
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)