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??

What if someone takes a dislike to your religious symbol or your eating of meat? Can they take matters into their own hands and damage your property? Why not, by your logic?

Are you seriously comparing religious beliefs and veganism to displaying illegal pornographic images of a child in a workplace??

The mind boggles.

They would have achieved their aims without damaging things.

How much longer would it have taken?

With any luck, with men getting the message that paedophilia is not ok.

Soooooo sad that the poor man had his child pornography damaged. My heart bleeds.

The reason you are not unreasonable is because he is going out of his way to publicise his owning this image, and continuing to hang it despite actual real life women telling him it's crass and makes them uncomfortable.

He could hang the picture anywhere on his private property, make a thousand copies, blow it up to life size etc etc. But the fact that he feels the need to have it at work where people can see and be effected by it says it all about his attitude toward women.

P.s. I totally forgot that the woman in the picture is actually a girl of 16. It's COMPLETELY gross and I would have burned the bastarding thing.

Well done OP. If it was that important to him he should have kept it at home or been better about locking his locker!

And yet you still don't understand?

You can't destroy peoples stuff because you hold a small minority viewpoijnt that its not ok.

You can destroy something that is illegal and that the vasy majority of people worldwide think is disgusting, such as indecent images of children.

But OP didn't deface it because she disagreed with it. She defaced it because it was on display in a completely inappropriate public place, impacting on people by causing unnecessary distress and promoting workplace sexism, and efforts to talk to Jim and management had failed.

You MIGHT have a point if she had sought to ruin it while Jim kept it privately at home but a) he didn't and b) it's arguably child pornography and no longer legal. Not comparable to religious symbols or eating meat.

You can't destroy peoples stuff because you hold a small minority viewpoijnt that its not ok.

Its not a small minority view point that its not ok. Its sexual harassment in the workplace and its illegal.

@Thelnebriati that message isn't in relation to the OPs action. They were talking about vegans.

It was in a WORK locker. If you check out contracts etc that isn't his space. It's not private he was storing pornographic material at work at his own risk.

You might want to read entire messages rather just one line from each. You might find you understand a bit more

Brilliant! Well done

I feel weird about the fact many people on here are describing a topless photo of a 16 year old as his 'property'

Do you want a bun?

It's not quite the point as this was a picture of a child (BTW I applaud what you did), but this puts me in mind of how things were in the 1980s. In South Africa at least. I was 18 and going out with a fellow student. His father, who must have been at least 50, had an actual subscription to a magazine called Scope, which mainly carried lots of pictures of busty (always white) very young women in tiny bikinis in sexualised poses (not nude or topless, that was illegal). He would leave these in plain sight in the living room, open to the pages with the girls on them, or even be sitting in his armchair or garden chair gazing at them when I was present. (I happened also to be a busty young woman, who was often in a bikini in the presence of the dad, given we were usually in the swimming pool). I thought it was seriously odd and it made me very uncomfortable but didn't dare comment. It gives me the absolute creeps when I think of it now...wish I had said or done something!

🤢