# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/81 "2012-05-10T19:46:53Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Of course it’s not enough. A dictionary definition of a fetish and a confession is not enough to show that a crime was committed. You claim you have an elementary understanding of the law, so you have to know this. Then there is a fundamental lapse in our legal system. > [@](#): > > Oh brother. :rolleyes: You’re on the internet! Several links have already been supplied in this thread. You claimed that he had Illegal sexual contact with a minor, and your evidence is what? That asking kids to wear socks is sexual contact because it’s a fetish? Use the internet and show that acts that are non-sexual in nature become sexual once one admits to being turned on by it. The definition of his admitted fetish. And his admission of guilt. Gee, where could I get the notion > [@](#): > > You’re claiming that non-sexual acts can count as being sexual acts based on them being labeled fetishes. Broad based. Im claiming the arrested parties admission that the acts committed were part of a sexual fetish. Broad brush elsewhere please > [@](#): > > The onus is on you to prove it. I believe I have. You do not accept his admission of what he has done as proof. I do. > [@Bricker](#): > > Bingo. Correct. That isn’t illegal. > > I have a more than elementary understanding of the law. I know you do. When someone admits that they are participating in a sexual fetish with children not old enough to consent, that seems illegal. > [@Marley23](#): > > **dngnb8** , it kind of looks like you did not notice the entire discussion that happened between your first post in this thread and yesterday evening. We know the guy said he has a fetish, we know he approached the girls for that reason. The law does not appear to cover this creepy situation (at least the part that didn’t involve him staring at and circling the two girls). If the guy did not do anything illegal, it does not become illegal because he said his motivation was a sexual fetish. It looks like this conduct is not covered by any type of sexual contact with minors or things of that nature because he didn’t touch them or expose himself or anything like that. Had he sat on the bench, and did not interact with the girls I would agree with you. However, He approached them and asked them to perform an action. This action granted him sexual satisfaction They were not of the age to consent to participate in his sexual satisfaction. JMHO, he interacted with these girls, on a sexual level. The issue that his satisfaction comes from a tool not generally accepted as sexual in nature to you and I, isnt the point. It is to him, and that is the qualifying event. ---
**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 10, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/82 "2012-05-10T19:56:34Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > There is evidence through confession, evidence based on accepted definition. Sorry that isnt enough for you. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Of course it’s not enough. A dictionary definition of a fetish and a confession is not enough to show that a crime was committed. You claim you have an elementary understanding of the law, so you have to know this. > [@dngnb8](#): > > Then there is a fundamental lapse in our legal system. That’s all you want for evidence that a crime was committed? An admission that _something_ occurred? > [@](#): > > The definition of his admitted fetish. And his admission of guilt. Gee, where could I get the notion I don’t think I read any cites that said he claimed he was guilty of something, but it doesn’t matter if he had. This has all been explained to you already. > [@](#): > > Broad based. Im claiming the arrested parties admission that the acts committed were part of a sexual fetish. You’re claiming more than that; you’re claiming a crime was committed. > [@](#): > > I believe I have. You do not accept his admission of what he has done as proof. I do. Again, this has been explained to you. Lots of people admit to things without those things being crimes- it doesn’t even matter if the person thought it was a crime. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/83 "2012-05-10T20:07:36Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > That’s all you want for evidence that a crime was committed? An admission that _something_ occurred? I wouldnt discount it. It is part of the information I have provided you, not the sole part. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I read any cites that said he claimed he was guilty of something, but it doesn’t matter if he had. This has all been explained to you already. So now he has to admit guilt? the man admitted it was his fetish. > [@](#): > > You’re claiming more than that; you’re claiming a crime was committed. He admitted to asking girls partake in his fetish. he admitted that. The Fetish is sexual in nature The girls are underage I can do the math, why cant you? > [@](#): > > Again, this has been explained to you. Lots of people admit to things without those things being crimes- it doesn’t even matter if the person thought it was a crime. Again, this has been explained to you. You choose to dismiss the explanation, and hang on to this rebuttal. I identified the qualifying event that distinguishes this case. You choose to not accept that. That doesnt make me wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/84 "2012-05-10T20:09:55Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > Had he sat on the bench, and did not interact with the girls I would agree with you. Show me where the law agrees with you. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/85 "2012-05-10T20:27:22Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Show me where the law agrees with you. Are you saying that it is legal for an adult to interact with children with sexual purpose or intent? That has been the basis of my opinion so far. If someone can prove to me his “Fetish” wasnt sexual, you have convinced me ---
**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 10, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/86 "2012-05-10T20:28:54Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > I wouldnt discount it. It is part of the information I have provided you, not the sole part. Read the first three quotes I provided in post #82. You said “then there is a fundamental lapse in our legal system” if a dictionary definition and a confession aren’t enough to show that a crime was committed. What you’re now saying above is a huge moving of the goal post and an entirely different statement altogether. > [@](#): > > So now he has to admit guilt? the man admitted it was his fetish. Uggh. Re-read what I wrote! Then pay attention to the conversation. > [@](#): > > He admitted to asking girls partake in his fetish. he admitted that. > > The Fetish is sexual in nature > > The girls are underage > > I can do the math, why cant you? I’m fine at math, but what is and what isn’t the law isn’t a matter of adding together numbers. > [@](#): > > I identified the qualifying event that distinguishes this case. You choose to not accept that. The first part of your last post (where you moved the goal post was this: _I wouldnt discount it. It is part of the information I have provided you, not the sole part._ You haven’t provided the “sole” part. That would be the part where you show that non-sexual acts become sexual one’s based on one’s level of arousal. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/87 "2012-05-10T20:30:42Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > Are you saying that it is legal for an adult to interact with children with sexual purpose or intent? Unless there is a law against that interaction. Nobody else has been able to find a way to read the law to find a way that this is illegal. Can you? ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/88 "2012-05-10T20:32:35Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Read the first three quotes I provided in post #82. You said “then there is a fundamental lapse in our legal system” if a dictionary definition and a confession aren’t enough to show that a crime was committed. What you’re now saying above is a huge moving of the goal post and an entirely different statement altogether. Im not sure if youre being purposefully obtuse, or you just dont get it 1. He interacted with the girls 2. He did so under an admitted fetish 3. They are not old enough to consent You dont consider this a sexual event. Fine. That is your opinion. I have on my side the suspects admission. What do you have on your side. I say again, until someone can prove his Fetish isnt of a sexual nature, I stand by my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/89 "2012-05-10T20:33:36Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Unless there is a law against that interaction. Nobody else has been able to find a way to read the law to find a way that this is illegal. Can you? Is there a law against interaction with children with a sexual purpose or nature? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/90 "2012-05-10T20:36:58Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > Is there a law against interaction with children with a sexual purpose or nature? Not if all the sexual activity occurs in your head. There’s a link to the laws in post #2. ---
**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 10, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/91 "2012-05-10T20:38:42Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > Are you saying that it is legal for an adult to interact with children with sexual purpose or intent? You know what he asked you. I’ll repeat it for you: _Show me where the law agrees with you._ > [@](#): > > That has been the basis of my opinion so far. If someone can prove to me his “Fetish” wasnt sexual, you have convinced me You’ve already gone beyond “opinion.” Regarding whether or not a crime was committed, you stated: _There is evidence through confession, evidence based on accepted definition._ It’s up to you to prove it and not claim that a confession is evidence of a crime. > [@](#): > > What do you have on your side. A failure of your showing what crime was committed. > [@](#): > > I say again, until someone can prove his Fetish isnt of a sexual nature, I stand by my opinion. Repeating yourself doesn’t make you right and this isn’t a matter of opinion. The fetish _can_ be of a sexual nature and _not_ be a crime. How many times do the same things need to be explained to you? ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/92 "2012-05-10T20:38:55Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Not if all the sexual activity occurs in your head. There’s a link to the laws in post #2. Did it just happen in his head? He asked them to put on clothes of his request that he brought. Had those clothes been g-strings and fishnet stocking with halter tops, would you consider this different? At that point, he interacted with them with sexual intent. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/93 "2012-05-10T20:42:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Repeating yourself doesn’t make you right and this isn’t a matter of opinion. I find your response ironic. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You’ve already gone beyond “opinion.” Regarding whether or not a crime was committed, you stated: > > _There is evidence through confession, evidence based on accepted definition._ > > It’s up to you to prove it and not claim that a confession is evidence of a crime. > A failure of your showing what crime was committed. I havent failed. The evidence isnt provided by me, it is provided by the OP and American Heritage. I havent failed to show what happened. You have failed to see it. More so to the point, you refuse to see it. That isnt my problem, its yours. > [@](#): > > The fetish _can_ be of a sexual nature and _not_ be a crime. How many times do the same things need to be explained to you? How many times does it have to be explained to you that he interacted with the children with a sexual purpose. He didnt just sit on a bench. He approached and attempted to get them to wear what he brought them for his sexual gratification Please, continue with your obtuse observances. ---
**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 10, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/94 "2012-05-10T20:45:26Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > How many times does it have to be explained to you that he interacted with the children with a sexual purpose. I know he did. You’ve been shown the laws and they fail to show his acts were criminal. If you think he is guilty of violating another law, it’s up to you to cite it. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/95 "2012-05-10T20:47:02Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I know he did. You’ve been shown the laws and they fail to show his acts were criminal. If you think he is guilty of violating another law, it’s up to you to cite it. You owe me a keyboard, monitor and a Dr Pepper. LMFHAO I guess sexual interaction with kids is legal, you got me there. ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/96 "2012-05-10T20:48:58Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > I find your response ironic. > > I havent failed. The evidence isnt provided by me, it is provided by the OP and American Heritage. When the state of Florida prosecutes someone, they cannot point to the American Heritage dictionary as the source of the described criminal violation. They must be able to point to a law. In this case, the police apparently wanted to charge him with something, even though I supsect they knew the charges were unsustainable. The law in Florida requires more than simply a sexual element in someone’s head. It requires a sexual element in what he does. To put it succinctly: the sexual element must be objective, not subjective. ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/97 "2012-05-10T20:50:00Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > You owe me a keyboard, monitor and a Dr Pepper. LMFHAO > > I guess sexual interaction with kids is legal, you got me there. Yes, this particular kind of sexual interaction with kids is legal. ---
**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 10, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/98 "2012-05-10T20:50:41Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > You owe me a keyboard, monitor and a Dr Pepper. LMFHAO Hairy ass? > [@](#): > > I guess sexual interaction with kids is legal, you got me there. Not what I said. Sexual purpose and sexual interaction are two different things. A man can look at kids for a sexual purpose and not commit a crime. If he has a “sexual interaction” with them, he’s committed a crime. Providing socks is not sexual interaction. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/99 "2012-05-10T21:06:11Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > Did it just happen in his head? The sexy part did, yes. > [@](#): > > Had those clothes been g-strings and fishnet stocking with halter tops, would you consider this different? If he’d asked them to get naked it might’ve been a different story legally. > [@](#): > > At that point, he interacted with them with sexual intent. There’s no law against “interacting with children with sexual intent.” ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188/100 "2012-05-11T17:59:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When the state of Florida prosecutes someone, they cannot point to the American Heritage dictionary as the source of the described criminal violation. They must be able to point to a law. So what youre saying is, the definition of a word isnt allowable unless it is defined in the statute? > [@](#): > > In this case, the police apparently wanted to charge him with something, even though I supsect they knew the charges were unsustainable. Happens all the time. > [@](#): > > The law in Florida requires more than simply a sexual element in someone’s head. It requires a sexual element in what he does. > > To put it succinctly: the sexual element must be objective, not subjective. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Hairy ass? I surely dont shave it. 😉 > [@](#): > > Not what I said. Sexual purpose and sexual interaction are two different things. A man can look at kids for a sexual purpose and not commit a crime. If he has a “sexual interaction” with them, he’s committed a crime. Providing socks is not sexual interaction. > [@Marley23](#): > > The sexy part did, yes. > If he’d asked them to get naked it might’ve been a different story legally. > There’s no law against “interacting with children with sexual intent.” > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, this particular kind of sexual interaction with kids is legal. Well, finally we have made the step. Our prior discussions distinctly kept the sexual part off the charts, it is now a part of the conversation. Im going to focus my response on the text I turned red, but I think it will address all in time. I wasnt aware that sexual interaction with kids had categories. It begs the question, at what point does the interaction of a sexual nature become illegal with kids. In this case, the interaction was direct with purpose of sexual satisfaction, without permission, and with people unable to consent to sexual interaction. What is the line that must be crossed for this sort of interaction to be illegal? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-asking-girls-to-wear-socks-is-this-really-a-sex-crime/621188.md?page=6)