I had a silly thought while reading about upskirting being legal since the women are properly clad.
No its not about the law or morality of the situation, but just an idea that popped into my head.
Would it be possible to create a pair of underwear that looks like a pair of hairy testicles and penis hanging down?
Could you imagine the look on the face of the guy doing the upskirting? 
I think most “upskirters” (disclaimer: I am not aware if I know any sucj people personally) are familiar with the concept of transvestites and transitioning transwomen.
I had no idea this is a thing! I saw a guy doing it once while in line at Starbucks, but just filed it under “guys are often creepy.”
To twist a movie quote here, “I don’t know what’s creepier, upskirting, or that it happens so often there’s actually a term for it.”
How so? Did the guy have a camera on a stick or something? Or was he just using some mighty suspicious angles with his phone?
that tiny little womb houses a baby?! /scared
You could, but you would have to wear a skirt with front pockets. Something about the external junk makes one want to jingle their change.
When you purchase the expansion module, yes indeed!
Which would instantly create a new fad of “shock the upskirter”…
pretty sure i met a hooker in singapore that had that same kind of underwear.
The skirt helped - the young lady was wearing a black blouse with a red-and-black tartan jacket with matching skirt, but the skirt was… well, the skirt was a tutu. It flared out to the sides, there was taffeta or whatever underneath, and the whole concoction stopped about mid-thigh. It sounds weird, but she had the legs for it (like most sophisticates, I’m a leg man ;)).
I guess you are refering to the MA decision. The way the “statute” was worded, I tend to side with the high court, since he had underwear on.
There is Tort remedy though.
http://www.universalhub.com/files/robertson-brief.pdf
Our Voyeurism law covers even clothed.
2907.08 Voyeurism.
A) No person, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying the person’s self, shall commit trespass or otherwise surreptitiously invade the privacy of another, to spy or eavesdrop upon another.
(B) No person, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying the person’s self, shall commit trespass or otherwise surreptitiously invade the privacy of another to videotape, film, photograph, or otherwise record the other person in a state of nudity.
(C) No person, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying the person’s self, shall commit trespass or otherwise surreptitiously invade the privacy of another to videotape, film, photograph, otherwise record, or spy or eavesdrop upon the other person in a state of nudity if the other person is a minor.
(D) No person shall secretly or surreptitiously videotape, film, photograph, or otherwise record another person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person.
(E)
(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of voyeurism.
The ruling was that current laws in Massachusetts didn’t apply to the situation. It’s been outlawed in other places, and the Massachusetts legislature is moving to fix that PDQ, which would solve the problem.
Those are even better! Thank you for the laugh.
Why this redundancy? I’m familiar enough with the law to know that many statutes are written with endless repetition and redundancy to close any loopholes of interpretation, but how does (B) exclude minors? Could the overall law be interpreted that (E) allows us to peek at the undergarments of minors?
I hear that anti-pervert leggingsare popular in China!
sawsqatch!
It looks like the “minor” one mentions spying and eavesdropping, which are … perfectly legal when done to adults? It may be for camps or boarding schools, or gym locker rooms, or something like that.
B excludes minors because C covers it, as you see, the language is almost exact for b and C except the word MINOR.
C also includes where not included in B “or spy or eavesdrop”, as Hershele stated.
C has the highest penalty because it includes minors and MORE elements, B has a different penalty.
…A violation of division (C) of this section is a felony of the fifth degree. …