Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

Whip(key) It Good!

Posted by Jim Fiore on August 9, 2007
(7)
More »

A 53 year old Colorado priest faces indecent exposure charges for jogging naked at a local track according to the AP. The priest, Robert Whipkey, claims that he sweats profusely while running, and as he was running in the very early morning prior to sunrise, he didn’t think anyone would be around to notice.

Why does this sound like an old Monty Python skit? I can just see Terry Jones wearing nothing but the collar and shoes running away from a Bobby (Graham Chapman or John Cleese) who surprises him with a “What’s all this then?”

(7)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Ahcuah
    August 9, 2007

    What is it about this particular species of “chimpanzee” (Pan americanus :-) ) that somehow seems to think that the mere sight of that male thingie hanging between the legs will cause the downfall of civilization? Somehow most Europeans manage to survive the sight of it.

    The other odd thing is that the same folks who are generally gun-defenders (i.e., conservatives) will tell you how it’s not the gun itself that’s the problem, but how it is used. But when it comes to a visible penis, all of a sudden they are not concerned about how it might be used, but instead with the mere sight of it.

    And now the guy has to register as a sex offender?

  2. #2 JimFiore
    August 9, 2007

    Hey, I’ll be the first to agree that there are some seriously wacked out views regarding nudity and sex in this country. What I found funny about this was the fact that he’s a priest. I mean, haven’t they had enough bad press the past few years?

    I don’t know the details of Colorado law, but I’d be surprised if he had to register as a sex offender. Then again, that’s Tancredo’s home state so you never know…

  3. #3 Ahcuah
    August 9, 2007

    Colorado Statute 18-3-411 includes “indecent exposure” (18-7-302) among the crimes deemed an “unlawful sexual offense”. 16-22-103 says that those convicted of unlawful sexual offenses (as defined in 18-7-411) are required to register as sex offenders.

    The really odd thing is that Colorado has two separate crimes: Public Indecency (18-7-301), and Indecent Exposure (18-7-302). Public Indecency is having sex where people can see you, or deliberately exposing yourself for sexual thrills. Indecent Exposure is merely exposing yourself where you might be seen by others and affront or alarm them. Yet it is the latter that requires registration (as far as I can tell).

    And, yes, it is funny that he was a priest.

  4. #4 gingerbaker
    August 9, 2007

    Isn’t “the darkest hour before the dawn”?

    How can it be exposure if no one can see you?

    OK, God can see your filthy naked body, created in his image, except he is always wearing clothes as if he lost his innocence along with Eve. Whoa!

  5. #5 sailor
    August 9, 2007

    Yes its funny, it is also stupid from the information that is available. Jogging naked in the dark where you do not expect to see or meet anyone should not make you a sexual offender. Whatever hppened to common sense and a warning. And what were the police doing out there anyway?

  6. #6 JimFiore
    August 10, 2007

    It’s not perfectly clear from the story, but it sounds like he was caught on his way home from the track (still naked). I don’t think the guy should be listed as a sex offender if this is all there is to it, but I have to say that his argument about sweating profusely is way out there. All he needed to do was wear a pair of splits and he’d have been fine.

  7. #7 sailor
    August 10, 2007

    “but I have to say that his argument about sweating profusely is way out there. All he needed to do was wear a pair of splits and he’d have been fine.”

    Yes I agree there is something strange about what he was up to – he possibly enjoyed the thrill of being out there totally naked in a public place, even though he could not be seen. But it seems like a relatively harmless thrill compared to the preferences of many priests who make the news. It just seems to me he police could have pointed out to the guy what he was doing was not wise and that may have been the end of it. A court case seems a waste of public time and money.