AIBU to say that if you work in child protection you shouldn't post pictures of yourself wanking at work in fetish gear?

[ArcheryAnnie]

People do all kinds of things in their private life, and - as long as it's all consensual, and involving adults, in private - that's absolutely fine with me. Even if it involves fetish stuff that I find deeply unsexy. It's your private time and your business.

But if you bring your fetish into work, that's really inappropriate. Involving other people in your kink without their consent is not OK.

If you bring your fetish into work and take time to entertain yourself in the loos with it, that's way, way beyond really inappropriate.

If you work in child protection campaigning, and bring your fetish into work, and take time to entertain yourself in the loos with it, and take a photo of yourself while doing it, and upload that photo onto the internet, then you probably need to consider whether a career in child protection is really for you.

(And if you are doing this while working on campaigns about abused and neglected children, you should not be surprised when people ask what made you so aroused.)

And dear NSPCC - who I used to have a direct debit to, and who used to be in my will - people objecting to this are not being homophobic or "bullying". Many of who are objecting to your staff member's actions are ourselves gay. We just seem to have a better grasp of safeguarding than you do.

Holy shit, that whole scenario is fucked up. To be fair, I think it's a bad move no matter what line of work you're in, unless it's sex work.

YANBU. Clearly.

Anyone who thinks it is reasonable to carry out your fetish in your workplace toilets is BU.

Any worker in another sector concerned with child safe guarding woud be sacked for bringing their fetish to work - probably for much less, actually.

JanesKettle having worked in a previous role involving investigating both the professional and personal conduct of employees in public roles I can quite honestly say you are correct. People have been disciplines, sacked and struck off professional registers for less than this man has done.

You have to ask yourself what kind of person working for a charity dedicated to eradicating child abuse even wants to go for a wank in the toilets during office hours, never mind dress for the occasion beforehand. It's all kinds of wrong.

This is awful. I certainly do not see any reason for NSPCC to attempt to protect this person by shouting "bullying". Such conduct should have him escorted off the premises instantly.
That would be bad enough in any type of business but working for the NSPCC makes me think perhaps he has a reason for applying for that job. It is sickening

Can somebody link to a story about this please?

I would have thought wanking in any workplace would get you sacked.

What kind of person wants to go for a wank in the toilets during office hours fullstop? Never mind where they work, I wouldn’t want to work with anyone so lacking in respect. It bespeaks a massive want of self-control and an exponentially supreme sense of self-indulgent arrogance. It’s all part of this prevailing climate of bulldozing disregard for anyone else’s feelings: “I’m gonna do what I want, when and where I want and only a bigot or a prude would object.”

Nobody should do it whatever their job, I'd say it'd be a sacking offence no matter the job but especially in the case you mention.

I can't believe people, even women, are defending this.

I can't believe people are saying this is homophobic.

If I did that, I would lose my job in 10 seconds and I don't have anything to do with vulnerable children.

The UK has gone fucking bananas.

For the love of god, please link to whatever you’re talking about so people can make up their own minds instead of just having to accept that your characterisation is correct.

If it’s true that this guy has wanked at work then he has to accept that he will face whatever disciplinary measures the NSPCC has in place for inappropriate workplace conduct. But I haven’t actually seen anything that suggests he would be dangerous to children. As far as I can tell he doesn’t directly work with kids in his role as celebrity and talent manager, and having a rubber fetish doesn’t mean you’re an automatic threat to children.

Wanking at work is obviously inappropriate (and stupid) but it smacks a bit of moral panic to class this as a safeguarding issue when there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the safety of children is implicated in any way.

I also find the implication that if he did have a wank at work it must be because something to do with the children the NSPCC supports aroused him deeply disturbing and unreasonable. That’s pure conjecture, totally unfounded on any kind of fact, and little more than your own speculation about a situation you have limited information about.

Oh.My.God.....YANBU, what the hell is going on with the world, it’s like the world has gone mad, I feel like I went to sleep and woke up in a weird parallel universe! How is this behaviour acceptable, it’s does not matter whether the culprit is gay, straight, male, female, bisexual, transsexual, non binary or any other denomination, it is just wrong in every level, bearing in mind his job, involved with safeguarding children! They are using the one retort they can, that people are being homophobic, wonder if the authorities will see it that way, surely they must get involved.

I don't know if it arouses him or not Pantene but if you post a video making it clear that you work for a children's charity, you are hoping it arouses your audience. There is a thread in FWR which has all the details.

SGB - he has a link to his blog in his LinkedIn profile. It hasn't posted it without his permission.

People are saying it's kink shaming if you find his behaviour inappropriate

pantene It shows a massive error in judgement, and I would wonder about his judgements in other areas.

Why point out it's at a children's charity if they aim isn't to arouse people? If not through the thought of children, then at the thought of somehow doing something tawdry in what should be a virtuous place.

Do what you like in your spare time, I don't care, but that kind of stuff has no place in public life. I think anyone over the age of 25 should be aware of that.

I'd argue that suggesting critics are homophobic is in fact homophobic, because the logical conclusion of that argument is that gay men lack judgement, are driven by sexual urges, and are unable to act with any degree of professionalism or discretion in the workplace. Obviously that is blatantly untrue, but the people who are defending this man don't seem to think so.

I don't agree it's separate from the MB issue.

It's all connected.

All of it.

150 staff wrote to the NSPCC governors or trustees or whoever, to protest about dropping MB. I don't know what percentage that represents, but sounds like quite a lot of staff in a children's charity, who don't appear to have a grasp of even the most basic safeguarding principles or normal boundaries. Or if they do, they don't have the slightest inclination to examine anything beyond the latest cause celebre and do a bit of due diligence. If I were a member of staff at the NSPCC, if someone asked me to sign that letter, I'd look Munroe up o line and find out why my employers might have felt a bit twitchy about being too closely connected to Munroe. If having found out what Munroe was like, I still thought Munroe was a suitable ambassador for a children's charity, then there would be a huge problem with me as a member of staff for a children's charity, no?

Who are they employing? Why aren't they training them about boundaries, safeguarding, appropriate behaviour, due diligence?

This is systemic, it's all linked.

Wasn't this a year ago? Before he even worked at NSPCC? Do you have a link?

And yes, I agree with Saskia re the homophobia thing. I think a lot of people who pay lip service to gay rights, are actually deep down homophobes - they think homosexuality is perverse and fetishistic and so when a man walks around at Pride with his arse out or goes to the loo in his workplace and wanks and uploads it onto the internet, they don't see the difference between that kind of disgusting behaviour and normal ordinary gay men going about their ordinary normal business. So it's difficult for them to know whether they're being reasonable or not, by finding such behaviour unreasonable. If you're a homophobe who is deep down uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality but well intentioned and wanting to support gay rights because you know it's bigoted not to, then you're not going to be able to see the boundaries very well. That may be what's happening at the NSPCC.

I'd sack any of my employees that did this. And be well within my rights to do so. I'd have some very upset members of staff and my duty as an employer would be to protect them.

I don’t want to use a work toilet and hear someone masturbating in the next cubicle.

Inexcusable, inappropriate behaviour in a public place.

Don’t most peoples work contracts have clauses re behaviours/actions bringing the company into disrepute?

As for filming... yeh, I want to share toilet space with someone who feels it’s necessary to film - in the bathroom. Fnuck that.

What goes through a person's mind to think it's ok to wear fetish gear to work, wank and then upload it? He should be fired. Not because he's gay but because his actions are disgusting. Why are fetishes suddenly so public? Keep it to yourselves!

He has worked at the NSPCC for 4 years.

What sort of person does that? I am 100% in agreement with the op, he should not be working in child protection. Nothing to do with him being gay, a heterosexual person might do the same.

The other thing that may be happening of course, which I think is definitely the case with the Twitter mob who are pretending that this is OK, is that they are actively wanting to push the boundaries of what is acceptable behaviour in public. Lots of men get a real hard-on from displaying their fetish in public. It's one of the things that drives the successful autogynephilia movement. Like all men's rights movements, they consider their boners incredibly important and entitled to be attended to; so much so in this case, that they feel not being able to display their sexual kinks in public is antithetical to their human rights.

If they can get the public to believe that fetishism, kink etc., is part and parcel of homosexuality and finding it inappropriate to display it in public is homophobia, they can then gradually push the boundaries so that any questioning of this sort of behaviour can become taboo, as it's phobic. That's what the word kink-shaming is about. You're not allowed to critique why someone might get off from perversion, or find it disturbing that some people want to act out their sexual fantasies in public.

Then later on they can educate us that kink isn't just homosexual, anyone can be kinky and it's wrong to kink-shame and kinky people, including furries etc, should just be able to live and let live like everyone else. And the gross indecency and voyeurism laws will be seen as so cruel and so outdated, we'd better get rid of them.

Gay rights is being hijacked by people with a very different agenda than LGB rights. We're seeing it being acted out right now, in the discussion of this case. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

The pictures are on Twitter. I'm annoyed that the nspcc wastes money to employ a 'talent officer'. Of course he should be sacked for doing that at work. It doesn't matter what the job or organisation is.