To have ‘defaced’ this photograph??

[Boobsakimboo]

We have lockers at work, in our break room where everyone goes and one co-worker,
Jim, has a photo of a famous, topless page 3 girl on the inside of his door.
the girl in the photo was 16 when it was taken, and he’s had it since around the same age - he wrote into The Sun and got a signed one sent- so it’s very precious to him.

several women have mentioned to Jim that they’d rather he didn’t have it there as the locker door is often left open and we can see it. Jim thinks we’re prudes, because it’s famous page 3 girls, and IN his locker it’s not an issue.

Anyway, cut to last week. I was alone in break room. Locker door was open so I’m looking at this picture. There were Sharpie pens sitting on the table. So I gave the child in the photo quite a substantial bikini top with the permanent marker.

shit has hit the fan! Management don’t quite know what to do. Jim is furious, and the workforce divided into those who think it’s funny and those who think it was wrong.
no-one know who did it… Jim
his suspicions …

So MN, was AIBU??

I bet it wasn't.

‘Anyone who thinks men don’t wank in the workplace are sadly mistaken!
So you’ve seen men wanking at work then?’

thankfully I have not, but I know quite a lot of guys who have admitted to it.

So you’ve seen men wanking at work then?

err since when have you had to witness something to know it happens? I've never seen rape or murder but it definitely happens

Back in the late 90s in a very male dominant work place - Dockers. Part of the company policy was to remove these pictures. It was the women fighting for the chipendale calendars that caused the most noise. So your workplace is 30 years behind.

This is horrifying. You were encouraging a homophobic assault on an innocent woman and thought it was hilarious and enjoyed it? You actually get enjoyment out of stitching lesbians up?

A topless image is not porn. It’s an explicit image. Thirdly she was 16 and above the age of consent. She could at that moment in time in that era. consent to her image being used as she did.

If the image is intended to be sexually arousing, it's porn. But even If it were 'only' an explicit picture, taken legally at the time and with consent, it STILL does not exempt anyone from the fact that displaying such images in the workplace is in contravention of employment law policies.

I take it your company doesn't have a 'dignity and respect' policy OP.

I know you said you were mates with Jim, but in my opinion he sounds like a right tosser.

@Boobsakimboo why do you think it’s acceptable to have a 16 year old girl in her underwear in a sexy pose I’m the workplace but not a topless one?

Ok, so how do you know it happens? The difference between wanking and a murder/rape is that there is a victim/witness there and evidence of it having happened.

because I can read

Also apparently 1 in 3 males and 1 in 5 females have masturbated at work - I read it somewhere.

I never have.

@SunnyD44 obviously I don’t. You missed the bit where I said the photo Is now gone.
however you’ll have a whole host of people along in a mo to say it’s fine.

An inappropriate photo to have on show at work, especially when he’s been asked not to.

Great work OP.

I don't think that I've ever ogled a sixteen year old child on holiday, no.

So what is your opinion on the classic 18CE nude then? Most of the models would have been very young and definitely exploited and abused and many of the pictures are far more explicit and erotic than a dated page 3 pic

Should all these be removed from museums/art galleries or defaced? Museums are workplaces too.

Just where is the line to be drawn?

And of course if anyone else is blamed for things you’ll own up?

YANBU - also kudos to you're choice of direct action, it's always better when it's tongue in cheek! 😆

There was that guy at the nspcc, I think. He filmed himself and posted it on social media. I think the charity, initially at least, defended him.

@CaptaNoctem honestly - I sometimes go to art galleries at some exhibitions and think this is basically just historical porn. I went to one in Liverpool years ago - can’t remember the name - and it was just all images of naked young females. Lovely painting. But still.

and it’s hardly surprising. It’s not like nonces only started to exist once photos were developed.

so I actually think the sexualisation of girls (and indeed boys) in historic art is problematic.

Why on earth did he do that? Sicko

I bet this post ends up in the Sun.
YANBU OP, good for you 👏

‘Just where is the line to be drawn?’

well, mine was seeing a topless photo of a teenage girl several times a week in the lunch room at work when I really did not want to see a topless photo of a teenage girl made up to look like a ‘sexy’ adult.
though to be fair if she’d been 30 I still would have drawn the bra on her.

Neither, but stamp off a couple of squares on your internalised misogyny bingo card, eh?

And I know there’s no such thing as child porn — sexual images of children, and the people who justify them and minimise their exploitative nature by, say, claiming a child has the capacity to consent to shit like this — repulse me. That was my point.

Off you go ☺️

No, the Daily Mail then Loose Women.

So what is your opinion on the classic 18CE nude then?

lots of weak chins