#: 25372 S0/Rusty's Pub 02-Oct-86 23:13:53 Sb: "He stole my bra!" Fm: :: Rusty :: To: All Hi! A senior official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation says "There is no such thing as a nuisance offense." Supervisory Special Agent Joseph Harpold says, "If you have a rash of peeping toms, a rash of obscene phone calls, a rash of exhibitionism, lingerie being taken from clotheslines...you may have a person in transition as a sexual offender." Harpold is in charge of the behavioral science unit which specializes in profiling serial killers and rapists. He says the need of these people to feed their fantasies is so great, they can't stop at one offense. He has a recommendation: Get rid of those "detective" magazines that show scantily clad women, often bound and gagged, being terrorized by an agressor. He referrs to them as "rape-murder manuals". Here's my question to you: Do you think "peeping toms, panty thieves, flashers and obscene callers are treated seriously enoughve by the law? Have you had any experience with one? How did you feel out it? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Rusty :: Hi Rusty! Once I had all my undies stolen right off the clothesline outside of my apartment. I had hung them up the evening before, and when I went to get them, they were GONE! It was mystifying to me why anyone would want to steal them....and it felt CREEPY! Later on, a man was caught trying to break into the apartment later on, a man was caught trying to brea into the apartment behind me, and there was gunfire. When the man was caught and his apartment investigated, he had a HOUSE FULL of stolen lingerie. I was GLAD when he was caught; it maade me feel very uneasy when the clothes disappeared from the line. I am of the opinion that bra snatchers or pantie panderers are incipiently dangerous. (aw...heck,,...I am not sure this message makes any sens, but it is early, there is line noise, and the kids are noisy... I will read it again when I get home and see if it makes the sort of sens I had intended..ok?) Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Bruce :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, We did have a series of obsecene phone calls at one time, and we contacted the phone company. It was more annoying than scarey. How are these kinds of offenses handled when the perpretraitor is apprehended? ...Bruce Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Diane :: Hi Diane! It makes a lot of sense. It's one thing to be turned on by the sight of a woman in her lingerie, it's quite another to have a trunk full of it at home! When your undies were stolen...did the police take it seriously? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Rusty :: Hi Rusty! Nawwww....the police were bored by it. They said...aww, lady, this happens all the time in this neighborhood...ya shouldn't hang 'em out and tempt the guy. Do you think perhaps these law enforcement officials take the same attitude toward these "milder" sexual offenses as they used to toward rape? Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Rusty :: Hi Rusty! Having returned home and had an opportunity to reread your message, I found I was somewhat intrigued by the suggestion that we get rid of those "detective" magazines; they man said they were rape= murder manuals. That has set me thinking about the influences around us on our societal behaviors. Like......sometimes a rather "flashy" TV drama will show a rather bizarre murder, and there will be one or more similar murders, or attempts. Some authorities believe we should ban ALL media and entertainment vehicles that show violence and/or mayhem or sexual content that might be influential in causing unbalanced persons to act out their fantasies. Other authorities believe that these vehicles provide a release, a way to let off the pressure. For instance, a pyromaniac seeing a fire on TV news, might get his "jollies" for a bit from just seeing one. Or a peeping tom might feel better seeing a racy movie on TV. Rusty, which do you think might be the more correct viewpoint? Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, I used to live in a two-story apartment and was in the habit of leaving the front door and back sliding glass door unlocked and/or open. One morning I was getting dressed for work and opened my *bra drawer*. It was empty. I thought maybe I had mistakenly put the clean ones in the dirty clothes so I looked there -- nothing but panties and slips. There wasn't a bra in the house! I had to go to work a la natural! I didn't report it to the police because I kept thinking that *I* must have done something with them. Ten or twelve bras don't just disappear ... do they? After a few days, I realized that someone had come into my apartment and gone through my closets and drawers -- probably while I was in the shower! I was very uncomfortable for a long time. And I hardly ever went upstairs for a shower without locking the doors after that. I think I looked at all the male neighbors a bit suspiciously for a while. I never did find out what happened to my bras. It left me with kind of a spooky feeling. I didn't realize (until reading this seeder) that this sort of thing might have happened to other women. GADS! Huggs, Eleanor Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Diane :: Hi Diane! That is exactly what I was concerned about. The paternalistic pat on the head and the suggestion that you were somehow to blame for becoming a victim. There's now apparently some evidence that the panty poachers and weenie waggers are on the road to becoming more dangerous criminals. Do you believe it? Or, do you think they are performing a serious enough crime to warrant incarceration? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Diane :: Hi Diane! Banning magazines because someone might get the wrong idea is akin to banning cars because people might run into telephone poles. The problem is not magazines or movies or the news. The problem is that there are people out there who are crazy, and no one has done anything about them. What can we do? Can we get them off the streets? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Ellie :: Hi Eleanor! Well, assuming the thief was not making two-headed beanies with chin straps, they probably joined a collection in his basement or garage or whatever. What is more interesting...is that you didn't report it...and the reasons you did not report it to the police. You were violated, and you felt far less secure personally than you did before the incident. How do you think the law ought to deal with this type of thief? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Rusty :: Hi Rusty! Weenie waggers? Sure...I believe they are on the road to becoming more dangerous. I think that if they were prosecuted for the minor stuff... there MIGHT be less of the more violent stuff? (OH, dear...do you think I am sounding more like a Republican????) Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Rusty :: HI Rusty! The problem in Californai is that when Reagan was Governor, he closed down a lot of the state-financed and operated mental institutions. This turned the "crazies" back to the counties to contend with. The counties had no facilities. Now the crazies are our "street people". Progress? Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Diane :: Hi Diane! Yes, very Republican of you! To be a left leaning Democrat for a moment...what about treatment for these folks. Protection of society has to be a concern, and you can't lock them up forever can you? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Diane :: Hiiane! Well, if they're on the street...what do they do with all the underwear they steal? Where do they keep it? Is that what's in those shopping carts they push around? Now...how can you say that the stree people are responsible. Why can't it be the teen aged son of that otherwise normal family down the street? Why can't it be the executive who furtively stuffs purloined panties and contraband corsets into his bulging briefcase? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Rusty :: Hi Rusty! No...you can't lock em up forever...but you can make attempts at rehabilitation! Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Rusty :: Geeez...Rusty........haven't you SEEN how big those bags are they tote around?? (I wonder if they have thought about having garage sales??.....hmmm...but no garages.) Sure..it could be the teen aged son, but where would HE keep his booty? And how much lingerie can one executive stuff into his briefcase.....and what happens to him when he opens that briefcase up at the 10:00 o'clock morning meeting? I realize that *sickies* come in all socio-economic strata..... but now, really, it would be more tidy if you would just let me blame it on the street folks. Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, The incident occurred about two years ago. Last Spring when I moved, I still thought I might find the missing *garments* in some unusual place. I was always a little unsure of what had happened to them. I started being a bit more careful about that time because, in addition to my bras being missing, there was a rapist in the area. I tend to be a bit careless at times. Does it make more sense now? I just couldn't believe that they had really been taken. Remember I was at home! Probably in the shower! GADS! Call the police? Are you kidding? In this high-crime city? JUST to report some missing bras? They'd come see me just to take ME away and lock me up for bothering them! Huggs, Eleanor Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Diane :: Hi Diane! But with all the liquor store holdup artists, do you think the kincker nabbers have much priority in the criminal justice system? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Diane :: Hi Diane! There's some scientist called Maslov I think...who has a "Heirarchy of Needs". The need for shelter and food has to be met before the need for sex. I just think the street people are preoccupied with the need for survival so they don't have time to become involved in the "underworld"! Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Ellie :: Hi Eleanor!] That's my point! The person (probably male) who took your bras...is likely doing other more serious crime now. But, the police are still wondering where these criminals come from! The really interesting point is that you felt intimidated about calling the police, though you are a bona fide victim! Still feel that way? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Rusty :: Hi Rusty! Oh...of COURSE they don't!! I really think you gotta be either a "cop-killer" or a drug manufacturer to attract much interest at all..and THEN you have to be black.....Hispanic isn't nearly so interesting... and you have to be low socio-economic status as well. It is DAMN hard to get incarcerated these days!! Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Rusty :: Hi Rusty! Sometimes you just ammmmaazzze me....imagine YOU knowing about the Heirarchy of Needs!! Interestingly enough, I had a conversation this week with a San Diego policeman who was telling me about a program he is involved with for street women here. It is a recreational program. These are dirty, down and out depressed street sleeping failures or victims. But....they get to swim a few times a week, and have a place to do some creative stuff, etc. He says it is actually WORKING! The depression is lifting in many cases, the will to make something of their lives is returning. It IS innovative, and a direct refutation of Maslov......do you think he has the pyramid upside down? Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, But Rusty, I keep telling you that I wasn't sure they had been stolen! And about reporting it .... come on!!!!!! Give me a break! The police barely come for murders, robberies, and burglaries! They'd think I was nuts! Do you HONESTLY believe a policeman would take a *bra burglary* seriously???? RUSTY! Don't forget, luv, policement tend to be a bit chauvinistic! I'll bet you MONEY they wouldn't even bother to take the report! They STILL make fun of women who are RAPED, for gawd's sake! Huggs, Eleanor Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Diane :: Hi Diane! Yes, the pyramid is upside down, but it's easily explained. Most people think of Maslov as suggesting "layers" which must be settled before the next one is penetrated. These women have some sort of clothing, shelter, etc. even if it is not up to standard. Therefore they are ready to move into the more self-fulfilling areas. It is only the absence of any of the needs that causes the 100 percent focus on filling that need. Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Diane :: Dear Diane & Rusty, I don't condone theft. Men who steal lingerie are either fetishists or TV's. Your attitude toward this whole problem is appalling. Calling these people *sickies* whi;e suggesting incarceration for what is, in essence, a misdeneanor, exemplifies why some people who have different sexual interests are so deeply closeted that they can only resort to furtive conduct to obtain the stuff they want. Counselling would be in order. Teaching people that it's okay to pursue these interests IF it harms no one else is the goal. Theft hurts others. Invasion of privacy hurts others. Neither fetishism nor transvestism is "curable". No therapy will make the feelings go away. On the other hand, these "deviates" will not get progressively worse, nor will they get more violent. Public ridicule will intensify their feeling of isolation, and, will, in all liklihood, INCREASE the liklihood of future offenses. Discreet treatment by the police, leading to professional counselling would be my suggestion. Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, B A L O N E Y ! ! ! Where do you get these perverted fantasies, anyway? Regards, Chris Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, So what's the other thing to have a trunk full of women's lingerie at home? For years, that's exactly what I had. Now, fortunately, it's not in a trunk but in a dresser drawer. Am I sick? Is someone who is a transvestite sick? How about someone who is into wearing diapers? Or someone who is into dominence and submission? Or someone who is into Bondage and Discipline? Are they sick? What's sick? What's pathologic? Jo Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Diane :: Dear Diane and Rusty, I've got to echo Chris comments about the nature, but especially, the tone of this thread. Yes, there are some people out there who are dangerous to society. And some of them steal women's lingerie. But not all people who steal women's lingerie are sick or dangerous. And certainly, not all men who have trunkfulls of women's lingerie and other clothes are sick or dangerous. For your information, if you looked in the Section 9 Data Library, you would find out where those teenaged sons keep their booty. And you would find, too, that many transvestites got their first collections of women's clothes from pilfering. I don't condone the pilferage, but these people are neither criminal nor "sick." I think you make a common mistake of overgeneralizing. I would hope you'd reconsider your obvious prejudices. Jo Fm: :: Lynn :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty: What is interesting to me that the assumption is being made that the thief was a man. Is it possible that it could have been a woman? What would be the implications there? Maybe it was a bag lady who needed bras! Lynn Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: :: Chris D. :: Chris, Are they ALL fetishists & TVs?? If a person has a reason like that for taking the panties, then there's no need for rehabilitation, but isn't that a big generalization? Even if 1% were potentially dangerous, wouldn't you want to know who those 1% were?? <> et al... --Mike Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: :: Jo R. :: Jo, I've always viewed sick as someone who has actions which can be potentially harmful. Again, 99% of the panty thieves might be harmless. TVs, TSs, etc. don't pose a threat to society. Might there be a small percentages of panty poachers who aren't fetishists etc. and ARE harmful?? How can we distinguish between the two?? How can we take action for one, yet not the other?? <> et al... --Mike Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Mike F. :: Dear Mike, Of course there are some people who are pathologic. There are criminals among TVs and lingerie fetishists just like there are criminals among other members of society. How we decide who is who is another matter, however. I don't know the answer to that one. If someone is stealing lingerie, I would say that they should be apprehended and prosecuted just like any other thief. After all, it *is* stealing. What I object to, is the tone of this thread. That tone suggests that those who steal lingerie are, under the skin, more dangerous criminals or are mentally deranged. While that *may* be true, as you say, 99% of them probably aren't. The tone of this thread suggests the opposite, that 99% of lingerie thiefs *are* dangerous criminals or weirdos. I just wanted to present a more balanced view. Thanks for your message! Hugggggs, Jo Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Jo R. :: Hi Jo! Well, if you look closely, the illness is in the *theft* of underwear from women, not in the posession of female underwear through legitimate means. Those who steal female underwear off clotheslines, etc. have been put in the same category of criminal by the FBI as those who make obscene phone calls and who exhibit themselves. So how did you obtain your collection? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Lynn :: Hi Lynn! That's a valid point! It is entirely possible that the thief was a female who was not in a position to obtain her underwear legally. But, somehow I doubt that the majority of thefts are by women looking for underwear for themselves. In fact, I don't ever recall seeing a woman arrested for that. Have you ever heard of one? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Chris D. :: Hi Chris! OK...back up your argument here. Do you disagree with the FBI agent who lumps the bra and panty burglars in with the obscene callers and exhibitionists? All three are crimes that can cause a great deal of concern for the victims. Why is underwear thievery different from the others? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Lynn :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty: I never have heard of a woman being arrested for stealing lingerie for herself. I guess I was reacting to the fact that for the most part, when a crime is committed, people automatically think a man did it, while there are plenty of women in prisons too. Sexism goes both ways! Lynn Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Mike F. :: Dear Mike, Unless you can postulate other motives for this conduct, I'll stick by what I said. What other "criminal" profile do you postulate? I guess that the underlying fear in this discussion is that these people will ultimately turn to rape. What data do you have to suggest that rapists get their start as panty thieves? What data do you have to suggest that panty theives go on to violent conduct? Huggs, Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, What I'm asking is for some data from the FBI agent ... or anyone else ... that a lingerie thief is gonna turn VIOLENT. Same question applies to exhibitionists or obscene callers. It's always been my understanding that these are self-limited behaviors. All of them are obnoxious because the impinge on the privacy of others. But that doesn't mean we have to revert to 14th-Century concepts of psychology by suggesting that locking them up we're effectively dealing with the conduct. There are differences in motivation among tv's and fetishists; between obscene callers and exhibitionists. That doesn't mean that ANY of them will become violent. Chris Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, Since when is theft an illness? And who ever said that the FBI was an authority on sexual alternatives? And, my God, who ever made the FBI an expert on sexuality at all!!! There is a *major* difference in my mind between those who make obscene phone calls and those who steal lingerie off of clothes lines. And I don't care a twit what the FBI says. And your message does not explain the tone of this thread wherein you make fun of businessmen who carry lingerie in their briefcases and sons of wealthy people. You make them all out to be "sick" which I strongly disagree with. Jo Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Jo R. :: Dear Jo, I am understanding, I think, of what you are saying...however... I *do* have to take exception to your question about theft being an illness. Of course it is. Anti-social behavior, that which is outside of the accepted mainstream of legal definitions, is considered to be treatable. And the person displaying them is considered to be "ill"....or at least not quite "normal"... whatever that may be. Let me ask you this, Jo: If one of your children were picked up for stealing things that do not belong to them...wouldn't you feel concerned enough to try to get some help for them? From a professional mental health person? Let me clarify that I do NOT consider transvestites to be abnormal, ill, outside of the law in ANY way. But if they have to steal to get their clothing, then I want them to have treatment. (Have I made things WORSE or BETTER?) Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Chris D. :: Dear Chris, In California, persons who are apprehended and convicted of sex crimes (and exhibitionists, lingerie thieves, obscene callers are so categorized) are required to be registered as sex offenders and to be treated by a licensed therapist for at least a year. The rationale behind this is: If they don't get treatment while engaging in these "self-limiting" acts, they MAY go on to engage in other acts which are less benign. There is a VAST difference between a transvestite or transsexual, who is NOT acting outside the law, and a lingerie thief or exhibitionist who IS acting outside the law. One is in need of mental health treatment, the other is not. Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: :: Jo R. :: Jo, You're right. After reading backwards through the thread, I noticed that everyone wanted to lock these potential axe murders and rapists up. Of course, usually, the people aren't like that. What action do you think should be taken against these people. Do you think the police should take them more seriously?? <> et al... --Mike Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Lynn :: Dear Lynn, Some crimes are, by nature, defined as male-female crimes. Rape is a crime of men, by and large; prostitution is a crime of women, in the eyes of the law. Women are arrested ALL the time for stealing lingerie. But they most often purloin it from the department store. Men are the ones who seem to have a need to steal it in a way that is a bit more intrusive; that is, to steal from another individual. Diane Fm: Tara C. To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, Diane, etal: Excuse me, but I am curious...how many (a) TV's/TS's, (b) criminals, or (c) law officers do you folks know? I just read this thread sorta by accident, and I get the feeling that you guys just fell of the turnip truck! I dont' have the whole thing printed outm , so going by memory: i don't know *any* TV's *or* TS's who didn't, in desperation, "steal" lingerie form a relative, neighbor, clotheline, or laundry room at least once in their youth. I also know (out of dozens [personally, mind you!]) only three who are anything but gentle, discreet, law abiding people today; the exceptions have serious emotional disorders *entirely* apart from their crossdressing. The California Sex Offender law considers *any* deviant behavior, *including stepping behind a bush to relieve yourself* as a sex offense, and the offender must register his address with the local police for the rest of his life; the determination of just who and what is a sex offender is really enlightened, eh? The Supreme Court of the United States put the "street people" on the streets at the behest of the ACLU...unless the state can show that these peopel are a danger to themselves or others, they *cannot* be institutionalized by legal fiat; I have friends who are psych techs at a state hospital who nearly cry when some poor somewhat muddled person is returned to the street after "observation" because they *aren't* "criminals." Come on, folks, don't blame Reagan for *everything*! It was during the Moonbeam administartion here, anyway... Lets get to the heart of things here...if you're really so worried about the causes and roots of truly criminal activities, check the facts... every cop, judge or criminal who is honest will tell you, 75-95% of the people who have committed violence against persons were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the act. Pilfering panties is not the issue; breaking and entering (or in Ellie's case, entering) *is*. [continued later...] Huggs, Tara; and the Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Lynn :: Hi Lynn! Well, it could well be that a woman who steals clothing for herself is far from newsworthy, yet a man stealing women's underwear does have a certain news value. My apologies for the inadvertent sexisim. Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Chris D. :: Hi Chris! Well, the FBI agent is perhaps working backward. He says police find that most serial criminals have at one time or another fallen into the "nuisance offense" category. Then, he works backward from that suggesting that "you may have a person in transition as a serial offender". It's sort of like saying that all dangerous sex criminals have read a copy of today's paper, therefore all readers of today's paper are potential sex criminals. Now, are you willing to admit that the theft of underwear from a woman's clothesline is a crime which could lead the woman to a certain amount of distress, perhaps unlike the theft of a less personal object? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Jo R. :: Hi Jo! Don't you subscribe to the theory that anyone who steals is sick? It's an anti-social act. If you want to buy women's underwear, go right ahead. If you want to go door to door and ask for donations of old underwear for men who enjoy it, go right ahead. But, stealing it off other folks clotheslines is an anti-social act. Anti-social behavior is an illness. I have never said on this board that TVisim is an illness. So there! Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: Tara C. Hi Tara! So, I don't really know any TV/TS folks except from here. I know a couple criminals but they were politicians, and I know lots of law enforcement types. Now, stealing underwear is a crime. If it is stolen from a department store it is no less of a crime than if it is stolen from an individual. It's just more invasive if the victim is an individual. You can defend wearing them all you want. I don't think you can defend the theft. Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Diane :: Dear Diane, I couldn't disagree more that anti-social behavior including theft, is, per-se, a mental illness. That is exactly the kind of thinking that gets political opponents of the Communist regime in the Soviet Union thrown into jails and mental hospitals. That thinking totally negates the idea that each and every one of us has a *free will* with which to choose to behave any way we darn well wish. I believe that most thieves and most criminals consciously *choose* to do what they do, not out of some vague mental illness, but because of their right, as humans, to choose that kind of behavior. That is not to say that those who steal or behave in any other way that is contrary to our laws should not be held responsible for that behavior. That is precisely what the whole concept of free will involves. One chooses to behave in a certain way and should reap the consequences of that behavior. When you then talk about minors, you're talking about something totally different, however. By law, someone below the age of emancipation (18 in most states) cannot be held totally responsible for their actions. The process of maturing is designed to socialize an individual into the behaviors that are acceptable to society. If a minor steals, yes, I would want to know why he or she did it and to try to find a way of inculcating into that person the kinds of behavior that are acceptable to society through other than criminal punishment. As I've said, stealing is unacceptable, no matter what the circumstances. But, this thread singles out panty thievery as some sort of particularly onerous crime deserving of more punishment than the law allows for any other sort of stealing. Jo Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: :: Diane :: Diane, I agree with most of what you said, but lets say that the person to whom we are referring is a 15 year old transvestite. Is is feasible for him to go out and but clothes? Even if it is possible, wouldn't it be much easier just to snatch them? Do you think this person is anti-social?? Granted, theft is wrong, but does this person need rehabilitation?? <> et al... --Mike Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Mike F. :: Dear Mike, Panty thievery is stealing, no doubt about it. And our laws provide appropriate punishment for stealing. Shouldn't panty thieves receive the same treatment as any other kind of thief? No more, no less? And shouldn't they be taken no more nor no less seriously than any other kind of thief? What I am arguing is that they are thieves, plain and simple, though petty thieves as opposed to hardened criminals for the most part. And I do not feel they should be singled out for particular punishment, nor lumped with those who commit crimes of a sexual nature, such as rapists and exhibitionists. Huggggs, Jo Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: [F10] jr=>Rusty Dear Rusty, To answer your question, one has to look at the motivation of the panty thief versus the motivation of the obscene caller and exhibitionist. The obscene caller and the exhibitionist gets sexual stimulation *directly* from the act of calling or exhibiting. The motivation of the panty thief is almost always quite different. The panty thief is *not* turned on by causing concern to the victim. His/her turn on, if any, does not come from the *act* of stealing the lingerie. In most cases, the victim is totally irrelevant to the reason for stealing the lingerie. That's *not* the case with exhibitionists and obscene callers. See the difference? Jo Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, Please read my reply to Diane. *NO* I do not subscribe to the theory that anyone who steals or commits an anti-social act is sick. That totally negates their responsibility for their own actions! If someone who steals is sick, then why do we put them in jail or otherwise punish them? After all, it's not their fault. They're mentally ill! That's absurd! As I've said before, stealing is wrong. But don't we have laws to deal with that behavior? Why did you single out panty thieves as opposed to housebreakers? Are housebreakers sick too? How about armed robbers? How about shoplifters? Again, this thread is *not* about thieves. It's about something else to which I strongly object. Jo Fm: :: Rusty :: To: [F10] jr => :: Jo R. :: Hi Chris! How can you speak for all panty thieves? How do you know their interest is not in causing concern for the victim? I know a lady with a teen aged son, and she was very concerned about a friend of her son who seemed to be stealing her underwear. She descibed the kid as "creepy". And, she knew it was him, because her son found underwear in the kid's locker at school. Face it...it's an anti-social act, and it's perhaps even worse than obscene calling and exhibitionisim because there is a monetary loss coupled with the perversion. Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, Your prejudice is showing, Rusty. You can generalize from one story you've been told??? And you know, of course, that this kid did it because he had lingerie in his closet? Come on! That evidence wouldn't stand up in any court that I know of. But the fact that you can generalize through the medium of this thread from that *one* experience is, I say, a mistake borne of nothing else I can think of than prejudice. And you use the word, "perverted." A pejorative word, to be sure. Is panty thievery any more "perverted" than any other kind of thievery? As I've said before, thievery is thievery no matter whether the theft is of lingerie or pots and pans. And it should be dealt with as such. But just because it's lingerie and not pots and pans shouldn't make it any more "perverted" nor does it, as I"ve made clear, put it in the same class as exhibitionism and obscene phone calls. Jo Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Chris D. :: Dear Chris, I don't buy it. If I had come out of the shower or back in the house and surprised my *bra burglar* going through my closets, etc., I sincerely doubt that he would just have said, "Excuse me, madam." and left peacefully. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Jo R. :: Dear Jo, I think you are blurring the issue. My house was burglarized. Someone illegally entered, searched my belongings, stole what he wanted, and left. That is theft and it is a crime. Burglary is a serious crime. The wearing of women's underwear is a completely different issue. It's not a crime and has nothing to do with burglary. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Chris D. :: Dear Chris, I always thought that these behaviors were "self-limiting" myself. Apparently, that idea has been found to be false. I took some classes in criminology in which the teachers, police, lawyers, etc., discussed the "evolution" of criminals. They admitted that they used to think that sexspecific criminals didn't "evolve." More recent statistical research by the F.B.I. has shown that indeed they do evolve -- from obscene phone calls to rape and even murder. No, I don't have the statistics. The F.B.I. does though. Since taking those classes, I take minor crimes a bit more seriously. I no longer assume that a peeping tom is harmless or that an obscene phone caller is satisfied with that. And I tell my students to report all those incidents. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Jo R. :: Dear Jo, I don't think you understand how most women feel about this sort of theft. Any burglary is a traumatic experience. And we all dislike having our belongings taken. But to have your underwear taken is a very uncomfortable experience. It is much more invasive of a woman's privacy than the theft of a television set. I'm sure the punishment for the crime is the same, but the resulting trauma for the woman is not the same. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Ellie :: Dear Ellie, What you say is absolutely correct. I couldn't agree with you more and that's exactly what I am saying. Would it have mattered to you if whoever entered your house had stolen your stereo or computer? No, I think you would have been equally outraged, and rightly so. My point is that this thread singles out thieves of lingerie as being somehow "worse" than thieves of other things. That's what I object to. Hugggggs, Jo Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Ellie :: Dear Ellie, Other than the burglery you mentioned, have you ever been burglerized any other times? I have been burglerized. It's traumatic, any way you look at it. But if you feel it's *more* traumatic to have your lingerie stolen as opposed to your stereo, I'm sorry for that. How should the law differ? How would you write the law so that it's not arbitrary? And, *do* most women feel the same as you? How do you know? Jo Fm: Tara C. To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty: Ran out of time and space before; you're right, I *do not* defend the theft...but the whole gist of the thread had *nothing* to do with the crime of the theft; otherwise everyone would have been agreeing that petty burglary, or shoplifting, or the like can lead to jewel heists and armed robbery. But everyone *focused* on the "pervert", "deviant" nature of teh *items* stolen; that was *exactly* my, Chris's, and Jo's point! What I read was "we have to protect society from.." and "we have to rehablitate..." the poor sick pervos; look back at your messages, and Diane's, and some of the others... The subject was not the theft pe se; it was the theft OF LINGERIE; and it was both implicitly and explicitly (your FBI reference) that sex perverts ("offenders"; by extension, rapists and molesters) start by "pilfering panties" or bras or whatever. No-one denies that thieves start by thievery; I object to the primary impression that this was a SEX crime committed by a SEX offender. Okay? Huggs, Tara Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Mike F. :: Mike........15 year olds seem to have money for records and other recreational things...don't they? Yes...it is EASIER to snatch them..but still not right. And....anyone who steals from another is committing an anti-social act. People who commit antisocial acts need rehabilitation if they are to live successful lives in today's society. How can you disagree with that? Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: Tara C. Dear Tara, Here, Here! Somehow, your single message said it better than my many messages. You've summed up beautifully, my objection to this thread. Thank you. Hugggggs, Jo Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Jo R. :: Dear Jo, I have been burglarized two other times, but these were *normal* burglaries. I felt a bit upset. The bra burglary is different -- *unclean* somehow. Yes, other women feel the same way I do. How do I know? Well, gee, Jo, I know a lot of women! And the women's magazines occasionally have articles about women and their feelings. I think your question is related to the one men often ask when women have been raped. Did they enjoy it? I don't think men really understand how women feel when they are *violated* -- whether it's by rape, an obscene phone call, or a sleezey underwear theft. I think you are assuming that women know that the underwear is taken by TVs who want it for themselves. Women fear something a lot yuckier -than men have taken it for reasons they don't want to think about. Does that make more sense? Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Jo R. :: Dear Jo, But I DO think lingerie theft is "somehow 'worse'" than other kinds. It seems so unclean or yucky! Sort of like an obscene phone call is worse than a wrong number. Or a leer is worse than a flirtatious smile. Think how the women feel, hon. Think about it from *our* point of view. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Ellie :: Dear Ellie, Unfortunately, I can't know your feelings or do anything about them. Your feelings are your own. I think, however, that putting panty theft in the same sentance as rape is highly prejudicial and calls up some very unpleasant feelings in myself. And I strongly object to the idea that my question about how women feel about panty theft is in any way related to the question of whether rape feels good. And I most certainly am *not* assuming that women know that their underwear is taken by TVs who want it for themselves. Rather, I am saying that if womend *did* know that, then maybe they wouldn't fear anything yuckier. And since noone has presented any evidence to the contrary (except your challenge for *us* who never started this thread in the first place to "check with the FBI"), I will not believe that panty theft leads to *anything* more. Therefore, there is no basis for feeling that the panty theft *would* lead to anything more. Jo Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Jo R. :: Hi Jo! In common law we have the M'Naughton rule which really makes it difficult for criminals to plead insanity. In order to qualify they have to either not understand the nature and quality of their actions, or not understand that what they are doing is wrong. Face it...stealing is anti-social behavior. Just what is your objection to this thread? Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Jo R. :: Hi Jo! I say it's worse as a crime because there is a monetary loss as well as an indignity. Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Ellie :: Dear Ellie, I will think about it from *your* point of view when you think about my feelings about this thread from *our* point of view. Jo Fm: :: Lynn :: To: :: Diane :: Dear Diane: There are plenty of male prostitutes. If prostitution is a "female" crime in the eyes of the law, then are you saying that male prostitutes can't be arrested? How do you know there aren't men stealing lingerie out of department stores? Rape is technically a crime of men, because women don't have penises, and you need one of those to technically commit a rape, but there are plenty of incidences of women committing other sex crimes. That doesn't compute to me. Lynn Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, I have never said stealing is *not* anti-social behavior. What I have said is that anti-social behavior is *not* necessarily a mental illness. I have neither said that anti-social behavior should not be punished. So, if you are unclear as to what I have said, consider this simple arithmetic principal: if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Stealing is anti-social behavior (A=B). Anti-social behavior should be handled appropriately with punishment as society so deems (B=C). Stealing should be handled appropriately with punishment as society so deems (A=C). There is *no* controversy there. My objection to this thread has *nothing* to do with that. Now, go back and read the very first message in this thread, the seeder. Now, tell me that all you are talking about here is *stealing*. Now, read some more messages in this thread. Now tell me that all you are talking about is *stealing*. You're not talking about *stealing*, you're talking about stealing PANTIES. And you're talking about people who steal PANTIES for whatever purpose as being PERVERTED as if they're more PERVERTED than anyone else who steals. You even talk about people who have COLLECTIONS OF WOMEN'S UNDERWEAR as being somehow SICK. It is THOSE THINGS I object to. Do I have to spell it out more clearly? I'm sorry, this thread is bringing up feelings in me that I don't want to feel. So I'll stop now. Jo Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Jo R. :: Dear Jo, But I'm talking about real events -- things that really happen. You're talking about imagined slights. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Kathy W. :: To: :: Rusty :: Would it be possible to get a synopsis on how all this got started? I stumbled across it all mid string, and it's not making much sense. Kathy Fm: Tara C. To: :: Jo R. :: Anytime, dear (smile)...I did get a chance to talk with Diane this evening; and I believe that the whole problem was lack of common data; it really never occurred to her (or Rusty, I'm sure) that Tv's and TS's like *us* might have used such desperate measures to fulfill our needs. And you and Chris and I, of course, focused on exactly *our* data, and ignored the fact that quite possibly *some* "lingerie lifters" might have compulsions other than crossdressing!...' But I'm glad we all made our seperate points; I was mainly worried that some new HSX'er barely hoping that someone here might understand his crossdressing, would read the thread and feel that, "Nope, these people will reject me too if they ' find out what *I* feel!" Nuff sed... huggs, Tara Fm: :: Lynn :: To: :: Jo R. :: Dear Jo: I have heard you and Chris and Tara and others speak over and over again about the lack of understanding and theprejudice as regards this kind of issue, and I am concerned that the kind of writing in this thread has evidenced the same thing. I think you have been very clear, and for the most part, I agree. I would feel terrible if someone broke into my home and stole my lingerie. It would give me the creeps, just as anyone breaking into my home to steal anything of mine would give me the creeps. I would feel very violated just at the idea that someone could get into my home without my permission. No, I don't like the idea of someone having my lingerie, but it's no more a big deal to me than if they stole a piece of jewelry or an appliance or a bottle of soda from the refrigerator. It's the violation of my space that is the intrusion, not what they stole, so I don't agree with the other opinions expressed here on that score. I don't think stealing is evidence of emotional illness. Someone who steals may be mentally ill and need help, but not everyone. Some people are hungry and they steal food. How sick is that? Some people are on drugs and steal to support their habits. Where is the illness there? Do they need to be treated because they stole, or because they have a drug habit? I don't agree with others on that score either? Sometimes I wonder about these discussions. They are valuable to me and intellectually stimulating, but sometimes it gets to the point where people are more interested in proving their points than learning from and listening to each other, and I find that sad. Huggs, Lynn Fm: :: Lynn :: To: :: Ellie :: Dear Ellie: I just "rp"d back through some of this thread to find the message with the "imagined" slights in it. Would you do me a favor and let me know where it is so I can know what you are talking about? Thanks. Lynn Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Lynn :: Dear Lynn, Thanks for that. I do understand the feeling of violation when someone breaks into your home. My house has been burglerized too. Hugggggs, Jo Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, Any theft is an indignity and a monetary loss. Obviously we will disagree on this. But I don't think you've supported your case that panty thievery is any different from any other kind of thievery. Jo Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Kathy W. :: Hi Kathy! Sure! The short bulletin will give you the seeder number, and since it has been forwarded, you will find the seeder mid-way thru the thread. I think it is 25372, but you're better off checking the bulletin. Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: :: Ellie :: Really Ellie?? What WOULD he have done?? Of course I've no way of telling, but I'd expect the person would get scared as hell and run off. What do you think?? <> et al... --Mike Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Jo R. :: Dear Jo, So has mine, once while my family and i were asleep. It's horrible, and I acknowledge that fully. As I said before, I do not, in any way condone lingerie thieves. I just dipute certain assumptions people here have made. Huggs, Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Diane :: Diane, Worse. Please *try* to *listen* to what has us riled. I said, when I jumped into this mess at the outset, that I felt that panty-thieves, exhibitionists, etc., OUGHT to be given counselling. Others here were intent on incarcerating them because, and I quote, they are "sickos" who would only go on to bigger, badder and more violent conduct. Why, as Jo has pointed out already, was it germane to talk about business men with lingerie in their briefcases? I appreciate and welcome your understanding that TV's aren't, per se, mentally ill. Some are, but it doesn't *necessarily* have to do with the fact that they're TV's. In the case of a TV who pilfers lingerie from clotheslines or laundry rooms or from a bureau in a house where he's visiting, he needs HELP. Partly from professionals. Partly from society so that if he wants to go to a department store to make a legal lingerie purchase, he won't feel the heat of a disapproving saleswoman nor the uspoken scorn of his fellow commuters who would regard him as a "sicko" for carrying home his lingerie in a briefcase if they only knew. It may be hard to understand, but it's very hard for me to go into a store to buy a bra. I do it, however, when i want something, because I know that stealing is wrong. Others in my position may not have the guts to do it and may resort to furtive means. I submit that the sickness is in society, not in the individual, under those circumstances. Huggs, Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Ellie :: Dear Ellie, So, what do you propose? 30 days in the slammer for the television set; 60 days for the TV? Invasion of privacy is awful. Period. And, believe me, I'd feel pretty invaded, too, if someone took *my* lingerie. But that's not what this discussion's about. It's about the assumption that lingerie theives are inherently dangerous. That, my dear, is bunk. Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Ellie :: Dear Ellie, Well, i know you read women's magazines and know other women. But where did you get the data that "men often ask" whether a woman enjoyed a rape? Cripes! No wonder the worst comes to your mind when your lingerie gets stolen! Seriously, if its any reassurance, I don't know ANY men who would give a moment's consideration to the idea that a rape might be enjoyable for the woman. Wh{_at a horrible thought! Huggs, Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Diane :: Dear Diane, All I can hope is that you come back next time as a 15 year old transvestite. Then, take your record money and go into a lingerie shop and do your "socially proper" thing. And have a great time with society's reaction to your "responsible" behavior. Let me know how it turns out, okay? huggs, Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Rusty :: Rusty, "Anti-social" is a relative concept. Many southerners thought that sit-ins were downright *rude*! Some of us thought that the war in Nam was rude, too, and acted, not always legally, to end it. There is a difference between anti-social conduct, criminality, and illness. Theft is theft. If it's on the books, it ought to be prosecuted. Sure, a person can, in one swell foop, demonstrate that he's sick, anti-social, and a criminal. But that doesn't mean that the three concepts are inextricably intertwined. Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Lynn :: Dear Lynn, Thanks for saying that. Not only do some people seem intent on "scoring points" during this discussion, the reactions have been, in *some* cases so deaf to what the other person had said, that I begin to suspect another motive: I think someone here is shooting for the weekly high message count for his Section. I like seeing these issues taken outside the bounds of GenderLine because other people get a chance to learn something about TV's, and i think there's a lot to learn. But I wonder if anyone out there's listening? Huggs! Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Diane :: Diane, Do you have the Criminal Code citatation in which a lingerie thief is classified as a sex offender? I'd like to follow up with some research into the legislative history behind that enactment. Thanks, Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, Am I "willing to admit that theft of underwear ... is a crime which could lead [a] woman to a certain amount of distress ..."? RUSTY. I HATE TO SHOUT BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU ARE HAVING PROBLEMS PICKING UP MY SIGNAL. I BELIEVE I SAID THAT WHEN I WAS FOOLISH ENOUGH TO JUMP IN HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. NOW, AT LEAST ELLIE AND DIANE, WHILE NOT AGREEING WITH ME, GIVE ME THE SENSE THAT THEY HAVE READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN. YOU??? RUSTY ... SINCE YOU HAVE TO DOWNLOAD THIS STUFF ANYWAY, WHY NOT DO IT NOW, GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD, AND SEE WHAT THE REST OF US WERE TALKING ABOUT? Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Ellie :: Ellie, It is worse, obviously, than having someone steal something that has no emotional value. A stereo is *far* less important than a camisole. Everybody knows that. And my grandfather's pocket watch meant more to me than the stereo which was stolen, too. But you really are missing our point. All of us agree that theft is wrong, burglary worse, and burglary with invasion-of-privacy issues worse still. WE AGREE! What I can't buy is your assumption that a lingerie thief is intent on rape. Huggs, Chris Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Ellie :: Dear Ellie, You're absolutely wrong. The slights I've received as a TV have been VERY real. You just won't consider that point of view will you? Huggs anyway, Chris Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Chris D. :: Chris........you make it very very clear to me, and I quite understand and agree. And I appreciate your having taken the time and trouble to explain. Your very rational explanation has shed the light for me. Thanks and mega huggs! Diane Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Chris D. :: Chris...no, sorry, offhand my reference library doesn't include that particular bit of information. In a very general way, however, anyone who is convicted of any offense that has any sexual connotations has to register as a sex offender and report their whereabouts and receive treatment. Sorry I cannot be more definite! Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Chris D. :: Dear Chris, That's not the message I got. The message I got was that people who commit *harmless* crimes may go on to commit more serious ones. Rusty quote an F.B.I. agent to that effect. They have to start somewhere, right? Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Chris D. :: Dear Chris, They ask it when the woman is a witness against an accused rapist -in open court. They're not supposed to any more, but they still do. And the police still joke about it and I guess think she secretly enjoyed it. And there are still a lot of rape jokes around. I've heard boys ask girls -- after the girls returned to school. I wish everyone was sensitive to the after effects. Thank God, I've never been raped. I'd hate to have to put up with the stuff rape victims face. You must see some of that yourself. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Chris D. :: Dear Chris, Now you know I didn't say that. I did say that I have been told in criminology classes, by lawyers and policemen, that men who commit the socalled harmless crimes (lingerie theft, obscene phone calls, exposing of themselves) can go on to commit more serious crimes. Therefore, none of these crimes should be taken lightly and a woman shouldn't assume that the criminal is harmless. I think the theory is, "Assume the worst; run or get out of wherever you are; call for help." Rusty's initial seeder says the same thing ... that these crimes may simply be steps to more serious ones. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Chris D. :: Dear Chris, Doesn't a slight have to be intentional? If I say that panty thieves make me more uncomfortable than *regular* thieves, that's not an intentional insult. I didn't know (and I doubt that Rusty did either) that TVs and TSs were the primary perpetrators of lingerie theft. Although I'm not sure that changes the way I feel. It still makes me feel creepy to think of someone with *my* undies. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Lynn :: Dear Lynn, Glad to oblige. Perhaps you have had this happen to you. Someone is talking about something concerning themselves or the national news and they inadvertently say something that in some unknown (to them) way pertains to them. You get upset at what they said and take it personally. The *slight* was unintentional. They had no idea that what they were saying pertained to you. In Rusty's original message, he refers to panty thieves. As the subsequent messages show, he was unaware that these crimes are commited by TVs and TSs. For one of them to take the comments personally would be to feel an *imagined slight*. There has to be intent to harm, you know. Otherwise, folks would run around getting hurt at everything folks said if they could in some way link it to themselves. For example, if a few months ago I had said something like, "I think the people who ride comuter trains are all graffiti artists," you wouldn't have responded with a defense of pool secretaries by claiming that they were primarily responsible for graffiti. You see why it's an *imagined slight*. As I said before, there has to be intent. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Mike F. :: Dear Mike, I imagine he would have knocked me down or out of the way and then run off. I probably would have gotten some minor cuts and bruises. We don't have to many *scare and run* thieves here. In fact, a lot of them are *scare and murder* thieves. I think that's when a lot of burglars kill -when they are surprised by the home owner. Even kids don't just run off without doing some hitting or hurting. Huggs, Ellie p.s. I'm not talking about panty thieves here.....I'm talking about anyone who has entered a home with the intent to commit a separate crime. Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Jo R. :: Hi Jo! I like your simple arithmetic concept. Try this one: Stealing panties is a crime. Using stolen panties for a sexual purpose makes it a sex crime. Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Lynn :: To: :: Rusty :: Rusty: Is wearing them a sexual purpose? Fm: :: Jo R. :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty, Baloney. Jo Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: :: Diane :: Sure Diane...All I'm trying to say is to look at an example of a young kid. Maybe he likes ladies clothing. Do you expect him to actually have the guts to go into a store and BUY it?? Granted, it's not right, but just swiping them from the line would seem so much simpler to the person involved. The important thing I'm trying to say is that people who do these things are not necessarily dangerous, as a lot of people indicated earlier in the thread. Do you disagree with that?? <> et al... --Mike Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: :: Ellie :: Ellie, You're right, but then that would put panty thieves into a different classification than murderers or armed robbers. What do you suppose your PANTY THIEF would have done?? <> et al... --Mike Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Mike F. :: Mike.....naww..I dont' think a kid who steal things from a clothesline is dangerous, NECESSARILY. But as a woman who has had stuff taken o off the clothesline, it hardly mattered to me what their motivation might be. I just didn't LIKE the feeling of intrusion that it gave me. Mike..can YOU answer a question for me? Why is it easier for a kid to STEAL, given that he is basically a moral kid, than it is to find some other way to procure these clothes? Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Lynn :: Lynn...... It really doesn't matter what the person who steals them does with them, now does it? Wearing panties, stolen or otherwise, could or could not be considered a sexual purpose. Whatever does that have to do with the discussion here? Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Diane :: Dear Diane, Thanks to YOU! We've been through enough together for me to be really bent out of shape by what was happening here ... especially with you! Huggs! Chris Fm: :: Lynn :: To: :: Diane :: Diane: I thought it was a pertinent question. In Rusty's message, he stated that stealing panties for a sexual purpose was a sex crime. My question was whether wearing them would fit into the category of sexual purpose, and whether he would consider a man wearing them as a sex crime. That's why I asked. Actually I think we've done this one pretty much to death, and I'm willing to drop it rather than asking something that might lead to even more discussion and therefore being a contributor to the continuation of something that I don't like. Lynn Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Chris D. :: Ahhh..Chris! You were bent out of shape with ME? I really appreciated Tara's remarks; they seemed to make things "come together" for me. However, I still believe it is (was) a very useful exercise. Lots of light shed, more than enough heat, and ideas and opinions exchanged that will doubtless impact the ways that people on both sides of the argument think......no? Now I am wondering WHY you were "especially" bent out of shape with me? As opposed to the others here who shared my view? Can you tell me? Huggs, Diane Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Lynn :: Dear Lynn, Thank you for your response. I think you have made a very wise decision. Diane Fm: :: Rusty :: To: :: Lynn :: Hi Lynn! Well, that's a matter of individual need I guess. The amply endowed woman who wears an industrial strength bra probably wears it as much for health or comfort than any sexual purpose. The modestly endowed woman who wears one of those push-up bras perhaps as a sexual purpose in mind. The same might be said for certain types of panties as well. Cheers! Rusty Fm: :: Lynn :: To: :: Rusty :: Dear Rusty: Great answer ! Cheers! Lynn Fm: :: Ellie :: To: :: Mike F. :: Dear Mike, I thought I said what he would have done -- knocked me down or out of the way. And since he had to be upstairs, he might have knocked me down the stairs. I don't think anyone who is in your home is safe. Huggs, Ellie Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: :: Diane :: Diane, I understand that one would feel violated, maybe even more so than if a stereo was stolen. I don't want to condone the action, but what would you suggest to this "basically moral kid" stop in a nearby Lane Bryant and try stuff on?? Sorry for being sarcastic--I guess I'm in a weird mood <> et al... --Mike Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: :: Lynn :: Lynn, I'll second that motion!! -M Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: :: Diane :: Dear Diane, Only because I'd enjoyed your company so much in the past and was having a tough time reconciling what i thought you were saying with what I knew of you before. Understand? Big Huggs, Chris Fm: :: Diane :: To: :: Chris D. :: Dear Chris! Thanks for the clarification! I am not very sure at all that I made my position clear, and I KNOW I didn't want to lose any friendships over a discussion! In spite of the pain that was doubtless caused to some people, (which I always regret)........I am glad that I was given a new way to look at things, and was made aware of another frame or reference of which I was totally UNAWARE! , Chris...I am especially glad to know that you consider me as your friend! I think YOU are somethin' special too! Googol huggs, Diane Fm: Eden To: :: Chris D. :: Think about this folks: Why would a 15 yr. old transvestite steal lingerie? Because although petty theft is socially unacceptable, a male buyingf lingerie for himself openly results in a much HARSHER social reaction. The point is that the young thief chooses the path of least resistance. If he knew the anguish he might cause his victim, he might not steal--but he selfishly thinks only of the anguish he would suffer if he were to pursue his hobby openly. Similarly, the victim of the theft is only aware of her own anguish at having her privacy invaded. At least until she starts sharing other perspectives on this marvelous bulletin board. Fm: Eden To: :: Lynn :: Actually, I once met a woman who had been convicted of rape. "Freddie the feminist rapist" as she called herself had written an indignant letter to a newspaper after some man had made the assertion that women should "enjoy" rape. She offered to rape him and see if he'd enjoy it. He showed up at the time and place of the chsallenge and she and another woman tore his pants off and tesased him a little. Suddenly, his attitude on the subject changed 180 degrees and he pressed charges. Although she was convivted, I believe the decision was reversed on appeal. Fm: :: Mike F. :: To: Eden Thanks for posting that!! Sometimes I have a difficult time transfering "mind language" into English. You summed up what I wanted to say well!! <> et al... --Mike Fm: :: Lynn :: To: Eden Dear Eden: No kidding! She was convicted of rape? I find myself witl *all* kinds of questions about that one! Was it actually rape she was convicted of, or was it sexual assault? Huggs, Lynn Fm: :: Chris D. :: To: Eden Dear Eden, Thanks for saying what I was trying to say, only you've said it much better. Don't know much about you. Do you come to your understanding of the TV's plight by personal experience? Or is it pure empathy? Huggs, Chris Fm: Eden To: :: Lynn :: It was about 12 years ago that I met her, so I couldn't swear to whether the actual charge was rape or sexual assault. I DO remember that she called herself the "only woman convicted of rape" in the U.S. I only met her once so I don't know how to get the answer to your question. She was convicted in Illinois in the early seventies as I recall, so perhaps an attorney could track it down.--or maybe a search of the Chicago newspapers. Huggs, Eden Fm: Eden To: :: Chris D. :: Dear Chris: I lost the thread the first time I tried to answer this message. You'll find my answer on Genderline. Huggs, Eden Fm: :: Lynn :: To: Eden Dear Eden: If it was in Chicago, I'm in the right place! Thanks. Huggs, Lynn Fm: Wayne To: :: Rusty :: I do think the "detective" magazines are worse than any pron I have seen. Even the B&D stuff I have seen is all fantasy-oriented. I may not see enough, but I would agree with the officer about those. Many panty theives may just be stealing to be stealing -- college pranks and the like. Peeping toms and the like should be treated severely. Fines, not imprisonment, though. They should all be misdemeanors, too. They need help more than anything, though. All should go through a sounseling program. Fm: :: Rusty :: To: Wayne Hi Wayne! Well, the detective magazines seem to feature bondage and degradation while most of the porn stuff is just the old "in and out". Why do you suggest fines rather than imprisonment? Doesn't that depend on the gravity of the crime? What about the guy who steals thousands of panties? Cheers! Rusty