along with it. It is a actual fetish so surely others exist.

---

...human trafficking?

---

This is sad.

---

He was human trafficking, as well? Why is that just kind of thrown to the side? What's going on with that?
---

LinkPizza posted...

He was human trafficking, as well? Why is that just kind of thrown to the side? What's going on with that?

Well, they often say that people who commit bigger crimes, often get busted for little things.

---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Well, they often say that people who commit bigger crimes, often get busted for little things.

Maybe. But now I want to know about the trafficking...
---

Honestly if he was upfront about it and told the women he had this fetish it really wouldn't be a big deal

---

Face sores...oh yeah. Meth indeed before I even read it.

Creepy.

Human trafficking laws include hiring people to change your diaper under false pretenses.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Human trafficking laws include hiring people to change your diaper under false pretenses.

I suppose you are effectively turning them into prostitutes by paying them to perform a sexual act. It's a weird logical leap, but I can see it, and I'm generally okay with relying on weird logical leaps to make sure scumbags like this guy have stronger cases against them.

---

adjl posted...

I suppose you are effectively turning them into prostitutes by paying them to perform a sexual act. It's a weird logical leap, but I can see it, and I'm generally okay with relying on weird logical leaps to make sure scumbags like this guy have stronger cases against them.

I never been big on vague laws like this...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I never been big on vague laws like this...

I'm inclined to agree, but also, it does make sense. You're manipulating somebody into performing a sexual act for money without their consent. That's a completely reasonable description of what's happening here, and it also clearly falls under the umbrella of human trafficking. The only shaky point is that he isn't personally profiting from the trafficking, when it is usually presumed that human trafficking is a commercial endeavour, but one could argue that he's deriving non-monetary benefits (sexytimes). I think it's a reasonable enough interpretation.

---

I think the problem is describing a sex act as anything that gets someone aroused is a bit a of dangerous precedent.

What if theoretically someones fetish was to have people mow his lawn, or deliver groceries, or drive him around?

Hospy posted...

I think the problem is describing a sex act as anything that gets someone aroused is a bit a of dangerous precedent.

What if theoretically someones fetish was to have people mow his lawn, or deliver groceries, or drive him around?

Or, to use a much more common example of an innocuous activity that people are sometimes aroused by, getting a massage. It does set a bit of an odd precedent, and I'm not sure where exactly the line should be drawn. Here, he's partially naked throughout the process and they're clearly working with his sex organs, so wherever the line is drawn, I think it's safe to say he's crossed it. The question of where to draw that line is, however, a very interesting one.

---

Wait, this is illegal?

Asking for a friend...

---

Far-Queue posted...

Wait, this is illegal?

Asking for a friend...

Apparently, it makes you a trafficker...
---

adjl posted...

Or, to use a much more common example of an innocuous activity that people are sometimes aroused by, getting a massage. It does set a bit of an odd precedent, and I'm not sure where exactly the line should be drawn. Here, he's partially naked throughout the process and they're clearly working with his sex organs, so wherever the line is drawn, I think it's safe to say he's crossed it. The question of where to draw that line is, however, a very interesting one.

Well, for another example, what if someone goes to the doctor to do a check for testicular cancer?

I think a lot of that comes down to the fact that what he did was clearly wrong, but it then went to the question of whether it was actually illegal rather than simply being immoral. Given the nature of what he did, authorities felt that he needed to be punished but for obvious reasons there's nothing close to a law about this on the books because it's so weirdly specific. Honestly, if he had a better lawyer, I expect he could have got the whole thing tossed out because what he did was so weird that it doesn't neatly fit within the confines of any law.

And I kinda suspect that they went with human trafficking because it carried the harshest penalties among all of the things where they could stretch the definition of a law to apply to him (which could then be used to coerce a plea deal). Personally, when the story first made its rounds, I assumed he was going to be charged with some kind of fraud or it would have wound up being a civil (rather than criminal) matter.

---

mrduckbear posted...

Do you miss being a kid? (17 or younger)

Yes. Adult life sucks.

---

I guess he trafficked himself.
---

Zeus posted...

I think a lot of that comes down to the fact that what he did was clearly wrong, but it then went to the question of whether it was actually illegal rather than simply being immoral. Given the nature of what he did, authorities felt that he needed to be punished but for obvious reasons there's nothing close to a law about this on the books because it's so weirdly specific. Honestly, if he had a better lawyer, I expect he could have got the whole thing tossed out because what he did was so weird that it doesn't neatly fit within the confines of any law.

I think there's probably a bit of that, but I'm not entirely sure. I'm fairly certain sexual assault laws already cover tricking somebody into sexual activity they didn't consent to, or at least that the concept of "sexual deception" is already made illegal via other laws (such as charging people for failing to disclose STI's). I could definitely believe that they aimed high with human trafficking more because they really wanted to drive home that this guy's a terrible person than because it's really a clear trafficking case, but if it were really just about finding a law they could charge him under, I don't think they had to look that hard.

---

adjl posted...

I think there's probably a bit of that, but I'm not entirely sure. I'm fairly certain sexual assault laws already cover tricking somebody into sexual activity they didn't consent to, or at least that the concept of "sexual deception" is already made illegal via other laws (such as charging people for failing to disclose STI's). I could definitely believe that they aimed high with human trafficking more because they really wanted to drive home that this guy's a terrible person than because it's really a clear trafficking case, but if it were really just about finding a law they could charge him under, I don't think they had to look that hard.

It's always possible something similar happened before, and the person got off because of a good lawyer. So, they were trying harder this time...
---