# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/41 "2012-05-09T14:54:25Z")
Our legal system puts a lot of weight on intent. If you shoot your buddy in a hunting accident, it’s probably not a big deal. If you shoot your buddy because you would like to kill him, you are going to jail. This act is sexual to him, and that’s what matters. I remember being a young girl and having all kinds of men try to bring me into their sexual whatevers in all kinds of creepy ways. It’s amazing the weird shit people can foist on you for being eleven years old and walking down the street. We don’t need that in our society. If you need to get off, leave strange children out of it. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/42 "2012-05-09T15:09:39Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > 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? That is only one possible definition - I agree its the most commonly used definition. > [@](#): > > fet·ish >    [fet-ish, fee-tish] > noun > 1. > an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency. > 2. > any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades. > 3. > Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/43 "2012-05-09T15:10:12Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Our legal system puts a lot of weight on intent. If you shoot your buddy in a hunting accident, it’s probably not a big deal. If you shoot your buddy because you would like to kill him, you are going to jail. > > This act is sexual to him, and that’s what matters. Your intent matters if you do something illegal or try to. It might be possible to prosecute this guy for loitering or for pursuing these children if there’s a law against that, and I think most of us would agree that doing something with children for your own sexual gratification is wrong. But it doesn’t the actual sock part of this incident is covered by the laws against molesting children. ---
**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, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/44 "2012-05-09T15:18:33Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Our legal system puts a lot of weight on intent. If you shoot your buddy in a hunting accident, it’s probably not a big deal. If you shoot your buddy because you would like to kill him, you are going to jail. > > This act is sexual to him, and that’s what matters. Yes, intent is very relevant in our legal system. But it’s not dispositive – meaning that intent alone cannot create a crime. A crime must have BOTH the _actus reus_, the guilty act, AND the _mens rea_, the state of mind necessary for the guilty act to be criminal. The law prohibits certain conduct. An act is criminal if it constitutes prohibited conduct AND is completed by an actor with a guilty mind. > [@](#): > > I remember being a young girl and having all kinds of men try to bring me into their sexual whatevers in all kinds of creepy ways. It’s amazing the weird shit people can foist on you for being eleven years old and walking down the street. We don’t need that in our society. If you need to get off, leave strange children out of it. A fine sentiment, to be sure. But the fact remains that however bizarre and creepy this particular sock-wearing fetish conduct is, it’s not 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, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/45 "2012-05-09T15:24:12Z")
Of more concern – and, luckily, something that’s much more addressable by authorities – is that the accused, Robert Mark Van Wagner, works in a high school as a “media specialist.” While his act isn’t criminal, it’s weird and creepy, and there should be no problem whatsoever in firing him for it. ---
**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, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/46 "2012-05-09T15:51:56Z")
What is that, the guy who threads the filmstrips? Er… do they still have filmstrips? ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/47 "2012-05-09T16:16:11Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Honestly, it just shows how otherwise completely intelligent people’s brains go to mush around children when sex is possibly involved. Or how shut-ins presume to tell people who aren’t afraid to leave the basement what’s mushy-brained? > [@](#): > > No one with a fucking sock fetish is going to be engaging in any actual harmful activity towards the kids. Staring at people does not hurt them. Having a foot fetish does not hurt people. Asking someone to do something weird does not hurt people. Masturbating in private to something that happened in public doesn’t hurt people. And a guy who fucking leaves when told to is not hurting people. Sez you. But given your behavior here, I’m not even remotely surprised you’re white-knighting a pervert who tries to involve little girls in his fetishes. Is it that you empathize with him? > [@](#): > > I mean, I still the guy is stupid because of how our society promotes irrationality when it comes to children. But to act like charging him with a fucking felony makes sense, or, even worse, have someone show that they give absolutely no care for a fellow human being being improperly charged–Gah, it’s just so frustrating seeing how far the fight against ignorance still has to go. Allow me to try to educate you. For those of us who are socialized normally and don’t live cowering in fear in our mommy’s basement, we know that grown men who A) Drive around a park for hours, staring at little girls B) Stop their car, approach little girls and ask them to do something weird C) Continue to stalk them/stare at them afterwards are indeed a potential threat. Of course, if I lived a sheltered life in my mommy’s basement, sucking on my thumb, terrified to interact with others outside of the context of a message-board, I might not understand real-world threats either. However, if that _were_ me, I wouldn’t presume to discuss what is “irrational” behavior for non-shut-ins. The fight against ignorance is indeed taking a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/48 "2012-05-09T16:31:01Z")
**Fenris** , tone it down. Those kinds of personal attacks belong in the Pit, not in this forum. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/49 "2012-05-09T16:41:07Z")
Holy Shit!!! I swear I thought this was the pit. My sincere apologies. ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/50 "2012-05-09T19:44:54Z")
**Bricker** - > [@Bricker](#): > > It won’t, because the charge will be dismissed before trial, because it’s unsustainable. Have other people been charged like this, or is this the first time they’re giving the law a workout? I have no idea. > [@](#): > > There’s your problem. It DOES matter what \ is. But … it seems to me … that van Wagner’s problem is that he asked them to do something he would find sexy. van Wagner asked them to provide sexual arousal - that’s what I see as the key issue, not the method which he wanted them to use. > [@Bricker](#): > > And as to what acts might be lewd or lascivious: > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > 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. I see what you’re saying here, and in the further law which you quoted there. But if I was approaching this, I would phrase it: Would an ordinary person know, by reading the law, that the conduct of asking a young girl to provide sexual stimulus is prohibited by law? **Vinyl Turnip** - > [@VinylTurnip](#): > > 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? The way I see it - this is what tips van Wagner’s case into illegal activity. He _asked_ the girls to do something to cause his sexual arousal. If he was just quietly thinking to himself, “Gosh, I bet their socks smell sexy” - I don’t think it would be a legal problem (and I personally wouldn’t care.) When he asked the girls to turn him on - that’s where he crossed the line. So as of 3:44pm EST - you’re in the clear, VT. ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/51 "2012-05-09T19:54:34Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > But … it seems to me … that van Wagner’s problem is that he asked them to do something he would find sexy. Cite the law that says that’s illegal. I probably wouldn’t have to go through this again if you responded to my posts. > [@](#): > > Would an ordinary person know, by reading the law, that the conduct of asking a young girl to provide sexual stimulus is prohibited by law? That’s not what he asked. You’re really stretching here. ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/52 "2012-05-09T20:04:59Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > **Bricker** - > Have other people been charged like this, or is this the first time they’re giving the law a workout? I have no idea. Plenty of people have been charged under this law. But look at the offenses: In Chesebrough v. State, the accused showed a stepchild “how babies were made” by allowing him to witness an act of sexual intercourse. In State v. Paul, the accused rubbied his penis on the victim’s stomach area. In State v. Sholl, the accused exposed his genitals via webcam. In Capron v. State, the accused masturbated in view of the victim as she showered. In Kulling v. State, the accused washed his car wearing no lower garments, then stood in front of the victim and began masturbating. In Lowe v. State, the accused waved a dildo to get the attention of the victim, and then inserted into his mouth, simulating fellatio. In Paul v. State, the accused rubbed his penis on the leg of the victim and then ejaculated. Other cases are of similar variety, but they all have one thing in common, and that’s the over act used in conviction is clearly itself lewd and lascivious. I can’t find a single case of a conviction under this statute where the only lasciviousness is in the mind of the actor and the act itself is blameless. > [@](#): > > But … it seems to me … that van Wagner’s problem is that he asked them to do something he would find sexy. > > van Wagner asked them to provide sexual arousal - that’s what I see as the key issue, not the method which he wanted them to use. It’s not the key issue. A crime must have an actus reus. ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/53 "2012-05-09T20:48:36Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > **Vinyl Turnip** - > The way I see it - this is what tips van Wagner’s case into illegal activity. He _asked_ the girls to do something to cause his sexual arousal. If he was just quietly thinking to himself, “Gosh, I bet their socks smell sexy” - I don’t think it would be a legal problem (and I personally wouldn’t care.) > > When he asked the girls to turn him on - that’s where he crossed the line. > > So as of 3:44pm EST - you’re in the clear, VT. I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to hear that. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/54 "2012-05-09T21:22:55Z")
Weird behavior, also he admitted to getting sexual gratification from children. But that isn’t the same as molesting them. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/55 "2012-05-09T21:26:47Z")
^ well spotted. ---
**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, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/56 "2012-05-09T21:52:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Plenty of people have been charged under this law. > > But look at the offenses: > > In Chesebrough v. State, the accused showed a stepchild “how babies were made” by allowing him to witness an act of sexual intercourse. > > In State v. Paul, the accused rubbied his penis on the victim’s stomach area. > > In State v. Sholl, the accused exposed his genitals via webcam. > > In Capron v. State, the accused masturbated in view of the victim as she showered. > > In Kulling v. State, the accused washed his car wearing no lower garments, then stood in front of the victim and began masturbating. > > In Lowe v. State, the accused waved a dildo to get the attention of the victim, and then inserted into his mouth, simulating fellatio. > > In Paul v. State, the accused rubbed his penis on the leg of the victim and then ejaculated. > > Other cases are of similar variety, but they all have one thing in common, and that’s the over act used in conviction is clearly itself lewd and lascivious. > > I can’t find a single case of a conviction under this statute where the only lasciviousness is in the mind of the actor and the act itself is blameless. > > It’s not the key issue. A crime must have an actus reus. I see what you’re saying. Thanks for finding all the info. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/57 "2012-05-09T22:21:17Z")
> [@](#): > > No one is saying he isn’t a creepy weirdo. Being creepy and weird isn’t a crime though. Being creepy and weird with children not old enough to consent to be creepy and weird with, could be. Especially if the creepy and weird is sexual in nature. If he is just sitting on a bench, leering at the girls, I agree with you. But when he interacted with them, (assuming his "fetish is sexual), then asking them to wear the socks was sexual in nature. Just because they dont know that, doesnt mean there isnt a sexual interaction. JMHO, this is a crime. > [@](#): > > Nothing the man did was overtly sexual though. If he hadn’t told the cops anything about his fetish what, then, would they have booked him on? Isn’t this just “thoughtcrime”? Again, presuming the Fetish is sexual in nature, his request was a sexual request, with children. I disagree on principle here. Asking them to put on the socks is a sexual interaction with children based on his admitted fetish. This isnt a thought crime, he admitted to this. Just because they arent naked copulating, or having intercourse, doesnt mean sexual pleasure isnt derived on his part. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/58 "2012-05-09T22:35:31Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Weird behavior, also he admitted to getting sexual gratification from children. But that isn’t the same as molesting them. Again, if he is sitting on a bench, not interacting with them, I agree. However, his interaction makes them unwary participants. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/59 "2012-05-09T23:48:36Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > What is that, the guy who threads the filmstrips? > > Er… do they still have filmstrips? “Media Specialist” is the fancy new name given to what we called the librarian. (And sometimes lets school systems get away with hiring someone who doesn’t have a Library Degree – union contracts may require that for a “librarian”.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/60 "2012-05-10T03:09:53Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > JMHO, this is a crime. But here’s the problem: what actually happened – the facts of the case – are often a matter of opinion. But whether an agreed upon set of facts constitutes a crime is not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188.md?page=4)