AIBU not warning a woman her shorts had ridden up?

[Ilikesundays]

Went for a coffee this morning. A “mature” lady was sitting with male friend at opposite table. I didn’t take much notice, but, suddenly, looking up across the cafe I couldn’t help seeing that her very short shorts had ridden up, she evidently wasn’t wearing isn’t pants underneath and all or almost all was revealed. I immediately looked away but she stayed put for the duration of my visit. Should I have warned her? I was too embarrassed to say anything. WWYHD?

I think it was probably wise of you not to have said anything in case she’d been offended and given you a bit of lip. 😴

Best answer so far! 👏👏 Brilliant! 😆😆

It's a bonkers trend, isn't it? It just seems so utterly pointless to wear shorts that don't fulfil the basic function that shorts are supposed to. Why wear any shorts at all in the first place?

Do these people also deliberately buy curtains for their homes that only cover the top half or two-thirds of the windows at night and leave the bottom part of the panes free for the dark to show through and for anybody to peer in through?!

Not really an issue we have to worry about personally as DP and I are naturists!

So are they effectively - it's just that you two are honest about it and choose an appropriate place for it!

No child should have to see someone’s private areas on display. It’s inappropriate, and I’m surprised anyone would think otherwise. We shouldn’t let our standards fall to the point where this is seen as normal. It reflects poorly on basic decency and self‑respect.

Goodness me, I think there are an awful lot more things going on in the world to worry about than the odd occasional accidental wardrobe malfunction aren’t there? If this scenario had played out in the presence of my children they’d have probably just discreetly brought it to my attention and that would be the end of it. They wouldn’t have been even remotely bothered by it.

I’m obviously overthinking this, but how short do one’s shorts have to be in order for your bits to be hanging out?
I mean with men its different…things are fairly sizeable..they dangle but labia?

This is not accidental or a wardrobe malfunction at all, though. Choosing to go out in public (under)dressed in that way, you know it's inevitable that people will see your privates - whether they want to or not.

Either you don't respect other people enough to care about what they will be forced to see, or you're enjoying the idea that people will see parts of you that shouldn't be on public display.

There are 'fashions' that are literally designed so that shorts are worn as though somebody had forcibly tried to give you a wedgie. I wonder what kind of people decide to design clothes like this... especially considering that they're often aimed at and marketed to younger teenage girls?

Maybe they expect them to be worn with a thong so that 'only' the bottom of your bum cheeks is on display, but if the wearer decides to forego underwear completely, you are going to get labia on display as well.

“This is not accidental or a wardrobe malfunction at all, though.”
There is no way we can know from the information provided that what occurred was not accidental. Your comments are presumptive and purely conjecture.

The labia or the child? I mean, they might be if the shorts are very tight and one gets trapped sort of half-in-half-out. ( I'm talking labia here rather than children.)

In the 60s and early 70s, the cut of any halfway fashionable bikini top meant that falling out of it whilst doing anything moderately strenuous such as actually swimming, was something you had to be ready for.

I'm talking about adults and teenagers with a minimum level of common sense about how simple physics works. If you can understand that going out in the open without an umbrella or hood when it's pouring with rain will result in your hair getting wet, you can understand that not covering your more intimate body parts, allowing for normal movement, will result in them being easily on show to anybody in the vicinity.

Do you also think that flashers who call over to you in the park before opening their coats with nothing underneath are just innocently saying a cheery hello, with no idea whatsoever that you'll be able to see far more of them than you'd ever want to?

Thanks... it makes much more sense after PP clarified that the lad was 15 or so; by the original description of 'young boy', I was envisaging somebody much younger.

You seem to be rambling off at a tangent somewhat there. Please try to remain on-topic. No-one mentioned flashers in the park, which is an entirely different subject matter - a criminal act with nefarious intent. There is nothing to suggest any sexual motivation or context in the original case under discussion here.

I'm not wanting to derail; and much of this thread has been absurdly amusing... but I don't actually see how it is necessarily different. I think we often have an image in our heads of flashers being dirty and nasty - which indeed they are; but when somebody does the same thing in potentially a slightly different context, we can fail to make the obvious connection.

So the man in the park sitting on a bench, wearing the stereotypical long coat with nothing underneath, who knows that there are people around... so he opens his coat and waits for a woman or girl to see him - maybe just sitting there and not approaching or talking to anybody. Is he doing what he is doing for reasons of getting sexual thrills by making people very uncomfortable in having to see what they don't want to? Yes, of course he is.

An OF 'model' - as mentioned above happing several times in just one branch of a supermarket - who is wearing insubstantial/inappropriate clothes that she knows will put her breasts and vulva on clear display to anybody walking past. Is she doing what she is doing for reasons of providing sexual thrills by making people very uncomfortable in having to see what they don't want to? Yes, of course she is.

Yes, most of the people who do this won't be monetising it; but do you really think that there aren't plenty of people out there - men and women - who do get thrills from exhibiting their bodies in public, but maybe deniably so as they are wearing clothes, albeit ones that they know will not properly cover the necessary parts and/or will 'accidentally' fall open?

On a demographic basis, how many people are there in their teens and older who have natural sexual feelings and find that certain behaviours or situations turn them on? Now, how many are there of the same age who genuinely don't realise how clothes need to be worn so that they can function in their basic job of covering the parts that they need to?

You seem to be quite desperate to come up with excuses for people who like to flash

What a strange interpretation. @Myli1 was differentiating between 'people who like to flash' (criminal) and those who have a wardrobe malfunction (accidental).

Not at all. Of course I do not condone deliberate flashing where there is a sexual context and/or depraved intention. But there is nothing in the situation described by the OP to show that there was any deliberate intent to flash in this case.

You have made some interesting points and quite compelling arguments there, and I do broadly agree with most of them. However I am not sure I would agree in the case of the OF ‘model’ deriving sexual titillation from the discomfort of unsuspecting onlookers - I think the filming of the content itself is probably a fairly dispassionate act made to appear as sexual as possible for its paying audience, and any passers-by at the time probably regarded as a mild inconvenience.

😂😂that made me howl 😎

Perhaps it’s relevant because “mature” flaps could be longer due to loss of elasticity.

Disclaimer- I’m mature, but I can’t see my own flaps, never mind anyone else’s.

Speak for yourself. Not all mature 'flaps' are longer. And some 'immature flaps' ARE!

Silly generalisation. 🙄

.

It was a joke…

Sorry. Went over my head........