But I did think it was a bit creepy to describe what a "landing strip" is.

The landing strip example is clearly meant to show the difference between authority to touch and remove everything and less authority. It's not just an irrelevant aside.

I did think it was creepy to name the litigants "T" and "A."

Aesthetician is a common term for the people who perform these services. T wasn't defined in this example, so it probably came from a different question.

I think it definitely suggests that this dude is a bit detached from reality if he thinks a woman is gonna fall asleep during a waxing session.

Most law school exam questions are ridiculous and detached from reality.

Why not make it a massage therapist appointment?

Are you getting a lot of happy endings during your massages? This question was about genital contact.

Regardless, a well written exam can confront issues like sexual assault without throwing in rather salacious phrases like "every follicle of public hair."

Again, it clearly demonstrates the extent of the patient's consent.

If you're including questions about sexual assault it's best to write them coldly, with plain facts and without fanciful extraneous language that could predictably make a student feel uncomfortable during an extraordinarily stressful situation.

Or the students can learn how to deal with the real world, where their clients will use fanciful extraneous language all the time that may make them uncomfortable.

Upon reading this question, I wondered whether the prof was getting some sort of gratification by describing the fact pattern with unnecessary, suggestive details.

I wonder the same thing about all those murder questions that describe Rube Goldberg scenarios of doom. We must have a lot of weirdo professors out there.