<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Know Your Indecent Exposure Rights</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:24:38 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Flutterby</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-56030</link>
		<dc:creator>Flutterby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:29:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=7187#comment-56030</guid>
		<description>Charlie: &quot;[Mmy speculation is that a woman would be far less likely to go into the kitchen w/o a bathrobe, but if she did it would be much less likely that it was an &#039;innocent mistake&#039; and more likely she was an exhibitionist. Also, much less likely to be reported to the police and much less likely to face arrest. But it is all speculation.]&quot;

So your speculation is that the average woman would be so uncomfortable with her own nudity that she wouldn&#039;t want to go around her own home naked. And if it just so happened that she did want to wander around naked, it would be exclusively for sexual reasons, and with the intent of being seen by others rather than -oh, I don&#039;t know- that she just liked to be nude when clothing wasn&#039;t necessary.

I agree that, while I can imagine a man out with his kid being equally likely to report what he considered indecent exposure to the police, the police might&#039;ve been less likely to go after the woman so aggressively because men are more easily saddled with the &#039;creepy pervert&#039; label. But the first bit of your theorycrafting is just a bit offensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Charlie: "[Mmy speculation is that a woman would be far less likely to go into the kitchen w/o a bathrobe, but if she did it would be much less likely that it was an 'innocent mistake' and more likely she was an exhibitionist. Also, much less likely to be reported to the police and much less likely to face arrest. But it is all speculation.]"</p>
<p>So your speculation is that the average woman would be so uncomfortable with her own nudity that she wouldn't want to go around her own home naked. And if it just so happened that she did want to wander around naked, it would be exclusively for sexual reasons, and with the intent of being seen by others rather than -oh, I don't know- that she just liked to be nude when clothing wasn't necessary.</p>
<p>I agree that, while I can imagine a man out with his kid being equally likely to report what he considered indecent exposure to the police, the police might've been less likely to go after the woman so aggressively because men are more easily saddled with the 'creepy pervert' label. But the first bit of your theorycrafting is just a bit offensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: o dear lord school is fucked &#171; FemBot</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-38242</link>
		<dc:creator>o dear lord school is fucked &#171; FemBot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:25:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=7187#comment-38242</guid>
		<description>[...] too late to do a damn thing about it. It makes me upset and paranoid about other stuff, too, like peeping toms and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] too late to do a damn thing about it. It makes me upset and paranoid about other stuff, too, like peeping toms and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Friday News Roundup! » news</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-21152</link>
		<dc:creator>Friday News Roundup! » news</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=7187#comment-21152</guid>
		<description>[...] Know Your Indecent Exposure Rights &#8211; It&#8217;s all about the diameter of your peephole. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Know Your Indecent Exposure Rights &#8211; It&#8217;s all about the diameter of your peephole. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-20942</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:01:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=7187#comment-20942</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t understand why Mrs. Peepers is getting off &quot;scott free&quot;.  I keep thinking of the saying &quot;Shoot them all and let the good Lord sort &#039;em out.&quot; 

From the description I heard, that she said she could view the victim from several windows, made me think she was a pee-pee-peeper.  I feel considerably less safe knowing that people like this are allowed to roam free on our streets.  (And glad I don&#039;t live in Springfield.)

BTW, Sexist,  how would this story be turning out if it was a man who observed a nude woman having coffee in her kitchen?  Any speculation on that?

[Mmy speculation is that a woman would be far less likely to go into the kitchen w/o a bathrobe, but if she did it would be much less likely that it was an &#039;innocent mistake&#039; and more likely she was an exhibitionist.  Also, much less likely to be reported to the police and much less likely to face arrest.  But it is all speculation.]

Every exhibitionist needs a voyeur.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don't understand why Mrs. Peepers is getting off "scott free".  I keep thinking of the saying "Shoot them all and let the good Lord sort 'em out." </p>
<p>From the description I heard, that she said she could view the victim from several windows, made me think she was a pee-pee-peeper.  I feel considerably less safe knowing that people like this are allowed to roam free on our streets.  (And glad I don't live in Springfield.)</p>
<p>BTW, Sexist,  how would this story be turning out if it was a man who observed a nude woman having coffee in her kitchen?  Any speculation on that?</p>
<p>[Mmy speculation is that a woman would be far less likely to go into the kitchen w/o a bathrobe, but if she did it would be much less likely that it was an 'innocent mistake' and more likely she was an exhibitionist.  Also, much less likely to be reported to the police and much less likely to face arrest.  But it is all speculation.]</p>
<p>Every exhibitionist needs a voyeur.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: who s that peepin in my window &#124; who s that peepin in my window</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-20851</link>
		<dc:creator>who s that peepin in my window &#124; who s that peepin in my window</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:52:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=7187#comment-20851</guid>
		<description>[...] Posted by: IHATERELIGIOUSIDIOTS &#124; October 26, 2009 11:12 AM &#8230;http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.comKnow Your Indecent Exposure Rights &#8211; The Sexist &#8211; Washington City &#8230;“All of a sudden, I get woken up by police officers, and this guy has a Taser gun in my face,” [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Posted by: IHATERELIGIOUSIDIOTS | October 26, 2009 11:12 AM &#8230;<a href="http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.comKnow" rel="nofollow">http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.comKnow</a> Your Indecent Exposure Rights &#8211; The Sexist &#8211; Washington City &#8230;“All of a sudden, I get woken up by police officers, and this guy has a Taser gun in my face,” [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

