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.

No buster.

Involving people unwittingly in your arousal, is wrong. The pertinent word is 'involving'.

I’m wondering what is going on in the NSPCC’s offices that they think this is fine.

It's not okay to wear fetish gear at work and involve people unwittingly in arousing you.

Call me naive but I dont understand the conflation of wearing fetish gear under your clothes (presumably for yourself to feel sexy or to adopt a persona that's in your head) and getting aroused from others?

So by that argument, if I as a woman wear some kinky or sexy underwear under my clothes, I am unwittingly being aroused by others? Even if they can't see it? How exactly? So if I am later sexually assaulted the perpetrator can say I clearly wanted it because wearing sexy clothes meant I was looking to be aroused? What if the perpetrator has a heels fetish and I love wearing heels? Am I him sending him a message by what I wear?

Imo people can wear what they want under their clothes as long as the clothes people see are in keeping with policy. I really don't see how what this man was wearing has anything to do with anything.

Also a person can literally be thinking the most salacious thoughts about someone without dressing up in anything.

What he did that was wrong was:

1. Wank at work (not sackable provided you don't get caught)
2. Post it online and mention his workplace (grounds for sacking)

The NSPCC has a series of values that staff have to work within, this bloke has broken most of them. I cannot understand why he hasn't been sacked for gross misconduct.
The only explanation I can think of he that he has gone down the mental health route and is currently signed off sick.

Ova has covered really brilliantly why this is a safeguarding risk, not just a sackable offence. Mostly the problem is with institutional stripping of boundaries.

I would also add, however, that if you work in an institution or organisation that works with vulnerable children then child protection knowledge should inform every action you take; that employees should be consistently trained in c p even if they aren’t in a child-facing role; that senior members of the organisation should be reiterating the need for safeguards in staff meetings etc.

Their actions over the past week - employing MB, accusing whilsleblowers of “bullying”, as well as the actions of this person, suggest it has become an organisation where the basics of safeguarding aren’t ingrained in the way you’d expect from the UK’s foremost children’s charity. This is the problem, not this individual alone.

One issue is is a deep disconnect between highly skilled and trained front line staff who work with DC and senior management brought in from non child protection backgrounds.
There is also the movement away from being an organisation that provides specialist services to being a campaigning organisation run by people who understand campaigning but not child protection.

Again, it depends what you mean by 'involving' other people in your arousal. Asking them to do something that is outside normal interaction, because you find it exciting, is a bit iffy, though how iffy depends on how much potential distress it could cause them; behaving in a way which frightens, annoys or upsets other people, even if they are unlikely to realise that you are doing it because it turns you on is unacceptable (and would be unacceptable if your motivation was to make a comedy video or prove some kind of political point, as well). Getting off on the fact that other people don't know what underwear you have on, or what you did last night; having enjoyable fantasies about what other people might be thinking or what they might do if they knew... something about you: that's harmless because whatever is happening in your head is your business and no one else's.

Datun “normalising”

That’s it right there. It is an insidious process - normalising inappropriate behaviour, desensitizing, blurring the lines, guilting in order to make people compliant and, by extension, complicit under the guise of inclusiveness and ‘progressiveness’. Bloody disturbing how many are supporting this man’s entitlement to sexual gratification no matter how inappropriate the setting and calling out bigotry on those who object because they’ve been so effectively brainwashed by the ‘anything goes hedonism on steroids’ narrative.

So by that argument, if I as a woman wear some kinky or sexy underwear under my clothes, I am unwittingly being aroused by others?

If you can't see the difference between women wearing sexy knickers, and a bloke going full gimp at work in order to get a boner, then I can't help you.

Anyone, male or female, who wears clothing deliberately in front of someone because they are aroused by that person's ignorance of what they are wearing, is wrong.

I don't consent to people becoming aroused by my ignorance of their fetishistic outfit under their clothes.

If they do it, they are doing it without my consent.

There is also the movement away from being an organisation that provides specialist services to being a campaigning organisation run by people who understand campaigning but not child protection.

YY
Its brand management, marketing, PR etc

Its clear from the language this employee (& no doubt many in the team) uses that he's marketing a product. The disconnect will always have serious Safeguarding consequences.

Imo people can wear what they want under their clothes as long as the clothes people see are in keeping with policy. I really don't see how what this man was wearing has anything to do with anything.

Also a person can literally be thinking the most salacious thoughts about someone without dressing up in anything.

The context is important.
His role & workplace is akin to a male admin worker in the Social Services Child Protection department.

How long ago did this happen?

But Datun it's a nil point. You have no idea unless you check what someone is wearing under their clothes to work or elsewhere. You have no idea unless you ask what someone is thinking about you, or whether they are getting off on the sight of your bare legs, or your nylons, or your heels. Or vanish on your nails. People are thinking things about you all the time you don't consent to. It's if they commit actual behaviours against towards you that counts.

This is why you cannot use what someone was wearing as grounds to prove a person wanted sex.

There is no immediate connection between someone wearing fetish clothing and them physically expressing a sexual behaviour anymore than there is me wearing bright red underwear because I get off on it. It's just not a direct connection.

And I don't need your help thanks.

Why are people saying, 'sex happens at work so that's ok then'?
Theft happens at work
Fraud happens at work
Bullying happens at work
Doesn't make it right. Call be old fashioned but I thought people went to work to get on with their ruddy job. And anything that they do at work that compromises the company or other employees ought to be sackable.

I don’t see why his working in child protection makes it worse?

CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook

I don't consent for my ignorance to be used to arouse somebody else without my knowledge.

It's not a difficult concept.

A man wearing a rubber suit at work under his clothes and getting an erection because they don't know, is wrong. Relieving himself in the toilet and filming it is worse, of course.

It's about pushing boundaries. And desensitising people. It's insidious, it's increasing, and the NSPCC of all places should have robust safeguards.

Anybody regardless of where they work should be fired for this.

*I don’t see why his working in child protection makes it worse?^

I don't either, particularly. There might be places where it's acceptable, I don't know.

But I imagine it's because they are at the coalface of safeguarding and protection. With legislation, research and practice. It should be at their fingertips 24/7. Due diligence is something that should be number one on the to do list, every day.

But you could argue, that should be commonplace in all organisations.

Imagine you are a child who is being abused right now. And you have a vague notion that childline or the NSPCC could help you. So you google it.

Try it.

Then tell me there's no problem here.

Also his work as celebrity and talent officer means schmoozing celebs doesn't it? I'm not a celeb but I'd hate to have to shake hands, be "schmoozed", or pose for photos arm in arm with this guy post wank (Or yuck pre-wank??). Someone think of the celebs! (Some of whom could be under age actors).

You dont need to consent to your ignorance, or your appearance, or your personality being used by a third party to become aroused Datun. So long as it remains a private fantasy, that impacts you in no way, it is simply not your business if Jenkins from accounts calls up your image to knock one out.

But he shouldn't be doing it in work time or on work premises. And he certainly shouldnt be filming himself at it or revealing your involvement in his fantasy on public media.

I think it's because of the nature of the work.

If day to day you're working in an environment where the main focus is the protection of children and presumably knowledge of how children haven't been protected and how intervention has been needed, how can your mind go from that to wandering off and wanking in a toilet?

Working in CP makes it worse because in it critical in that field that you have a clear understanding of consent, control and sexual boundaries. It is work that will challenge your personal understanding and application of those. You have to be aware of the risks of secondary traumatisation or inappropriate sexual arousal, I received training which covered both of those risks.
The need for confidentiality and the use of self in your work is also something that needs regular reflection and evaluation.
This man is not able to manage coming into contact with this work even tangentially which I believe potentially raises his risk towards children. It is also concerning that this videos highlighted that his sexual activity was taking place in a children's charity premises, if this was irrelevant to him you wouldn't expect it to be mentioned. If nothing else it suggests wanting to play on the sexual inappropriateness of sexual activity within a children's setting in a taboo braking way, it may suggest a desire to bring children and sexual activity together.
Settings such as the NSPCC are likely to attract people who are drawn to contact with children to meet their own needs as well as those whose wish to protect and support DC.