User: shrrr

When did this happen? Back in the 80's, for example, tight briefs on men were extremely popular. So if that was the case and a good-looking woman happened to witness your situation she probably would have smiled and giggled first... but inside she may have been like 'hmmmm... nice underpants!' Tight, lycra briefs used to be a turn-on for females.

Hi sugarshack! Are you male or female? What kind of underwear were you wearing? Did you have to walk back home trouserless? How did you feel about that?

Hello badguystripsyou. I've been following this thread and I find some of your contributions very interesting. Thanks for posting.

You've mentioned that stripping works well when applied to guys, but with women is the opposite way around. Which, I guess, makes a lot of sense; it's really easy to imagine what may cross the mind of a woman who is confronted by an armed assilant and then commanded to strip!

There's a robbery/muggery scenario that has always caught my attention; those in which the victims are forced to surrender just one item of clothing, albeit a very essential one; their trousers or skirts. I know many cases of this kind of robbery; not surprisingly, men are more commonly the victims of this tactic while women rarely are. Even in cases in which a man and a woman together are mugged it seems that only the man is forced to remove his trousers, while the woman gets to keep hers -or her skirt. Although I also know a few cases of muggeries to couples in which both the man and the woman had to take off their trousers and skirts, so far I don't know a single case in which the woman only was required to peel her garment off. Neither a single case of a woman alone being forced to remove her trousers/skirt during a muggery. I guess that the reason for this lies in what you've mentioned previously about female victims.

I think we can agree that removing a person trousers/skirt and leaving their underpants/panties exposed will cause a great, if not huge deal of humiliation. But I suppose not as much as being stripped of all their clothing. What do you think are the reasons for applying this robbery technique in particular?

Forcibly removing a man's trousers is one of the most effective ways to humiliate him. It's a way to strip him of his personal power. That kind of assault from other men is usually done in presence of women; this way the embarrassment and humiliation are greater. I'm quite sure that no man wants to be left in his underpants against his wishes in front of the woman he has been trying to impress... I think that those feelings are the place from which such trauma stems from.

In that regard, your assault was a bit uncommon, since there was no one around. My take, as I said ealier, is that they hoped you'd encounter some women while looking for your trousers who would have laughed at you. Had you been wearing, let's say, a pair of boring white boxers shorts, I don't think they would have made any remarks regarding your underwear. Blue briefs, however, are something that spark reactions from women; "cute", "funny", "hot", "gross", "ridicule"... In each case, their reaction would have been similar -giggling and laughing, mostly - thus making you feel mocked and humiliated. When your assaulters saw your underwear they probably thought that you were in for a long, unpleasant night.

Anyway, when mugged it's better not to resist. You are not the first person that loses the trousers or skirt to a thug, and for sure you won't be the last. Guns and weapons can seriously injure people, but so far I don't know any person whose health has been seriously affected for making their way back home trouserless or skirtless -except for a badly bruised ego!

You said that no one you knew saw you. But were you seen by someone (unkown, of course) while you were with no trousers on? Was one of these people a woman? If so, how did she react? How did you feel to that?

I don't think they planned to remove your underpants in any moment. They could have done it easily after overpowering you. I think however that their main idea was to humiliate you for the fun of it as a bonus to taking your wallet.

The fact that they noticed the color of your underpants leads me to believe that there lies the reason. Stripping a man of both his trousers and underpants is too extreme, and bystanders could find it disgusting, thus sympathizing with him. However, remove his trousers only allowing him to keep his underpants and people would regard that as just a "prank", thus NOT sympathizing with him. This way, they could laugh at him carelessly. In short, it's morally easier to laugh at a man with no trousers on than to laugh at a man with no trousers nor underpants on. They wanted you to encounter people (especially young women) who would have laughed at you.