Man with dildo in his pants sought for exposing himself and it to two girls at CambridgeSide mall

If he poked a flesh-colored realistic dildo out of his pants... maybe? "Moral" is a different question than "legal", and I'm actually kind of curious what the law would say about it.

But « the man exposed himself with what was believed to be a sex toy » is really ambiguous. Do they mean "along with"? Was the sex toy actually a dildo, or like... a fleshlight or something? Or are they actually saying "he stuck a dildo out of his pants and we believe that counts as him exposing himself"?

I'm guessing they are looking at annoying and accosting someone sexually:

MGL 272 s.53

Section 53. (a) Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy another person, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of not more than $200, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(b) Disorderly persons and disturbers of the peace shall, for a first offense, be punished by a fine of not more than $150. For a second or subsequent offense, disorderly persons and disturbers of the peace shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 6 months or by a fine of not more than $200 or by both such fine and imprisonment; provided, however, that an elementary or secondary school student shall not be adjudged a delinquent child for a violation of this subsection for such conduct within school buildings or on school grounds or in the course of school-related events.

Lots of strange cases that go both ways on this one. In my opinion this man did in fact commit the crime of annoying and accosting.