Re: NO

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but it seems plausible that Furbydad was referring to the anonymity of the girls whose panties he/we sneak looks at. Furbydad was discussing the argument some make that GM's invade the privacy of the LG's that we view and then write about on forums like these. If for instance one were to describe seeing the white cotton panties of a 7 yr old LG as she sat spread eagle on a park bench, that could pretty much describe almost any little girl out there in the world. However if one were to describe that he saw 10 year old Jane Doe from Bethesda, MD, who's 4-6' and weighs 65 lbs and has blonde hair and blue eyes and lives at 555 pedo lane than that would be invading the girl's privacy. Simply describing and identifying a random girl who gave you a great panty shot is harmless, just a cheap thrill which hurts no one. Just because a man can enjoy a panty shot from a cute little girl, doesn't mean he's uncapable or unwilling to have a deeper relationship with a young girl.