# Man arrested for asking girls to wear socks--is this really a sex crime? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188 "2012-05-07T16:17:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/21 "2012-05-08T09:47:33Z")
It may or may not be a public nuisance offence but it’s not a sex crime on any planet I’ve lived on. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/22 "2012-05-08T10:38:16Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And a guy who fucking leaves when told to is not hurting people. He did not leave when told to. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/23 "2012-05-08T10:49:28Z")
Guilty of loitering, maybe. Innocent of anything else. Of course, the prosecutors may know full well they couldn’t get a conviction when they charged him, but are using the threat as leverage, which is a violation of the rules … but hey, it’s “for the children” so screw due process. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/24 "2012-05-08T16:04:24Z")
I would bet that the arresting officers are trying to parlay the “stalking children at the park” thing into a warrant to look for child pr0n on his computer. I bet they find it, too, and I bet it won’t be limited to children’s shoe catalogs. It’s ok to have sexual fetishes. It’s not ok to involve children in your sexual fetishes. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/25 "2012-05-08T16:23:16Z")
Maybe he was worried they’d catch a cold? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/26 "2012-05-08T16:26:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I should’ve known better than to use a term that might have a legally defined meaning. I don’t know what category that behavior belongs in, but it does sound like the kind of stranger-danger-ing that could easily result in an arrest. But again – for what? The problem is that what he did probably wasn’t a crime. I’m not sure what acts are necessary to complete stalking, but I doubt very much that what’s described here does the trick. And there simply isn’t a crime called “being a gross, creepy, guy that pervs on sock-wearing girls.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/27 "2012-05-08T16:33:55Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I would bet that the arresting officers are trying to parlay the “stalking children at the park” thing into a warrant to look for child pr0n on his computer. I bet they find it, too, and I bet it won’t be limited to children’s shoe catalogs. > > It’s ok to have sexual fetishes. It’s not ok to involve children in your sexual fetishes. I agree with your evaluation that it’s not OK to involve children in your sexual fetishes. But the police are not in the business of enforcing what is, and is not, “OK.” They are involved in enforcing the crminal code. And one rule of criminal law is that the language of criminal statutes is construed strictly against the state. A law that only vaguely prohibits conduct is not enforceable; the law must clearly and unambiguously give notice as to what conduct is prohibited. And for what it’s worth, I don’t believe the facts reported thus far would support the issue of a search warrant, which must describe the facts that give rise to probable cause to believe that the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime will be discovered in the places the warrant seeks to search. Of course, if he’s not under arrest, and volunteers that he has pictures that go beyond shoe catalogs, then it’s a different story. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/28 "2012-05-08T17:11:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree with your evaluation that it’s not OK to involve children in your sexual fetishes. > > But the police are not in the business of enforcing what is, and is not, “OK.” They are involved in enforcing the crminal code. I concur with the caveat that sometimes the law itself is wrong. It may still be a law on the books in Los Angeles or maybe California that made it illegal for a man to be at a park if you did not have your child with you. It was done to protect the children, but if you were a guy and decided to get a Subway sandwich and walk to the park to eat it on a bench, you could be arrested. I don’t remember if it was considered a sex crime or not. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/29 "2012-05-08T17:18:48Z")
^ NYC. [http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=3483055](http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=3483055) ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/30 "2012-05-08T17:37:42Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I concur with the caveat that sometimes the law itself is wrong. It may still be a law on the books in Los Angeles or maybe California that made it illegal for a man to be at a park if you did not have your child with you. It was done to protect the children, but if you were a guy and decided to get a Subway sandwich and walk to the park to eat it on a bench, you could be arrested. I don’t remember if it was considered a sex crime or not. I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t take my footlong out in public. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/31 "2012-05-08T18:07:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree with your evaluation that it’s not OK to involve children in your sexual fetishes. > > But the police are not in the business of enforcing what is, and is not, “OK.” They are involved in enforcing the crminal code. Sure. Do you happen to have a link to the particular criminal code that was cited in the article? The location is Port St. Lucie, Florida. The charges are: “… felony lewd or lascivious exhibition committed on, or in the presence of, persons less than 16. He also was charged with a misdemeanor count of loitering or prowling.” Being a lawyer, you probably have better tools for looking up the exact wording of those laws than we do. > [@](#): > > And one rule of criminal law is that the language of criminal statutes is construed strictly against the state. A law that only vaguely prohibits conduct is not enforceable; the law must clearly and unambiguously give notice as to what conduct is prohibited. Yeah, well do you have the actual criminal statute? Are you asserting that this particular criminal statute is vague? Apparently doing something lewd or lascivious in the presence of people 15 or younger is a felony in Port St. Lucie. That’s what he’s been charged with, although of course it remains to be seen if it holds up in court. I would say that involving children in one’s sexual fetishes is doing something lewd and lascivious - even if all the guy is doing is collecting their sweaty socks so he can take the socks home and masturbate with them. > [@](#): > > And for what it’s worth, I don’t believe the facts reported thus far would support the issue of a search warrant, which must describe the facts that give rise to probable cause to believe that the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime will be discovered in the places the warrant seeks to search. Of course, if he’s not under arrest, and volunteers that he has pictures that go beyond shoe catalogs, then it’s a different story. You may well be right about their chances of getting a search warrant - I just said that I suspect they’ll try. I base that suspicion on the fact that the guy has already volunteered that he approached the kids, and then loitered around them, because of his sexual fetish It seems to me the DA might argue that, because of the man’s admitted sexual interest in children’s socks, and because it’s a felony to do something sexual around children, such as collect their socks for sexual purposes, then they should search his apartment to see if he as other childrens’ socks, or photos of such, as evidence of his doing lewd and lascivious things around other children. They may not get their warrant but I think they have grounds to ask. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/32 "2012-05-08T18:16:23Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Being a lawyer, you probably have better tools for looking up the exact wording of those laws than we do. Being a poster, you probably have eyes, and could have clicked the link in post #2 of this very thread. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/33 "2012-05-08T18:21:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But again – for what? The guy was evidently following the children for long enough that he drew their attention. > [@Merneith](#): > > It seems to me the DA might argue that, because of the man’s admitted sexual interest in children’s socks, and because it’s a felony to do something sexual around children, such as collect their socks for sexual purposes, then they should search his apartment to see if he as other childrens’ socks, or photos of such, as evidence of his doing lewd and lascivious things around other children. “Something sexual” does have to be defined in some sense, though. And while I’m not moved by the pleas of “thoughtcrime!” here, there’s no indication as far as I can tell that he’s taken socks from children and buying child-size socks from a store isn’t a crime. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/34 "2012-05-08T19:47:41Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I would say that involving children in one’s sexual fetishes is doing something lewd and lascivious - even if all the guy is doing is collecting their sweaty socks so he can take the socks home and masturbate with them. > … > It seems to me the DA might argue that, because of the man’s admitted sexual interest in children’s socks, and because it’s a felony to do something sexual around children, such as collect their socks for sexual purposes, then they should search his apartment to see if he as other childrens’ socks, or photos of such, as evidence of his doing lewd and lascivious things around other children. > > They may not get their warrant but I think they have grounds to ask. What? Lemme ask you this. If an attractive woman walks down the street and I take a mental image of her for later use in my spank bank, did I do something lewd and lascivious without her permission? Could I be charged with attempted rape, for example? I understand that these are children and deserving of extra protection, but as has been said, the guy did nothing and attempted nothing sexual with these children. What if I tell a 6 year old that she has a pretty dress on. I may be a perv or I may just be a regular guy. Are you prepared to charge everyone with a felony and see where the chips fall? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/35 "2012-05-08T23:34:47Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Sure. Do you happen to have a link to the particular criminal code that was cited in the article? > > The location is Port St. Lucie, Florida. > > The charges are: “… felony lewd or lascivious exhibition committed on, or in the presence of, persons less than 16. He also was charged with a misdemeanor count of loitering or prowling.” > > Being a lawyer, you probably have better tools for looking up the exact wording of those laws than we do. > > Yeah, well do you have the actual criminal statute? Are you asserting that this particular criminal statute is vague? No. To the contrary, it’s very specific: § 800.04(7)(a), Fla. Stat: > [@](#): > > (7) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS EXHIBITION.— > (a) A person who: > 1. Intentionally masturbates; > 2. Intentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner; or > 3. Intentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to, sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, or the simulation of any act involving sexual activity > in the presence of a victim who is less than 16 years of age, commits lewd or lascivious exhibition. And a sexual act is defined by 800.04(1)(a) as: > [@](#): > > …the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. > [@](#): > > Apparently doing something lewd or lascivious in the presence of people 15 or younger is a felony in Port St. Lucie. That’s what he’s been charged with, although of course it remains to be seen if it holds up in court. > > I would say that involving children in one’s sexual fetishes is doing something lewd and lascivious - even if all the guy is doing is collecting their sweaty socks so he can take the socks home and masturbate with them. But the law defines lewd and lascivious. It’s not simply a crapshoot, or what sounds lewd to a random person. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/36 "2012-05-09T01:18:10Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Being a poster, you probably have eyes, and could have clicked the link in post #2 of this very thread. Bugger. I overlooked that post earlier. Bricker - > [@Bricker](#): > > No. To the contrary, it’s very specific: > > § 800.04(7)(a), Fla. Stat: > > > [@](#): > > > > (7) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS EXHIBITION.— > > (a) A person who: > > 1. Intentionally masturbates; > > 2. Intentionally exposes the genitals in a lewd or lascivious manner; or > > 3.  **Intentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to** , sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, or the simulation of any act involving sexual activity in the presence of a victim who is less than 16 years of age, commits lewd or lascivious exhibition. [emphasis mine] > > And a sexual act is defined by 800.04(1)(a) as: > > > [@](#): > > > > …the oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. Thank you for posting this. Sorry I overlooked it previously. However, it looks like there’s a problem with this statute. You’re correct that “sexual act” is defined in such a way it requires physical contact. However, the section on “Lewd and Lascivious Exhibition” specifically talks about non-physical sexual behavior. Furthermore, looking just above that, at the section in the statute regarding “Lewd or Lascivious Conduct”, at § 800.04(6),we find this: > [@](#): > > (6) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT.– > > (a) A person who: > > 1. Intentionally touches a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner; or > > 2. Solicits a person under 16 years of age to commit a lewd or lascivious act [emphasis mine] > > commits lewd or lascivious conduct. Which not only posits non-contact sexual activity, but specifically mentions enticing other people under the age of 16 to do lewd and lascivious stuff. That would seem to apply more specifically to the man in the OP, who was attempting to entice the kids to wear socks because, as he volunteered to the police, he has a sexual fetish concerning it. In short, I think the statute clearly does not _intend_ to limit “sexual activity” to the full-contact acts it lists in the “Definitions” section, which you quoted. However, it’s also clear that the statute’s Definition list does not include non-contact activities. I don’t know what to do about the contradiction. Maybe this will come up at the trial? > [@Bricker](#): > > But the law defines lewd and lascivious. It’s not simply a crapshoot, or what sounds lewd to a random person. Yes. Right? What are we arguing about? I never said his arrest was a crapshoot. My initial post, which you quoted, was written on the assumption that the man in the OP was charged with an actual crime - “felony lewd or lascivious exhibition committed on, or in the presence of, persons less than 16”, is how the OP put it. I never imagined or suggested that that his arrest wasn’t based on _actual_ criminal statutes. He may be found innocent, of course. And of course, the reporter may have gotten it all wrong in the retelling. But that’s neither here nor there with regard to my initial post. Let me expand on my initial post while replying to Marley as well as yourself, Bricker - Marley - > [@Marley23](#): > > “Something sexual” does have to be defined in some sense, though. And while I’m not moved by the pleas of “thoughtcrime!” here, there’s no indication as far as I can tell that he’s taken socks from children and buying child-size socks from a store isn’t a crime. Here’s what I’m thinking - and of course, this is speculation because I don’t have some kind of mindlink with the prosecutors. But here’s what I was thinking. 1. It’s illegal, according to these statues quoted above, to commit a sexual act in the presence of children under the age of 16. 1a. Even though I hadn’t then read the actual statute, I took the OP at face value that the man was charged with an actual crime. 1. The man, Robert van Wagner, asked the girls to wear some socks, run around the field, and then return the socks to him. 2. van Wagner told police that he did this because of a sexual fetish. 3. Asking children to perform an action because it satisfies a sexual fetish is - and ought to be - illegal. 4. The illegal part is in asking the girls to do \ for van Wagner’s sexual satisfaction. 5. It doesn’t matter what \ is. Asking the children to participate, is involving them in an adult’s sexual fetish. 6. Because van Wagner admitted to the police that he asked the kids to do something for his sexual fetish, he’s probably screwed. 7. Because van Wagner admitted to police that he’s done this before, I suspect the prosecutors will try to get warrants to look for further evidence, possibly in hopes of finding evidence of worse behavior. 8. As I said - they may not get a warrant, but I suspect they’ll try. 9. And I suspect if they look for worse behavior, they’ll find it. I may be wrong of course. 10. Aside from my suspicions, which I concede are purely IMHO, and granting the definition problems which the statute, which I noted above - I think it’s reasonable that it’s illegal for an adult to ask children to participate, in any capacity, in an adult’s sexual fetishes or fantasies. It doesn’t matter if the participation is limited. Children shouldn’t be asked to participate. Period. And having provided John Mace with another straight line, I’m going to bed. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/37 "2012-05-09T01:26:34Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Furthermore, looking just above that, at the section in the statute regarding “Lewd or Lascivious Conduct”, at § 800.04(6),we find this: > > > [@](#): > > > > (6) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT.– > > > > (a) A person who: > > > > 1. Intentionally touches a person under 16 years of age in a lewd or lascivious manner; or > > > > 2. Solicits a person under 16 years of age to commit a lewd or lascivious act[emphasis mine] > > > > commits lewd or lascivious conduct. > > Which not only posits non-contact sexual activity, but specifically mentions enticing other people under the age of 16 to do lewd and lascivious stuff. Trying on socks is not any type of sexual activity nor is it “lewd and lascivious stuff.” ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/38 "2012-05-09T01:28:52Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > 1. Asking children to perform an action because it satisfies a sexual fetish is - and ought to be - illegal. You’ve failed to show that that’s illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/39 "2012-05-09T13:31:11Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > However, it looks like there’s a problem with this statute. > > You’re correct that “sexual act” is defined in such a way it requires physical contact. However, the section on “Lewd and Lascivious Exhibition” specifically talks about non-physical sexual behavior. > > Furthermore, looking just above that, at the section in the statute regarding “Lewd or Lascivious Conduct”, at § 800.04(6),we find this: > Which not only posits non-contact sexual activity, but specifically mentions enticing other people under the age of 16 to do lewd and lascivious stuff. That would seem to apply more specifically to the man in the OP, who was attempting to entice the kids to wear socks because, as he volunteered to the police, he has a sexual fetish concerning it. > > In short, I think the statute clearly does not _intend_ to limit “sexual activity” to the full-contact acts it lists in the “Definitions” section, which you quoted. However, it’s also clear that the statute’s Definition list does not include non-contact activities. I don’t know what to do about the contradiction. Maybe this will come up at the trial? It won’t, because the charge will be dismissed before trial, because it’s unsustainable. > [@](#): > > 1. van Wagner told police that he did this because of a sexual fetish. > > 2. Asking children to perform an action because it satisfies a sexual fetish is - and ought to be - illegal. > > 3. The illegal part is in asking the girls to do \ for van Wagner’s sexual satisfaction. > > 4. It doesn’t matter what \ is. Asking the children to participate, is involving them in an adult’s sexual fetish. There’s your problem. It DOES matter what \ is. > [@State ex rel. Swanboro v. Mayo](#): > > It is elementary that when a criminal act is charged under a statute such as this the charge must be so couched that the accused may be advised definitely and precisely of the act which the prosecution intends to prove was committed by him and whether or not the accused is guilty of a lewd and lascivious act may not be left to the option or judgment of the prosecutor because what one prosecutor might consider a lewd and lascivious act another prosecutor of equal moral fiber and integrity might consider void of any lewd or lascivious element. And as to what acts might be lewd or lascivious: > [@](#): > > “Lewd” and “lascivious” are words in common use, and the definitions indicate with reasonable certainty the character of acts and conduct which the Legislature intended to prohibit and punish, so that a person of ordinary understanding may know what conduct on his part is condemned. Would an ordinary person know, by reading the law, that the conduct of asking a young girl to put on socks and walk around is prohibited by law? No. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/40 "2012-05-09T13:46:42Z")
A “fetish” is, by definition, something that causes sexual arousal but which in itself is not sexual. If I had a fetish for hearing people (even minors) tell me the time of day, I could likely walk around in public getting my rocks off 24/7 without breaking the law, and no one would be the wiser. If I admitted I was doing it to satisfy a fetish, as did the perv in this case, would it then become illegal when it wasn’t before? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188.md?page=3)