Totally There

Saw these at Target today. And I realize what that tag says. But those are anything but "barely there".

moreless

You Didn't Search Her Well Enough

It was just a month or so ago that I brought you the charming tale of a couple of super-sized women who were arrested for shoplifting many, many items by concealing the items 'neath their rolls of fat. Oh, and I can tell by the gagging sounds you just emitted that you remember said story all too well. So I guess you'd better brace yourself for this one, as it is quite similar in method to the previous story. I'm still trying to figure out some of the finer points to this story, but maybe you can help me out with some of them. Let's find out!

What we have is a story from the fine folks at CBS Minnesota (that's in Minnesota). It would seem that our "hero", a one Stephanie Moreland, was arrested on New Year's Eve under suspicion of stealing a $6,500 "short mink coat" from the Alaskan Fur Company. Now, when they say a "short mink coat", is that supposed to imply that the coat is not very long or that it was made from rather diminutive minks? I'm not sure, either.

Ms. Moreland was confronted in the store, but denied having taken said coat of mink. When she left the store, the clerk wrote down her license plate number and called police. The police tracked down the car and found a hanger from the store in the car. The article claims that "They searched her for weapons and booked her into their jail for the weekend on theft charges." Uh-huh. Yeah, I'm not quite so sure that she was really "searched'. I'm pretty sure that she was not "searched" sufficiently.

OK, so she's been in jail for a couple of days when "Three days later, a detective interviewed Moreland who admitted she stole the coat but claim she had already sold it." It's unclear to me why she admitted to the theft at that point. Maybe she thought they were going to let her go or something. I don't know, but she had carried on her little scheme to this point, I don't see why she didn't just keep going with it a little bit longer. Wait. What?

That's right. I said "her scheme". You weren't really buying any of that stuff that she was spewing out, were you? Oh, come on! She stole the coat all right. But she didn't sell it. I kind of wish that she had though. That's because (wait for it) "When the investigator informed Moreland he would be sending her to the Hennepin County Jail downtown, he was shocked when she lifted up her dress and pulled out the mink coat from her underwear." Oh. My. God.

Pulled the mink coat from her underwear?! What the what?! How big is this ol' gal again? Let's see...it says that she's 270 pounds. It does not list a height. I'm guessing that if she can conceal an entire mink coat, short or not, inside of her underwear, she can't be more than four feet tall. Good Lord, woman. And it was in there for three days?! How is that possible? What is going on over there at the jail in Minnesota? Clearly whatever it is, it does not involve thorough body searches at all.

The Bloomington Police Commander, a one Mark Stehlik, explained that “She had modified her underwear. She actually cut the rear of the underwear out so that from the back it appeared she was not wearing underwear and then stuffed it down the front.” What does that even mean? Cut out the rear of her underwear? I get that, but what does that have to do with it being able to appear that she's not wearing underwear? How does not appearing to wear underwear from the rear make it so it doesn't appear that you have a $6,500 short mink coat shoved down your front? Why does it matter if someone else thinks that she is wearing underwear or not? Is that some sort of a "thing" in the shoplifting community? I'm so confused. Three days of underwear mink?! (No, that is not a euphemism.) I hope they burned that thing after she pulled it out of...there.

There are really a lot of unanswered questions here. I realize that. But there's only so much I can do. If you know anything about this apparent underwear altering which is seemingly conducive to shoplifting, let me know.

moreless

Extracurricular Activites of a UK Mayor

What in the world is wrong with some of you people? Seriously. It's a serious question. What is wrong with you? There is clearly something wrong with some of you, otherwise y'all wouldn't be pulling some of the stunts that you're pulling. I mean, I understand the need to get laid. (Believe me, I understand!) But I don't understand what you guys don't understand about going out and getting a hooker or a whore or something to accomplish that. And the part that I don't understand is why you don't do it if your other alternative to getting yourself off is to sneak into people's homes and relieve your sexual tensions on their undergarments. But that's only when you're not busy fulfilling your duties as mayor. Wait. As what now?

Correct. As mayor. It would seem that over there across the pond in Lancashire (that's in North West England) and according to the Lancashire Telegraph, "The mayor of a Lancashire village" was caught "sneaking into bedrooms to steal and violate women’s underwear". Really? As mayor? I hear of political sex scandals in this country every other day at least. Granted, Mayor isn't exactly Governor or Senator or anything like that, but I'm sure that there's still some scandal that's out there to be had that doesn't involve all of the stealing and certainly doesn't involve all of the violating. I'm sure of it.

But this guy, apparently, was not. Accoding to the article in the Lancashire Telegraph, "Church-going Ian Stafford, 59, was a highly respected member of the community and Mayor of Preesall, near Fleetwood, before his “bluntly revolting” behaviour was uncovered". I see. Was it really necessary to put in there that he was "church going"? I don't think that it was. But if it was, what was it supposed to accomplish? Is it supposed to make people hate him more or less? Because it really makes me hate him more. Much more. Pig. But I digress. What does this sort of individual look like, you may be wondering? He looks exactly like you're think he looks. Behold!

Seriously. Tell me that if you were just shown that picture and you knew nothing of that man's history and you were given a choice of whether he was a mayor, a handyman or an ejaculating underwear thief, which one would you choose? The EUT, of course you would!

But perhaps being mayor over there in Lancashire doesn't carry the same clout or, at the very least, the same paycheck that it does over here in the US because Stafford was described as "A part-time handyman and gardener" and "had been employed for years by some of his victims who trusted him with keys to their homes." See, I just can't picture a mayor in the States as being someone's gardener. I picture pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom (the gayest looking straight man I have ever seen), the mayor of San Francisco and I can't see him doing his own gardening, let alone someone else's. Thank God that I also can't picture him doing unspeakable acts in other women's underwear drawers, either.

The pervert (I don't have to use "alleged" because he was convicted) was caught in his own insidious acts when one of the homeowners who had been violated "became suspicious" (oh, do you think?!) and set up hidden cameras. That was when Pervert Stafford was observed to be "in the bedroom naked from the waste(sp) down acting out his fantasy". Eww. Eww. And EWWW!!!

The homeowner (likely after multiple vomiting sessions) then took the evidence (which contained 14 minutes of this guy doing his thing) to the police. When they searched Pervy McJacksalot's home "...officers found stolen underwear which were marked with the women’s names on them." Of course. Because he wouldn't want to get them confused or mixed up or anything. No, that would be weird. Whatever. Freak.

I think that my favorite part of this account is where the article describe that "After hobbling into court using a walking stick, past his victims in the public gallery, his jaw dropped as he was sent down by Judge Heather Lloyd, who told him his actions were “bluntly revolting”. Oh, spare me. A walking stick?! (That's cutesy English talk for "a cane", I have the feeling.) Did the pervert have his walking stick (not to be confused with "whacking his stick") with him when he was sneaking into women's bedrooms and getting friendly with their undergarments? I'm not thinking that he did! If only judges in the US would tell people like this that they and their actions are both "bluntly revolting". That's pretty awesome.

The judge further told the sicko "To masturbate into a woman’s underwear and place it back in the drawer, repeatedly, as seen in the DVD, as you have done in other homes is bluntly revolting and the impact on your victims is high.” Why yes! Yes, it is! It is in all cases! It's bluntly revolting with an extremely high impact! Two years in jail is what this guy got? Good! I hope that he experiences some of this bluntly revolting behavior from some of his fellow inmates whilst he's serving away his time.

moreless

Grundle v. Hanes

I'd like to welcome back to the blog our old friend, the penis. Hi, penis! (Admit it. Penis is a funny word. I wouldn't have to do these stories if it wasn't so funny sounding and if it wasn't so ridiculous looking. I still have no idea how you guys walk around with those things.)

This account of a grundle wronged comes to us from the website Above The Law (a highly entertaining and simultaneously informative website which I highly recommend) and the courts of Escambia County in Florida. It would seem that a one Albert Freed was given some Hanes tightie whities by his wife to wear for their trip to Hawaii. Mr Freed, being a man of larger stature, subsequently ended up suing Hanes because of said briefs. It would seem that Mr. Freed claimed that the undergarment did not contain his genitals the way that they are intended to be contained (that is to say, inside the underwear) and as a result, his unit was somewhat exposed. Mr. Freed claimed that due to said unit exposure, coupled with a Hawaiian condition known as "the sand", his penis was unnecessarily chafed and rubbed raw. Wait. Ow. Wait. Ow. What now? Ow.

Look, I don't even have a penis, but having a raw one seems like it would really hurt. Now, mind you, they were in Hawaii for three weeks. He claims that he knew his manhood hurt, but he never looked at it to see why it hurt. Um, wait. He never...looked? At it? Yes, that is correct. It would seem that Mr. Freed is SO large that he is unable to gaze lovingly at his own genitalia. That's right. He's lost his own penis on his own body due to an overly substantial bodily girth (and not in a good way).

I know I've mentioned this before, but even though I don't have a penis, I would think that if I DID have one, I wouldn't lose track of it. I'd think I'd want to know where it is and what it's doing at all times! How do you not know what's going on with your own penis? I don't understand that at all.

Now, Mr. Freed would have countered my bewilderment with the argument that he used in court which was that he is a "belly man" and his weight prevents him from looking down and seeing his own penis. He also would contend that he didn't stand in front of a mirror or some other type of reflective device to inspect said raw unit because that's "just not something that he would do". He also would claim that he didn't ask his wife to look at it because "she he would never do such a thing". Really?

They're in Hawaii and he's not going to involve his penis in this trip at any point in time? He's not going to want to involve his penis at any point in time? I find that amazing. The last time I went to Hawaii, there was fornication before we even unpacked! This guy is there for three weeks and not only does he not see his penis, neither does his wife. Odd.

So how did he come to the conclusion that it was the Hanes underwear that was causing him to have an irritated wiener? Apparently, the second to the last day before the end of the trip, his wife was not around and he was walking around the condo that they had rented in just his allegedly defective undergarments and walked past a mirror. That's when he noticed that he was slightly protruding from the briefs. All right now.

Now, if this had been going on the entire time (and we're talking almost three weeks, folks) and right at the end this "belly man" happens to wander past a mirror and see his unit poking out, it had to be reminiscent of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer at that point, wouldn't you think? That or an angry turtle poking its head out into the world. Isn't that about the same point where the case would have gone from being called Freed v. Hanes to Fireman's Helmet v. Hanes?

So, this guy is claiming that with the protruding penis and the sand from the water (he was wearing his underwear underneath his swim trunks? That strikes me as odd. Does he not know how swim trunks work? They usually work sans underpants.), the little sides of the pee hole there acted like abrasive sandpaper. Ouchie! Sounds like (if this was actually the case) that he's damn lucky he didn't decapitate the little fellow. Who wears their underwear underneath their swim trunks?

The court decided against this lunatic. Perhaps it was the "expert testimony" (an expert in underwear? Nice profession. Is there a degree for that?) in which they basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that any sort of 'yawning' by said briefs would be due to too large of an ass shoved into too small of a pant for underneath. So had Mr. Freed perhaps stepped it up a notch and gotten the 58s instead of the 56s there might have been all of the raw penis that developed. Then again, in Mr. Freed's defense, it was his wife that bought them for him for the trip. Perhaps those are the sorts of gifts that older couples exchange before embarking on a three week journey to the Hawaiian Islands, but again, the last time I went to Hawaii, I think I was given the pre-trip gift of lots of liquor (not to mention the gift of groping I was given on said plane ride to said islands. Ah, Hawaii.). And I don't know how she could have been expected to get the correct size. After all, he doesn't ask her to inspect his penis, remember? That's just not something that he would do. Clearly.

And get this: At the end of the ruling (you know, the part where they said in legalese that the guy was too damn fat for his own underwear and wasn't getting a dime for his raw weenie) the judge writes "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff shall recover nothing from defendant who shall go hence without day." Go hence without day? What does that even mean? Let's break it down. There's "Go". We know what that means. "Hence". That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this at all. "Without" means not with. And then "day". So it seems to mean "don't have a day". Is that right? Did that judge sentence that poor fat man with the super sore schlong to death? Good Lord, Your Honor, isn't that a bit much?! (You know, even if that isn't what it means, I'm going to start saying that. A lot. To everyone.)

What have we learned from this? More than we bargained for, I'll tell you that much. We've learned that it's important to always keep your genitals where you can see them at a moment's notice. We've learned that grundle pain should most likely be investigated the moment it happens. Most importantly I think that we've learned to buy some damned underwear that actually fit and that won't be giving the contents of said underwear a room with a view. Thank you and go hence without day.

moreless