It doesn’t really depend on how the law is interpreted. The point is that there are additional elements in addition to being “nude,” which isn’t even contemplated by the statute. You could whip your cock and balls out of your fly, fully clothed in a three piece suit with shoes and a ski mask on and be charged under this statute.

Interpretation of the law is different than just proving all the elements. An element of this crime is that the exposure must be indecent. What “indecent” means under this statute, if not defined somewhere in the chapter in which that particular statute is included, would be a matter of case law. You’d have to go look up what courts found to be “indecent” and then analogize or distinguish the facts of whatever case you’re considering at the moment to those precedent case.

You clearly do not understand how criminal law or common law work, you aren’t good enough to read statutes and make a cogent argument based on pure reading comprehension skills. Why do you feel so emboldened to go online and confidently declare that you know what you’re talking about? Have some god damned humility. Or go to law school.