From the Sexual Offences Act (2003):
66.1
A person commits an offence if -
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
There's no distinction drawn between men and women. However, I don't think there's any way that this guy could be shown to intend alarm or distress.
*rummages through law*
Ah: outraging public decency is a common-law offence, and the act in question must be of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency. Which is wonderfully circular, and I'd be amazed if it stuck in this case. Ho hum.
(, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:01, Reply)
Since I do not exist. So there!
(, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:04, Reply)
Given that I work in a law school, I really should ask my colleagues whether anyone has tried to talk about this stuff in the first year Public Law course... or whether it's hit the socio-legal literature yet.
(, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:08, Reply)
(, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 21:21, Reply)
- according to strict definition - are not externally visible.
At least that's the case law under the prior act. Since the 2003 act, there may be some clarifying and more inclusive definition.
(, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:18, Reply)
Sec 79(9) specifies that "vagina" is to be interpreted as including the vulva - though I take your point that the physiological differences might at the very least mean that the law is differently applied in practice.
(, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:26, Reply)
(, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:29, Reply)
You're a natural.
(, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:30, Reply)
It's a bit like swearing. Only offensive if you decide it is.
(, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 21:02, Reply)