Here's a bit of my line of reasoning. The reason flashing is against the law is because of it's effect on those who don't want to see this guy's nuts. Well, if these people are careful, and only show their penises to the person who specifically requested to see it, then it should be OK.

My next question is:

What if the woman was a urologist and needed to see his penis for the sake of his life?

I tried that excuse before.

It didn't work.

It's bizarre that Columbus, Ohio allows topless sunbathing. Even in very liberal Southern California, that's not allowed, even on the beaches.

Although they claim the woman had no connection with the police, it seems very fishy that she put her food on his shoulder, then asked him to show her his penis. I believe the only reason they claim she wasn't working with the police is because it would be a much clearer case of entrapment. Agreed that he didn't have to comply with her request, but the fact that she asked that he do something he would not have normally done was leading him into commiting a crime.

I would not be surprised if a search of police records showed that they had arrested her, and that she was given the choice of being prosecuted or acting as bait to entrap males.

Finally, I'm amazed at the range of infractions that fit under the legal term of perversion. Suppose she said, "I'm really horny. If you're well hung, we can have sex. Let's see it." He complies and that makes him as much of a pervert as a guy who rapes a three year old girl. Yeah, sure.

Occam

The guy who was entrapped should have suspected something was up. My father always said, "If it seems to be too good to be true, it is."

I wonder if the opposite of that would ever work.

"Nude man lures pervert women in Police sting?" Nah, I don't think so, unless it was Brad Pitt.