OK, BOYS, SIT DOWN:

Sharking, sexual humiliation, and the spectacular collapse of basic human decency. A woman should be able to buy her damn groceries without becoming an unwilling participant in your disgusting little sex game.

Let's get something straight right out of the gate, gentlemen. Your penis is not a public-service announcement. Your ejaculate is not confetti. And women walking through a grocery store are not your personal targets.

Are we clear?

Good. Pull up a chair. Put whatever the hell is happening in your pants away, and let's have a conversation about a trend so revolting that I genuinely miss the days when the internet was busy eating Tide Pods.

At least back then, the people participating in the stupidity were primarily gambling with their OWN health.

Now, apparently, some men have decided that the next great frontier of entertainment is masturbating in public, ejaculating on unsuspecting women, and sometimes filming the entire encounter to share with like-minded strangers online.

Welcome to sharking.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. That is what we're calling it.

Because apparently, calling it sexual harassment, sexual assault, or a profoundly disturbing violation of another human being's bodily autonomy doesn't sound edgy enough for the corners of the internet where this garbage is celebrated.

And before some fellow with a keyboard, a podcast microphone, and the emotional maturity of a damp napkin decides to explain that women are overreacting, let me save you the trouble.

NO.

We are not overreacting.

We are reacting to a grown man deliberately making a stranger the unwilling recipient of his sexual behavior.

If that distinction is too complicated for you, I recommend a coloring book.

WHAT IN THE ACTUAL HELL IS SHARKING?

For anyone fortunate enough to have missed this particular descent into the sewer, sharking refers to the practice of masturbating in public and ejaculating on unsuspecting people, often women, without their consent. The behavior has also been described online as "tagging" or "cum-sharking."

And this isn't merely an internet rumor invented to make people clutch their pearls.

In July 2026, The Guardian published an investigation documenting reported incidents at Dollar Tree and other locations, including a woman in Houston who described being followed by a man in a store before discovering that he had ejaculated on her clothing outside.

Attorneys investigating related cases documented more than a dozen reported incidents involving Dollar Tree or Family Dollar dating back to 2017. The Guardian also reported that online communities were sharing videos of these acts, with some participants celebrating the humiliation inflicted on unsuspecting women.

Read that again.

The humiliation is part of the entertainment.

This isn't two consenting adults exploring their sexuality. It isn't an awkward date. It isn't a misunderstanding involving an unfortunate sneeze.

It is a person deliberately involving an unsuspecting stranger in a sexual act they never agreed to participate in.

And somewhere along the line, a collection of men decided this was worth recording, sharing, applauding, and potentially imitating.

What a time to be alive.

We've managed to put the entire world's knowledge in our pockets, develop artificial intelligence, send spacecraft into the cosmos, and yet some people are still struggling with the concept of keeping their bodily fluids off strangers.

Humanity deserves a participation trophy for technological advancement and a remedial course in basic decency.

BOYS, THIS IS NOT A PRANK. IT IS A VIOLATION.

Let's retire the word prank whenever it is used to make sexual humiliation sound harmless.

A prank is putting googly eyes on everything in the refrigerator.

A prank is convincing your friend that you've accidentally bought 47 pounds of cheese.

A prank is not exposing a stranger to your sexual behavior and leaving them to process the experience while you walk away laughing.

There is a fundamental difference between making somebody the subject of a harmless joke and making somebody the unwilling participant in your sexual gratification.

Consent matters.

It matters in a bedroom. It matters on a date. It matters in a nightclub. It matters in a parking lot. And, apparently, it needs to be written in permanent marker on the foreheads of certain individuals who have somehow missed the memo.

A public place is not a consent-free zone.

A woman buying laundry detergent has not consented to your sexual behavior.

A cashier handing you a receipt has not consented to becoming part of your fantasy.

A stranger walking past you in a parking lot has not consented to being your next viral video.

And no, the fact that she didn't physically fight you off, scream loud enough to wake the dead, or immediately call the police does not magically transform the incident into consent.

People react to shocking situations in different ways. Some freeze. Some panic. Some become angry. Some don't even fully understand what happened until the moment has passed.

None of those reactions gives you permission.

You do not get to make the rules about somebody else's body simply because you were the one holding the biological ammunition.

SO, WHY AREN'T THESE MEN BEING ARRESTED?

Now we're getting to the part that really makes my eye twitch.

People hear about incidents like these and ask a reasonable question: If somebody deliberately spits on another person, throws something at them, or physically touches them without consent, there can be legal consequences. So why does it sometimes appear that a man can engage in sexual conduct against a stranger and simply walk away?

Where are the consequences?

Where is the accountability?

And why does it seem that victims must become amateur detectives, social media investigators, evidence collectors, and public-relations departments before anyone takes their experiences seriously?

First, an important distinction: Sharking is not automatically legal. Depending on the facts and the jurisdiction, conduct of this nature may lead to charges involving indecent exposure, sexual assault or abuse, indecent assault, harassment, or other applicable offenses.

The problem is that the law does not operate through one universal statute covering every possible variation of this behavior. Prosecutors must establish the elements of an applicable offense, and investigators need evidence sufficient to support a case.

That can mean identifying the perpetrator, locating witnesses, obtaining surveillance footage, preserving physical evidence, and establishing what actually happened.

Those requirements are legitimate. Due process matters. Nobody should be convicted simply because somebody on the internet points a finger.

But let's not confuse the need for evidence with a reason to shrug our shoulders.

In Philadelphia, one woman captured an incident on video after a man ejaculated on her at a Dollar Tree. According to The Guardian's reporting, the man, Gary Miles, turned himself in and subsequently pleaded guilty to charges of indecent exposure, open lewdness, and indecent assault without the other party's consent.

So, no, it is not true that these acts are universally legal or that nobody can be prosecuted.

The more uncomfortable question is why some incidents appear to receive meaningful attention while others become a miserable collection of unanswered questions, missing footage, and victims wondering whether anyone cares.

The Guardian also reported that a Houston woman's lawsuit against Dollar Tree remained tied up in preliminary legal disputes, with no trial date at the time of publication. The company disputed aspects of the claims and stated that it takes reports of inappropriate, unlawful, or harassing behavior seriously.

That case raises a larger question about corporate responsibility: When a business has reason to know that customers may be at risk, what steps should it take to protect them?

That is a question worth asking without pretending that every allegation has already been proven in court.

And it is a question that deserves a serious answer.

IF SPITTING CAN GET YOU IN TROUBLE, WHY DOES SEXUAL HUMILIATION GET TREATED LIKE A JOKE?

Let me be clear about something. Spitting on someone is not automatically prosecuted as assault in every jurisdiction, either. The precise charge depends on local law and the circumstances.

But deliberately making unwanted physical contact with another person can have legal consequences.

Now consider the absurdity of the situation we're discussing.

A stranger deliberately subjects a woman to his sexual behavior. She is shocked, disgusted, possibly frightened, and left to wonder whether the substance on her clothing is what she thinks it is.

And somewhere, somebody is asking whether she is making too big a deal out of it.

Excuse me?

If a man walked up to a woman in a store and grabbed her breasts, would we call that a harmless prank?

If he cornered her, exposed himself, and began masturbating while she tried to get away, would we tell her to lighten up?

If he deliberately threw bodily fluids on her while filming her reaction, would the presence of a camera somehow make the experience less degrading?

Of course not.

So why does the conversation change when the behavior involves ejaculation?

The precise criminal classification may differ. The available evidence may differ. The applicable statutes may differ.

But the fundamental issue remains: Someone has deliberately forced another person into an unwanted sexual encounter.

The fact that the encounter lasts seconds does not erase it.

The fact that there may be no lasting physical injury does not mean there is no harm.

And the fact that the perpetrator may consider it funny does not make it funny to the person who was targeted.

A courtroom must apply the law as written. Society, however, is perfectly capable of recognizing that something is deeply wrong even while the legal process determines which charges are appropriate.

We can do both.

We can respect due process AND demand that law enforcement take reports seriously.

We can acknowledge that evidence matters AND ask why evidence sometimes seems to disappear into a corporate filing cabinet.

We can avoid exaggerating what the law says AND demand that lawmakers examine gaps in existing protections.

These positions are not mutually exclusive.

They are called having a functioning brain.

AND THEN THERE'S THE INTERNET, WHERE APPARENTLY EVERYTHING NEEDS AN AUDIENCE.

Here is the part that deserves particular scrutiny.

The act itself is disturbing enough. But the online culture surrounding some of these incidents adds another layer of ugliness.

According to The Guardian's investigation, some online communities celebrated sharking videos and encouraged the behavior. Researchers interviewed by the newspaper described a culture in which humiliating women could become a way to gain attention and approval from other men.

Think about that.

A stranger's fear becomes content.

A woman's disgust becomes entertainment.

Her humiliation becomes something to replay, share, and applaud.

And the person responsible may walk away not merely satisfied with what he has done, but encouraged to do it again because an audience rewarded him.

What kind of social environment teaches a person that violating another human being is a shortcut to internet notoriety?

We have spent years arguing about the consequences of online challenges, viral trends, and the pressure to perform increasingly outrageous acts for attention.

Yet we still seem surprised when somebody decides that the next step is to turn another person's distress into a spectator sport.

The internet did not invent sexual harassment. It did, however, give people new ways to record it, distribute it, and potentially receive applause for it.

And that audience has a responsibility, too.

If you watch these videos for entertainment, cheer on the perpetrator, encourage somebody to try it, or share footage in a way that further humiliates the victim, you are helping create an environment in which the behavior can be rewarded.

You may not be the person committing the act.

But you are helping make the act profitable in attention.

And attention is precisely what some of these people are seeking.

Maybe stop giving it to them.

CAN WE GO BACK TO EATING TIDE PODS?

I'm serious.

Remember the Tide Pod era?

The internet was full of people doing spectacularly stupid things for attention. It was alarming. It was ridiculous. It made parents everywhere wonder whether the human species had reached its intellectual expiration date.

But at least the basic concept was that people were putting themselves at risk.

That was bad enough.

Now we have people deliberately dragging unsuspecting strangers into their sexual behavior.

Can we appreciate the difference?

One involves an individual making a profoundly questionable decision about their own safety.

The other involves an individual deciding that somebody else's body, comfort, dignity, and consent are expendable.

I am not suggesting that eating detergent pods was a golden age of public health. Please do not eat the cleaning supplies. That should not require a disclaimer, but here we are.

I am saying that the bar for human decency has somehow managed to burrow beneath the basement floor.

We used to worry that the internet would make people stupid.

Now we have to worry about people becoming cruel for clicks.

And honestly, I would rather deal with another thousand videos of somebody attempting a terrible dance in a grocery aisle than one more video of a woman discovering that a stranger has used her as a prop in a sexual stunt.

At least the terrible dancing generally leaves everybody's bodily fluids where nature intended them to remain.

ARE WE PEOPLE OR ARE WE BABOONS THROWING OUR FECES?

I know. I know.

That is an insulting comparison to baboons.

Baboons are animals. They operate according to their instincts and their environment. They aren't sitting in online forums discussing how to maximize the humiliation of a stranger and then uploading footage for applause.

Somewhere along the way, we started using the word animalistic to describe the worst things people do.

But animals are not responsible for the human decisions we make.

A grown man knows, or should know, that ejaculating on a stranger without consent is not an acceptable way to interact with another person.

He understands that the woman in front of him is a human being with her own life, relationships, boundaries, and right to exist in public without being sexually targeted.

He knows that she did not sign up for this.

And if he deliberately does it anyway, we cannot wave away his behavior as though he accidentally knocked over a shopping cart.

This is not a failure to understand manners.

It is a failure to respect another human being's autonomy.

And if the behavior is motivated by the desire to degrade women, as researchers and attorneys have suggested in some of these cases, then the issue becomes even more disturbing.

Because now we're not talking about somebody who simply doesn't understand the rules.

We're talking about somebody who may understand exactly why the act is humiliating and considers that humiliation the point.

There is no amount of internet slang that makes that respectable.

Call it sharking. Call it tagging. Call it whatever clever little name the internet invents next.

A disgusting act with a trendy nickname is still a disgusting act.

Putting a shark emoji next to it doesn't make it less predatory.

WOMEN SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PLAN THEIR LIVES AROUND MEN WHO REFUSE TO BEHAVE.

Here is what I want people to understand.

This is not about declaring every man dangerous. It is not about suggesting that every allegation is automatically true. It is not about abandoning evidence, due process, or the presumption of innocence.

It is about recognizing a documented pattern of reported conduct and asking why the people responsible for preventing, investigating, and responding to it are not always doing enough.

Women already make countless small calculations when moving through public spaces.

Should I park closer to the entrance?

Should I keep my keys between my fingers?

Should I call somebody while walking to my car?

Should I avoid that street after dark?

Should I tell the cashier that the man behind me is making me uncomfortable?

These calculations are exhausting enough without having to consider whether a trip to purchase paper towels might end with an unwanted sexual encounter.

And no, the solution is not to tell women to stop shopping, dress differently, avoid public places, carry a weapon, or become expert investigators.

The responsibility belongs to the person choosing to engage in the behavior.

It also belongs to institutions that have the ability to respond.

Businesses should take credible reports seriously, preserve relevant surveillance footage, cooperate with investigations, and assess whether their safety procedures are adequate. Law enforcement should investigate reported offenses thoroughly and pursue appropriate charges when the evidence supports them. Prosecutors should apply the law consistently. Legislators should examine whether existing statutes adequately address emerging forms of sexual misconduct.

And online platforms should consider what they are doing when content depicting sexual violations of unsuspecting people is circulated for entertainment.

None of these steps requires us to abandon common sense.

None requires us to presume guilt before an investigation.

And none should be considered too much to ask.

The minimum expectation is that people should be able to go about their ordinary lives without becoming unwilling participants in someone else's sexual gratification.

That is not an outrageous demand.

It is the bare minimum.

OK, BOYS. HERE IS YOUR FINAL REMINDER.

Your sexuality is yours.

Your body is yours.

Your private behavior is yours, provided it remains within the boundaries of the law and the consent of the people involved.

But the moment you deliberately involve an unsuspecting stranger in a sexual act, you have crossed a line that no amount of joking, internet fame, or locker-room bravado can erase.

You do not get to call it a prank.

You do not get to call it a challenge.

You do not get to hide behind a stupid nickname and pretend that the word sharking somehow makes the behavior less degrading.

And you certainly do not get to demand that the woman you targeted smile, shrug, and move on because you think your little performance was funny.

She is not your audience.

She is not your prop.

She is not your content.

She is a human being.

Act accordingly.

As for the authorities, businesses, and online platforms that encounter this behavior, the question is not whether every case should produce an arrest, a lawsuit, or a particular punishment. Those decisions must be grounded in evidence and law.

The question is whether reports are being taken seriously, evidence is being preserved, victims are being treated with dignity, and reasonable steps are being taken to prevent repeat incidents.

If the answer is no, then we have a problem that deserves more than a shrug and a press release.

We have laws for a reason. We have investigators for a reason. We have public safety policies for a reason.

And we have the concept of consent because other people are not objects for us to use whenever we feel like it.

So, gentlemen, if you find yourself tempted to participate in this revolting trend, let me offer a revolutionary suggestion.

Keep your pants on.

Keep your bodily fluids to yourself.

And if you need to humiliate an unsuspecting woman to feel powerful, perhaps the problem isn't that the world has become too sensitive.

Perhaps the problem is you.

Women are not your targets. Their humiliation is not your entertainment. And your inability to behave like a decent human being is not society's problem to excuse.

Now sit down, boys.

The adults are talking.