Biggus Titus of Oxford University

The falsies in question, however, are lewd, obscene and (in particular) disgusting.

Actually there's a new law to look at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cracking-down-on-sex-based-harassment-in-public

Breasts are not genitals.

'Outraging public decency' would cover it perfectly well.

https://www.police.uk/ro/report/rsa/alpha-v1/advice/rape-sexual-assault-and-other-sexual-offences/indecent-exposure-flashing-offending-public-decency/

https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard

'Exposure
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides that a person commits an offence if they intentionally expose their genitals and intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. The term “genitals” is not defined in the Act and it should be given it’s natural meaning covering the external male and female genitalia. The terms “alarm or distress” are also not defined within the Act and they should be treated as ordinary words adopting the interpretation from the Public Order Act.

The case of Mohammed Rakib [2011] EWCA Crim 870 considered what evidence was required to prove the “exposes” element of the offence. The Court held that whether the appellant was exposing himself was a matter for the jury to consider on all the evidence. If a prosecutor determines that there is insufficient evidence to prove this element of the offence, then they should consider an offence of outraging public decency.
The mental element of the offence is that the defendant must intentionally expose their genitals and intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. If the purpose in exposing their genitals is to obtain sexual gratification this is not sufficient, and an offence of outraging public decency should be considered.

Outraging public decency

It is an offence at common law to do in public any act of a lewd, obscene, or disgusting nature that outrages public decency. This offence should only be considered if the incident falls outside the statutory offences, for example if it is not possible to prove the mental element required for an exposure offence or exceptionally, if the offence merits a higher penalty than that available in relation to the statutory offence.'

Indecent exposure is exposing your genitals to frighten or alarm someone else.

It requires that genitals were uncovered (and further requires prosecutor to prove intent to frighten/alarm, which would be tough to prove when it is being done all day in an open workplace, with bosses and colleagues aware of it)

Even if we wanted argue that boob clevage counts as genitals, which would mean all women would have to stop wearing v neck tops, push up bras, corsets etc in public, I'm still not sure this would hit definition of indecent exposure as the cleavage on display is plastic, not flesh.

From a comment on another thread I wondered if this chap’s behaviour would constitute ASB?

“Antisocial behaviour (ASB) refers to actions that cause harassment, alarm, or distress to individuals, or nuisance to communities. Examples include vandalism, excessive noise, fly-tipping, drug dealing, and intimidating behavior. It is not a benefit, but rather a harmful action causing distress and community detriment”

So why not this type of provocative overly sexualised “indecent exposure”?

If it’s not a serious offence then I’d say (like upskirting) it should be made one. Surely this sort of boundary pushing should be recognised for the gateway offence it likely is…

🎯

wow Flirts excellent analysis. The quicksand of trans reasoning means believers must rely on faith so safeguarding, normal counselling, standard medical protocols or ethics get overridden. You have hit the nail on the head

But what’s worse is how we’re all supposed to accept what was a ‘comic’ routine in the 80’s as literally what any man could be or is wearing now as someone who really is female. Kenny Everett is almost an identical twin to Alex Drummond. It was supposed to be funny back then because how on earth would anyone think a man with a beard is a woman? Not so funny now.

Also an academic and I was going to mention those Eagleton stories!

Oxford feminist I think the line between not worrying what someone else looks like and focusing on their ideas is crossed when someone dresses as this man does. If he were a bog standard heterosexual male in bondage gear I would say the same. It’s inappropriate - doubly so since even a non-stipendiary is in a position of power over the 18 year old kids he teaches.

If you ever do sit down for a coffee with him you might encourage him to get smaller breasts for day wear and cover them up a bit better.

I do hope you're right, but these days it's often difficult to tell satire from belief

I don't believe that Hallamule is really this stupid. This argument is being deployed for fun, in order for us to waste our time rebutting it. Just like 'You have a gender neutral toilet at home.'

I’d forgotten just how tasteless Kenny Everett was. It’s amazing he was seen as “mainstream”, if “edgy”.
Don’t watch unless you have a strong stomach.

The resemblance is quite uncanny.

I'm genuinely sorry, Helen. I'd honestly not realised it was possible to read your post in any way other than with "it" meaning "behaviour". But I can see from the context how my post could seem to have understood it 'the bad way'.

Re: language policing, my comment above was - ironically! - actually a second try at expressing my thoughts, because I'm so conscious of how alert people are to any whiff of that. And because I really understand why that is.

I police my own language - a lot! The fuck "Be kind" perspective's convincing, and as I've learnt more and got angrier, I've kept redrawing where my own lines are. That's mainly was what I was doing here - working out my thoughts as I posted on a subject that's uncomfortably "live" for me...

The other thing I do do a lot is analyse language - ours and theirs. Like, how damning it is that society's gone straight from the blokey, "It's just a joke, love!" (male-coded) to the opposite extreme of "Be kind, bigot!" (male-coded) on this kind of crap? And both have the same impact of silencing our experience. 🙄

So yeah, as you say above, no crazy "level of language policing" of posts. I may seem to come a bit close sometimes, but on principle, down with that kind of thing! Though I'll probably be policing my own even more from now on 😅.

Thank you. Yes, of course. I have never in my LIFE referred to another person as an "it"! No matter how obnoxious or even abusive I find them. (sorry, Catiette, just realised that it was you who agreed that I hadn't said that). But good grief.

"It" was, as you rightly said, being used to describe the noun in the sentence. The behaviour. I sincerely hope we aren't at a point where where this level of language policing and looking for "micro-aggressions" which simply aren't there becomes normalised. Fucking hell. That's actually quite upsetting.

Sorry, what? Words like "it"?

I was not describing any person as "it" in my quote. And have never done so. Have you misread?

is no one else seeing this chap as Kenny Everett’s Cupid Stunt?

Yes, that's how I read Helen's post, too! I was just (trying to!) make the distinction between most posts on here... and too many people on X or wherever actually calling other people "it". I'm sorry - it looks like I've managed to write a few posts with wide scope for misinterpretation! I should have stayed on the Aida thread where any confusion I create will be about safer, chocolate-related topics. Doh! 😅

no fake sexual organs would be too broad - you don't want to accidentally catch female cancer survivors using prothestics in that.

"It" in helen's sentence being "the behaviour" (that shouldn't be enabled) was how I read it? Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick there.

I doubt there is any chance that this man is all about pushing boundaries where he has control and women are powerless to do or say anything. Even leaving negative feedback would be hard.

The rocket scientist I used to know assured me that rocket science was one of the simpler applications of the science she had studied at university.

I imagine rocket science is simple compared to equalities law😁

I absolutely love this response on the Naomi/Akua thread:

What I can't get my head around is that you have to write learned, legal posts about this. He's wearing massive rubber tits. This isn't rocket science.