How did the girls know unless they were spying into his home?

RCW 9A.44.115. Voyeurism

(1) As used in this section:

(a) "Intimate areas" means any portion of a person's body or undergarments that is covered by clothing and intended to be protected from public view;

(b) "Photographs" or "films" means the making of a photograph, motion picture film, videotape, digital image, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person;

(c) "Place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" means:

(i) A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or

(ii) A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance;

(d) "Surveillance" means secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person;

(e) "Views" means the intentional looking upon of another person for more than a brief period of time, in other than a casual or cursory manner, with the unaided eye or with a device designed or intended to improve visual acuity.

(2) A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:

(a) Another person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(b) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.

(3) Voyeurism is a class C felony.

(4) This section does not apply to viewing, photographing, or filming by personnel of the department of corrections or of a local jail or correctional facility for security purposes or during investigation of alleged misconduct by a person in the custody of the department of corrections or the local jail or correctional facility.

(5) If a person is convicted of a violation of this section, the court may order the destruction of any photograph, motion picture film, digital image, videotape, or any other recording of an image that was made by the person in violation of this section.

Anyone who walks around their house in their underwear (or nude) with the blinds open is an exhibitionist or just plain oblivious. I can tell you right now I ALWAYS make sure the blinds are closed when I do shit like that... my roommate, on the other hand, loves attention and makes sure to open the blinds for all the neighbors to see.

But in all cases? Shall we call them Riot Womyn?

Dat's what it is.

Presumptuous.

So, let that be a lesson to all of you out there, if you buy one of those phones you might get into trouble. You'd be better off just using that phone on you wife, even if she doesn't parade around naked or in sexy underwear anymore.

Just for the record though - the story calls them "women" six times, including in the headline.

It calls them "girls" twice: once when talking about what the neighbor's WIFE told the police officer and once in what looks like a geniune error.

Jeez, that reporter is such a hack!!

Especially when you're being ageist.

If you're like me and you live in apartment building hell, you have to know your neighbors window 10 feet away will look directly in on you if you choose to walk around naked, so plan accordingly... Not all of us have the luxury of seclusion like Fnarf.

So what the fuck are you on about?

Queen Anne doesn't have all that many apartment buildings. It's far more likely that there's nothing but single family homes across the street from those women's apartment. And if their apartment is above the second floor, it probably wasn't unreasonable for them to think that no one could see them, at least not without the aid of binoculars and a flashlight.

Both parties to this incident throw out some bullshit excuses - "putting on a show" vs. "blinds were broken." The police were right on in their responses: put the binoculars away, get the blinds fixed, grow the fuck up.

I finally called the police because I was sick of sitting at my dining table (eating rational-size portions, mind you) -- or worse, entertaining others -- only to feel a tug of gravity as that human moon hove into sight and began to shuffle about her flat.

The police took one look at what I had to view and went right over there to talk to her. Apparently, it's not cool to show yourself naked where kids (like the kids in the unit next to mine, who had the same view), could witness her exhibitionism. The police retruned to my flat to brief me on their discussion with Gypsy Rose Fupa and said they had reason to believe she was doing it on purpose and told her to cease.

She did. Thank Christ.

My dirty secret: if it had been a hot guy, I never would have called the cops. Ever.

And as for girl -- get over yourself.

Vagina.

If you ever had to, you know, like jello wrestle her or something, I'd totally have to root for her.

Jube - there's a nekkid pianoman across from my buddy's that eventually gets mad and sweeps the shades closed. You can't not look once the twinklin' starts. I try all the time.

And Kesh, QA Ave is lined with apartment buildings/condos till you cross McGraw and run down the north slope.

You're a D+ writer at best. Save your critiques and put your energy into getting out there and reporting, not whining. You're going to want a better job someday and the same people you've called out here on the Slog will be the ones throwing your resume into the "Nope" pile.

Christine is hard-working, conscientious, compassionate, and supportive. To know her and to work with her is to respect and admire her. For the likes of ECB, who is not a journalist at all, but just a shrill little shill and a journo wannabe, to call Christine a hack is nothing but projection.

Burn!

I like erica, but boy does she sound like a goofball today.

You're from TEXAS, no? Are you from a city in TX? Huge swaths of this country snoozed through ALL sorts of things in the 60's and 70's. That includes the female half the population, too. Esp. in the South. Yeesh.

I wish it was old news. It's not. That it's not news is NOT news. You know what else is not news? That a lot of people (including women, wisely or unwisely) tuned out feminism because they perceived it as a bunch of finger-wagging naggery. Rightly or wrongly.

Barbara Ehrnenreich said it years ago: Linguistic uplift is not the revolution.

Maybe I told this old joke already in the past month or two, or maybe I thought better of it. What the hey, here 'tis:

Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!

I shudder to think what a ray of sunshine you'd be if you weren't such a cutie pie and men (and women) treated you shabbily because of it. You might be the type to write crotchety missives about the evil artwork of the Bookslut logo.

Again, the gender revolution didn't happen. Wish it did. Now what? Other than harping on innocuous linguistic stuff?