Does the law make any distinction in any context between garments intended to be undergarments and others not so intended?
<p>If one goes out in gym shorts without anything underneath or in &quot;boxer shorts&quot; 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?</p>

<h2>The crime is intentionally exposing one’s genitals with intent …</h2>
<p>If the person conceals their genitals it doesn’t matter what they conceal them with.</p>

england-and-wales sexual-offences