textfiles/sex/EROTICA/P/peepingt.txt

#: 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!  <blush>

   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  <restocked>

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?  <See my previous note.>

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??

<<HUGGZ>> 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??

<<HUGGZ>> 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??

<<HUGGZ>> 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??

<<HUGGZ>> 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??

<<HUGGZ>> 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.

<No, when i was burglarized, the thief did not get any of my lingerie. Nor my
wife's.>

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. <Hinckley, e.g.?>  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. <Not saying who, mind you.>

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 <which I lost in a burglary> 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??

<<HUGGZ>> 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??

<<HUGGZ>> 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 <grin>!

     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 <sigh>

<<HUGGZ>> 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!!

<<HUGGZ>> 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