Considering the ages and relationship of those involved, the intent, the reaction, and the location (presumably a private home) no, I don't think this could be reasonably contstrued as "indecent exposure." But it would still be unwise to mention it.

Say like in daFraz's case for example..

CommonOne,

I don't think you provided enough detail for me or anyone else to offer an opinion.

my last question was for GEORGE...

This is really not related, but adding to George's
response - I work on a cleared contract with an ex-FBI
agent, who did some polygraph and interrogation work.
I could tell right away that he is a great actor/pretender,
very loud, and aggressive.  Evidentually, he enjoys 
manipulating people, and heard him on the phone,
with his broker, being manipulative as hell.  As the
DoDPI interrogation handbook says, that to be a great
polygrapher, one must be a great actor... beware.  Oh
yes, and the big lug likes to hunt bear, etc.; I guess it
make him feel so manly...

i had a simular situation to this as well. is it considered indecent exposure?

I actually just think it is a shame that this box can stress people out so much when It can be so easily manipulated.

I agree George it is too bad to see how much it can stress someone out and make them think that this box can actually read your mind

dafraz85,

The incident you described is neither child abuse nor sexual misconduct, and you would be wise not to mention it, because it is a perfect example of the kind of thing that can be readily spun into a damaging (or disqualifying) admission by a polygrapher seeking to bolster his admission/confession rate.

For those who suggested that dafraz85 see a psychologist, I think you're off the mark. Persons facing a polygraph "test" often have completely understandable concerns and doubts regarding whether failure to disclose some triviality only tangentially relevant to a polygraph question might result in their "failing." This is part of the "mystique" of the polygraph and is essential to its utility as an interrogational prop.

Polygraphers actively encourage this line of thinking, warning subjects that any doubt about the truthfulness of their answers will be detected, and encouraging admissions regarding anything that might be "troubling" the examinee.

you should have made your screen name commonsense good answer.

dude, yes... you are worrying to much.  you said it was a joke, and nothing was meant by it. Those laws are meant for sexual preditors.  you are in the clear, but you really might want to see a pyschologist if its bothering you that much.

only if your 16 now....

ask a psychologist, becuase you need one

hi, when i was 15 i jokingly flashed my 8 year old cousin my genitals on my way to the bathroom. i meant nothing sexual by it. he laughed and so did i. is this child abuse / or sexual misconduct?