If one goes out in gym shorts without anything underneath or in "boxer shorts" identifiable by their polkadots or plaid designs, and they both cover the same areas (genitals), neither of these is indecent exposure under s66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 but some may view the latter as more objectionable or obscene in certain settings. Does the law ever in any circumstances distinguish between garments on the basis of their designer's apparent intended purpose for them?

  • the same Act classifies voyeurism as watching a person ‘in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and the person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear’. Commented Oct 12, 2022 at 19:39
  • What expectation of privacy does a person have if they go out in public?
    – Peter M
    Commented Oct 13, 2022 at 12:48
  • 1
    Also IMHO what a designer intends isn't relevant. A screwdriver is a intended by the designer to screw in and unscrew screws. But carrying a screwdriver in public can be considered carrying a weapon or burglary tool.
    – Peter M
    Commented Oct 13, 2022 at 13:04

1 Answer 1


The crime is intentionally exposing one’s genitals with intent …

If the person conceals their genitals it doesn’t matter what they conceal them with.

  • 3
    We're talking about the law more broadly not just that one offense now. Commented Oct 13, 2022 at 7:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .