Biggus Titus of Oxford University

[Forecastsayssnowbutthereisnosnow]

Sadly, not a Monty Python sketch.

Matt Rattley, a large bearded bloke who wears giant fake breasts, appears to be happily working at Oxford Uni.

I was really hoping this wasn't true but there is even a youtube video with him talking while wearing the giant breasts and red lipstick, applied to a degree any circus clown would be accused of overdoing it. The video includes a slide stating he works as a lecturer and tutor in the Biochemistry Dept at Oxford. He's also on LinkedIn.

I mean, how obvious can it be that this is a sexual fetish which he is involving unconsenting students and staff in???

Dr P on X has been (correctly) very robust on this case:

""This is Matt Rattley saying, "I can do whatever I please and nobody can stop me".

This is highly antisocial, abnormal, boundary-violating, paraphilic behaviour.

And we should not be afraid to say so."

Yes, that's how I read Helen's post, too! I was just (trying to!) make the distinction between most posts on here... and too many people on X or wherever actually calling other people "it". I'm sorry - it looks like I've managed to write a few posts with wide scope for misinterpretation! I should have stayed on the Aida thread where any confusion I create will be about safer, chocolate-related topics. Doh! 😅

is no one else seeing this chap as Kenny Everett’s Cupid Stunt?

Sorry, what? Words like "it"?

I was not describing any person as "it" in my quote. And have never done so. Have you misread?

Thank you. Yes, of course. I have never in my LIFE referred to another person as an "it"! No matter how obnoxious or even abusive I find them. (sorry, Catiette, just realised that it was you who agreed that I hadn't said that). But good grief.

"It" was, as you rightly said, being used to describe the noun in the sentence. The behaviour. I sincerely hope we aren't at a point where where this level of language policing and looking for "micro-aggressions" which simply aren't there becomes normalised. Fucking hell. That's actually quite upsetting.

I'm genuinely sorry, Helen. I'd honestly not realised it was possible to read your post in any way other than with "it" meaning "behaviour". But I can see from the context how my post could seem to have understood it 'the bad way'.

Re: language policing, my comment above was - ironically! - actually a second try at expressing my thoughts, because I'm so conscious of how alert people are to any whiff of that. And because I really understand why that is.

I police my own language - a lot! The fuck "Be kind" perspective's convincing, and as I've learnt more and got angrier, I've kept redrawing where my own lines are. That's mainly was what I was doing here - working out my thoughts as I posted on a subject that's uncomfortably "live" for me...

The other thing I do do a lot is analyse language - ours and theirs. Like, how damning it is that society's gone straight from the blokey, "It's just a joke, love!" (male-coded) to the opposite extreme of "Be kind, bigot!" (male-coded) on this kind of crap? And both have the same impact of silencing our experience. 🙄

So yeah, as you say above, no crazy "level of language policing" of posts. I may seem to come a bit close sometimes, but on principle, down with that kind of thing! Though I'll probably be policing my own even more from now on 😅.

The resemblance is quite uncanny.

I’d forgotten just how tasteless Kenny Everett was. It’s amazing he was seen as “mainstream”, if “edgy”.
Don’t watch unless you have a strong stomach.

I don't believe that Hallamule is really this stupid. This argument is being deployed for fun, in order for us to waste our time rebutting it. Just like 'You have a gender neutral toilet at home.'

I do hope you're right, but these days it's often difficult to tell satire from belief

Also an academic and I was going to mention those Eagleton stories!

Oxford feminist I think the line between not worrying what someone else looks like and focusing on their ideas is crossed when someone dresses as this man does. If he were a bog standard heterosexual male in bondage gear I would say the same. It’s inappropriate - doubly so since even a non-stipendiary is in a position of power over the 18 year old kids he teaches.

If you ever do sit down for a coffee with him you might encourage him to get smaller breasts for day wear and cover them up a bit better.

But what’s worse is how we’re all supposed to accept what was a ‘comic’ routine in the 80’s as literally what any man could be or is wearing now as someone who really is female. Kenny Everett is almost an identical twin to Alex Drummond. It was supposed to be funny back then because how on earth would anyone think a man with a beard is a woman? Not so funny now.

🎯

wow Flirts excellent analysis. The quicksand of trans reasoning means believers must rely on faith so safeguarding, normal counselling, standard medical protocols or ethics get overridden. You have hit the nail on the head

From a comment on another thread I wondered if this chap’s behaviour would constitute ASB?

“Antisocial behaviour (ASB) refers to actions that cause harassment, alarm, or distress to individuals, or nuisance to communities. Examples include vandalism, excessive noise, fly-tipping, drug dealing, and intimidating behavior. It is not a benefit, but rather a harmful action causing distress and community detriment”

So why not this type of provocative overly sexualised “indecent exposure”?

If it’s not a serious offence then I’d say (like upskirting) it should be made one. Surely this sort of boundary pushing should be recognised for the gateway offence it likely is…

Indecent exposure is exposing your genitals to frighten or alarm someone else.

It requires that genitals were uncovered (and further requires prosecutor to prove intent to frighten/alarm, which would be tough to prove when it is being done all day in an open workplace, with bosses and colleagues aware of it)

Even if we wanted argue that boob clevage counts as genitals, which would mean all women would have to stop wearing v neck tops, push up bras, corsets etc in public, I'm still not sure this would hit definition of indecent exposure as the cleavage on display is plastic, not flesh.

'Outraging public decency' would cover it perfectly well.

https://www.police.uk/ro/report/rsa/alpha-v1/advice/rape-sexual-assault-and-other-sexual-offences/indecent-exposure-flashing-offending-public-decency/

https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard

'Exposure
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides that a person commits an offence if they intentionally expose their genitals and intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. The term “genitals” is not defined in the Act and it should be given it’s natural meaning covering the external male and female genitalia. The terms “alarm or distress” are also not defined within the Act and they should be treated as ordinary words adopting the interpretation from the Public Order Act.

The case of Mohammed Rakib [2011] EWCA Crim 870 considered what evidence was required to prove the “exposes” element of the offence. The Court held that whether the appellant was exposing himself was a matter for the jury to consider on all the evidence. If a prosecutor determines that there is insufficient evidence to prove this element of the offence, then they should consider an offence of outraging public decency.
The mental element of the offence is that the defendant must intentionally expose their genitals and intend that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. If the purpose in exposing their genitals is to obtain sexual gratification this is not sufficient, and an offence of outraging public decency should be considered.

Outraging public decency

It is an offence at common law to do in public any act of a lewd, obscene, or disgusting nature that outrages public decency. This offence should only be considered if the incident falls outside the statutory offences, for example if it is not possible to prove the mental element required for an exposure offence or exceptionally, if the offence merits a higher penalty than that available in relation to the statutory offence.'

Breasts are not genitals.

Actually there's a new law to look at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cracking-down-on-sex-based-harassment-in-public

The falsies in question, however, are lewd, obscene and (in particular) disgusting.

Yes I was thinking that part was a stretch but what about the ASB?
If the plastic boobs are OK, will it be fine if all the female staff at Oxford Uni to turn up with plastic strap ons clearly visible over their clothing?

Correct - but just because something is not covered by laws now, does not mean it will not be included in future. These plastic titties are ghastly and it is horrible to think what the female colleagues are having to endure. Such an unpleasant and degrading atmosphere. Oxford Uni need to sort this before they are on the wrong end of a tribunal

I still think it would be a challenge to claim this is criminally illegal under UK law. Public indecency prosecutions are primarily public sex, masturbation or urination.

My post was in response to the (true) statement that breasts are not genitals.

There is a big gap between "acceptable in a workplace" and illegal.
I don't think there is any UK criminal law that would hit this. If the workplace or someone in it objected to it and he persisted, then maybe... But they could just change their HR/codes of dress as an easier route.
Approaching this from HR/workplace rules, or harassment complaints from students is likely to be more successful then trying for criminal.
OTOH, if the college workplace is content with this - given their lack of action on it, we have to assume they are - there isn't a clear way to prevent him doing this.

If a woman wore giant plastic fake breasts over her actual breasts (not sure why she would, but....), do you think she would get away with that in the workplace? Also, does he still wear them in the lab?

The women in the workplace can claim sex discrimination I think - the Uni is creating a hostile and degrading environment for them where they are essentially being harassed. If you see Akua R's tweet upthread it explains how this would work in law. They are more affected by this than men, it is their specific sex-characteristic that is being mocked by a man wearing a prosthetic pornified version.

It's misogyny in action and it's also normalising sexual dress in the workplace.

I don't think under the EA2010 a workplace can just have a code of dress that is discriminatory to women.