Biggus Titus of Oxford University

From a quick google it looks like the parents sort of rebelled after this.

And then whether let go or felt best to go went to another school and turns up dress in normal male clothing.

This may also have been because one newspaper thought to follow him around (I know I dont really support news papers hounding people) and through photos showed that when going out shopping, etc., etc., he never wore the false breasts.

So really creepy he felt able to do it at a school.

Edited to add and really worrying that the school went along with it.

It seems from the Toronto judgement that it is discrimination to ban one employee from wearing frankly ridiculous and rather offensive fancy-dress accoutrements.

So surely the way to prevent him from wearing them is to ban everyone from wearing such frankly ridiculous and rather offensive fancy-dress accoutrements? If a rule applies to everyone, man, woman or little green bug-eyed monster, it's not discrimination against an individual.

Yes. That's spot on.
Using children and young people as the targets for your fetish is quite deliberate. It's also why adults who work with the young are relentlessly targeted with the insistence that they must be kind and accepting of the sacred caste in order to neutralise any challenge from them. Just look at how difficult it was to get rid of that man from the Canadian school? I'd hope it would be easier in a UK school but I'm not certain.

I wonder if it is more than a coincidence that the other man who made the headlines was also in a education environment. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/11/11/oakville-teacher-prosthetic-breasts-ontario-school-board-dress-code/

That whilst I agree with all the comments about how this impacts on women working with him, but that is it also influenced by being in a situation where young people / children are (by the school / unveristy) put in a position of having to accept what is being imposed on them.

If it was a work place, or a business that interacts with the public, I am fairly sure employers would have stepped in.

And if that is true what does that say about places of education.

This ⬆️⬆️⬆️

💐

Please don't think I'm comparing my (thankfully very limited) experience of being in a room with the nasty fucker I mentioned above with being in an abusive relationship.

My experience is related to protecting my daughter in a place where she shouldn't be at risk. Obviously that's very different from being in an abusive relationship. However, your words resonate with my experience because the man in question in my case is very calm, softly spoken and articulate.

Thankfully, I no longer have to deal directly with him but it's taken a considerable amount of time and effort for me to limit and mitigate the impact that he unfortunately continues to have. His reasonable and ostensibly caring demeanor mean that I can't imagine anyone who regularly interacts with him at his place of work would believe me.

I'm now wondering if he too could get away with wearing fake plastic boobs. It might be a stretch, given his job role and where he works, but he does seem to like fancy dress in a professional setting. So far he's not shown any visible signs of "identifying as a woman", so hopefully he won't be trying this look out any time soon.

Having said he might struggle, the lecturer on this thread doesn't appear to have any boundaries that one might reasonably expect to be in place in a professional setting that is managing risk effectively e.g. the inset day mentioned above by a PP when children were present. It's bad enough that a lecturer is doing this with students there but at least they are adults. Having children present is an extra level of no... you'd think.

Shame should absolutely be a thing again. Men should absolutely be sham d for expressing their kinks in public especially when the ‘public’ element is a massive part of the kink.

There could theoretically be posters on this thread right now who would have been excluded from Oxford because of their sex, in their lifetime.

My grandmother was in the first cohort of women to graduate with full Oxford degrees.

The fact that no-one at Oxford feels free to say loudly 'look at that man wearing massive fake tits, why is he doing that? At best it's a massive distraction from his lecture' i.e. tell the truth is a form of coercive control in my opinion. A climate of Orwellian fear.

Thinking further re @murasaki 's posts, I think also because it's not immediately obvious that this man has DONE anything to any other specific person.

Our thinking about sexual harassment is within a legal framework, where someone does something to someone else which infringes their rights/person (is that Torts? I know nothing ...)

This man is "just" wearing something. So we need to find a way to name his behaviour and define it as sexual harassment.

Does public display of sexual fetish cut it? AGP on plain show? This is what we probably need to work towards. Maybe akin to the way that sexual harassment comes under both employment & equality law: it creates a hostile work environment. This man's grotesque fetish wear create a hostile educational environment.

But anyone who's see Ric Bierstein's Speechless (on the BBC iPlayer) will see how the TWAW #bekind etc etc etc mean that speaking out in public about this stuff is severely punished.

What @murasaki said resonated with me - my ex's abuse was mostly very subtle, very insidious, so easily deniable, it was designed for no-one else to experience therefore recognise. I've often thought there's more of an honesty (it really doesn't feel like the right word but I can't think of a better one) in a shouter or puncher.

Mumsnet is a good place for mothers/parents to get useful information on further/higher ed.

How many mothers will be happy to pay fees for their daughters to be validation fodder for this prick?

Oh definitely. Sadly thrills can be found in all sorts of different ways.

My own experience of being on the end of dupers' delight wasn't a sexual one. It was more akin to the additional thrill you describe above. It was someone in a position of significant authority who was deliberately showing (to me) that he could manipulate the two other attendees in the room on the subject of gender identity. TBF he might have got a sexual kick out of it for all I know but I got the impression at the time that it was more about showing me what kind of influence he had. I've been in another other meeting with him (on a related subject - this time it was safety in sports, single-sex v mixed-sex) where he got away with lying, brushing it off as a simple mistake. No idea if he was smirking then too but I would assume so.

In the case of Stan, it sounds like you handed his scantily clad arse to him in style 👏👏

As for the delightful man in my case, sadly he's still at large wielding his influence. I'd love to think he'll get his comeuppance one day, but he's a slippery fish and unfortunately I suspect not. Perhaps I could borrow you if I ever have to meet with him again 😬😂

What Goldhill did was overt unwanted sexualised behaviour, and an action which involved a student non-consensually (I gather he put his tongue in her mouth, uninvited).

It's nameable, recognisable, and legible as sexual harassment (nowadays - 15-20-30 years ago, it wasn't quite so easily recognisable).

What this tutor at St Hilda's is doing is more generalised and not directly acting on/against any specific person. We don't really have a language of sexual harassment for this sort of behaviour.

But the parallels are obvious: it's sexualised behaviour, involving general non-consensual people acted upon.

My language here is clumsy (I really should be writing a couple of lectures!) but also because we need to find a public language for this, and non-conforming men (eg leather queens on Pride Marches) have pushed so many boundaries we have trouble naming this generalised behaviour as sexual harassment.

But we're starting to.

Does that start to get to the nitty-gritty of what you mean @murasaki ?

@BonfireLady I think that his additional thrill would have been having a woman union official represent him in some kind of faux victimisation claim against his boss, who was also a woman.

I've always found that dealing with the issue, not the personality, gives a clearer perspective. Stan could have been the kindest man who loved his Mum and trees and bees.

His bollocks were still hanging out of his mansplainy wide apart legs when talking to students and staff.

All this "but I would share a coffee however he was dressed" is just so much guff. The issue being wearing huge rubber tits and deep cleavage in an educational setting. Fine for Foo Foo"s Palace in Blackpool but not a University.

This is a great scenario to think about.

TBF I got the impression that Lady is interested exploring the issue in more detail.

I hope you're still here @Lady1576 .. If so, did you get the chance to read the link I sent to the blog written by an AGP? I found it particularly interesting that the man who wrote it found himself disgusted at how his fellow AGPs didn't care about the impact their fetish was having on women. I have no idea if he stayed strong in this resolve and gave it any more thought, or if he succumbed to his sexual urges and things escalated in some way. Either way, his thoughts at the time that he wrote the blog seem genuine - they are certainly helpful when considering AGP motivations.

The academicalilly intemalectuallic super-complimacated Oxobrigian position, apparently, is that suggestions of appropriate attire for appropriate situations is "everybody will be forced to wear uniforms" - who knew such simplistic all-or-nothing hyperbole was the cutting edge of modern deep thought?

You never (ever) get an answer from the virtue signallers to the slightly more challenging questions.

But who knows, oxford feminist might well see nothing wrong with that scenario?

You signal your lofty disinterestedness of these petty games played by mere mortals by prefacing your posts with ‘sigh’… a sad sad sorry sigh that you brought so low as to find yourself even conversing with these Witch finder Generals. #sadtimes.

Managed to miss this post.

What a perfect way to put it.

He smirked for sure as he demanded Justice.

Once someone points out dupers' delight as a thing, it's so easy to spot. There's footage of Jimmy Savile doing it live on the BBC. It's only now when people look back at the footage, listen to what he's saying in the context of what we all know now that it becomes so blindingly obvious that nobody can deny they see it. For clarity, I'm not suggesting that everyone who uses the dupers' delight smirk is a paedophile, just simply that they are very much enjoying that they are duping people. I've been on the receiving end of it myself in a setting where it would have been impossible for me to call out what was happening without sounding like a nutjob. I took solace in the fact that the duper presumably still thinks I didn't notice. I wasn't going to give him the satisfaction of seeing any reaction from me.

Thank you. This is brilliant.

I’m thinking that for the purposes of this thread @oxfordfeminist is identifying as a feminist from or at Oxford; similarly that@Lady1576 sees himself as a lay-dee, perhaps with a huge bosom.

Incidentally how much “marking” do tutors do? And what are the chances of bumping into clown tits in the SCR if you’re based at a different college?

@oxfordfeminist and @Lady1576 and anyone else who doesn't have a problem with this man's fake breasts - your granny has just died and the man who comes to your parents' house, where the closest family members are in attendance, to organise her funeral is wearing this attire. Do you think that would be appropriate? If not, why not? If so, why?

Indeed. Nothing really changes does it? Just the illusion of change.
Women are still shut down, with a variety of threats from the subtle to the direct, when they raise an issue. It's happened to many women on this board I'm sure.