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."

I remember people reacting the same way about the Bristol massage society (won't it just be full of creepy men trying to touch girls, older people pressuring younger people to stuff they are uncomfortable with).
That society solved it very easily by having people pair up with someone they knew and encouraging the spare men to pair up with each other. That quickly sorted those who wanted to learn from the other sort. I'm sure lots of people were using the skills they learnt for sex, but some people just liked learning about it.

Just realised (never had before, and googled to check...)

Etymology. The name “Andronicus” has origins in both Greek and Latin. In Greek, “Andronicus” ( Ανδρόνικος ) is derived from the elements “andros” (ἀνδρός), meaning “of a man,” and “nikē” (νίκη), meaning “victory.” So, the name Andronicus carries the meaning of “victory of a man” or “conqueror of men. “

Cool!

Victory of a man with tits then I guess 😂

I've been thinking about the clubs and societies thing, and remembering my own youth, and feel the old fashioned idea of the University having limited societies linked to subjects, some sports, and some cultural stuff - the film society was great, I got to see an arty-farty subtitled film every week and never need to watch another as long as I live.

But specifically, activities to be accessed in groups and open to the public.

If there is a need for recommendations to other things for physical or mental health reasons do that through the college doctors.

Thank you, DrBlackbird. Well said.

I wanted to add previously abused young people to your list of those who would be especially vulnerable to activities like the BDSM Society. I was sexually and physically abused as a child. I probably would have joined in an instant because I was trying to understand my earlier abuse. I probably also would have been extremely vulnerable to manipulation by unscrupulous men (or women). It's very common for people who were abused to re-enact similar dynamics to try to understand their abuse.

15% of girls in the UK experience child sexual abuse. 5% of boys do.
https://plymouthscb.co.uk/understanding-the-scale-nature-of-csa/

I'd guess that those who had experienced physical or emotional abuse might be similarly drawn to activities such as this. 16.5% of children have experienced physical abuse and 22.7% have experienced emotional abuse.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/abuseduringchildhoodinenglandandwales/march2024

Which brings me back to Mr Menno's astute questioning wrt motive. He is not only a man, he's a gay man, and may have his own reasons for his insight. In Ireland, young gay men and boys were particularly vulnerable to clerical sexual abuse, specifically because they craved love and attention from men.

See also Katriona O'Sullivan's observation that her abuser was able to grab a pleasure response from her body even as she rejected his actions. And that that messed her up even more. We've read about the way the victims of the rape gangs were groomed.

Young people starting university need protection from creeps, not institutional sponsorship of creeps.

I remember people reacting the same way about the Bristol massage society Reacting what way @Gerri1992? Your subtext seems to be that some people just want to learn BDSM. Perhaps they do, but a university society is not the place and why would you want it to be? Truly I hope you don’t hold a position responsible for young people.

I’m not talking about being aghast at Elvis Presley shaking his hips whilst I clutch my pearls. I’m pointing to the duty of care we have towards young impressionable adults. Many parents want it to be enshrined in law.

Please don’t read further if you don’t want to be horrified and disgusted. Or perhaps reminded

Years ago, I had a sexually abusive father who spoke about the difference between how his two DDs orgasmed. Yes, he did go to jail. But unbelievable how he saw nothing wrong with sexually abusing both daughters because he saw them as experiencing ‘sexual pleasure’. The point is how pleasure is used to transgress young people boundaries. We all ought to safeguard our young people. Normalising fetishising is not progressive.

God, I just despair of (some) so called liberals.

Don't be ridiculous. It's perfectly clear what my point was.

I'm very sorry you experienced that, @DrBlackbird, and sorry if my post was triggering. Do you want me to ask for it to be removed?

Back to some people being so privileged they can't imagine what life is for others. And back to the need for the establishment systems - legal, educational, police - to protect those dependent on them.

I'm really sorry that happened to you. It shouldn't have and it is horrifying that it did.

When I started commenting on this, it was about a rope tying group which only seems to me a small step beyond the Ann Summers parties with furry handcuffs that I saw in at uni in the 90s. Somehow that has mutated into me being pro full on BDSM with kids, which is a horrible read into what Ive said, plus a disgusting insinuation that I am not safe around young people.

I don't think restricting adults from learning about legal things that interest them is a good idea. Safeguard children, absolutely yes, but there is a point where you have to trust the new adults to practise their own skills at saying no and making good choices. If we don't do it at university, then when?

(I am assuming all these groups are just meeting up in public university places and talking about stuff, and that it isn't compulsory for anyone to go. Possibly I'm a bit too naive, but surely aren't actually organising mass orgies in university student unions)

I have always found the British university system really odd, in that people are encouraged to go to universities far from home and then not associate with the new places that are living in or near, but to do everything in the university. That hangover from a town and gown division.

It they want to do sex classes, or flower arranging, or ballroom dancing, or toastmasters, they should do it in the nearest town, with people working in and studying in a range of places. University for studying and broadening the academic mind, the world for learning about the world. And if possible they should do a job of work to defray their expenses.

Many thanks @DeanElderberry and to everyone behind supportive (thank you) but I realise how my phrasing was confusing!

By saying "I had", I meant that I had a father of a patient whose care I was involved with. To clarify, that experience was not mine. I was involved in a professional capacity with one of the daughters. Conversations with the father were on a professional level. His daughter kept triggering a diabetic crisis in order to get admitted to hospital and eventually the reason why she was doing this came to light.

Reiterating the need for responsible adults to be responsible and protect young people.

Edited to add that I still completely disagree with you @Gerri1992 and I’m not saying that you personally are unsafe. But I am saying that you don’t seem to understand safeguarding or duty of care for university students.

I'm glad your experience was at a remove, and that you were able to do something for those poor young women.

As you say, the young need protection. People who deliberately transgress traditional sex-adjacent rules of social decorum are massive red flags.

This thread really is a chilling inditement of how universities have become places where sexually disordered adults are able to indulge their fetishes and promote niche sexual practices at 18 plus year olds. Young adults, just out of school, in a new environment where the allegedly trusted and responsible adults feel quite comfortable in promoting BDSM, prostitution and the rights of staff to display sexual practices in the work place.

What a world we've created for young people.

I think a mixture of university based and community based activities on offer is the ideal, but not always achievable.

One benefit of the uni clubs is they tend to be all people of a similar age as mature students are pretty rare overall. Which helps reduce some of the risk of older more experienced people preying on the first years. But also means the first years quickly become as experienced as anyone else there, join committees and get a taste of what it means to run and organise community groups. Essential skills for later life.

They'll get that benefit in the Archaeology society, the Film society, the Physics society. Also in the students' union that used to be an entry ticket into a job in television. Just as the Spanish society was an entry ticket into really weird Catholic subculture - where Opus Dei was seen as bit too soft and liberal. I've heard nasty stuff about evangelic protestant university societies too. The young are vulnerable to pressures and bullying and exploitation, they don't need to be in a sex society.

And I don't have a rose-tinted view of youth being a guarantee of a person not being an exploiter, a bully, or an abuser. A high status 19 year old who has never been challenged in his or her life is not a joy to be with.

Just to say that those statistics are appalling, I'm very sorry to hear you were part of them and I think you are right. You're not the first person abused as a child I have heard draw a link between that and being drawn into BDSM, though I think it's often brushed aside.

For some reason it seems to be considered more important to never risk anyone who is into BDSM feeling "shamed" (or, frankly, anything less than enthusiastically celebrated) than to explore whether it has a negative effect on vulnerable people and, if so, the scale of that.

And I don't have a rose-tinted view of youth being a guarantee of a person not being an exploiter, a bully, or an abuser. A high status 19 year old who has never been challenged in his or her life is not a joy to be with.

Indeed @DeanElderberry another story that most unis heard about at Warwick …

https://theboar.org/2025/06/tick-box-training-warwicks-handling-of-sexual-misconduct-cases-continues-to-fail-students-seven-years-on/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-48405725

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48930792

All universities need to do better on protecting young females.

Edited to add one more tragic story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-686194

Angus Milligan, 21, of Edinburgh, admitted choking and slapping Glasgow student Emily Drouet, 18, at halls of residence in Aberdeen.

Angus Milligan admitted choking and slapping Emily Drouet, 18, at halls of residence in Aberdeen in 2016. Law student Ms Drouet was found dead several days later. She had committed suicide. Milligan admitted assault and threatening behaviour and was sentenced to community service. Fiona Drouet said: "Angus Milligan has been unmasked as a vicious abuser who stole our daughter's life. He preyed on Emily's innocence and kindness and continues to lie about it, trying to destroy her reputation."

Scotland naturally with his ‘community service’.

I posted a more lighthearted post on toilets yesterday, and had I missed DrBlackbird’s post just before it.

Her later post made me read back and showed me why we have to be more forthright when we campaign. I sometimes try and be more light- hearted because some people think it’s verging on being homophobic or anti-fun when I go on about not creating conditions where people can have sex in toilets.

However, my research shows girls and boys (as well as women and men) are abused by men in toilets. These men may be people the victims know or strangers and it happens in restaurants, stations, trains, schools etc. I have never come across an abuser defined as female sex in the UK (incidents that are defined by ‘female gender’ which I double checked is how they identify - I know are men, one other ‘female’ is unknown).

I have thought a lot about design and how to prevent misuse. In terms of safety it boils down to the same solution every country had until a few years ago. It always comes down to trying to make sure people, including children, are not completely hidden from view. It doesn’t have to be more than a 15cm toilet door gap (the same as a kitchen kickboard).

I believe most men and women are good people and would stop a person harming a child if they had a concern it was happening in a toilet space in front of them.
In wouldn’t stop it all, but it would prevent it as much as we can. That requires the law to be single sex toilets in the single sex environment as the default standard provision.

Accessible (disabled) toilets have historically and will always be places of concern as they are mixed sex and private, so should be in as visible spaces as possible and monitored as much as they can be from the outside.

We shouldn’t be taking away from single sex toilet washrooms, to add more unisex toilets as they are completely private in design. If any provision is to be added, it should be to try and put more accessible toilets in to the single sex environment where possible. It will give non-ambulant people (who can independently transfer or have a same sex person with them) the security of being in a room that’s not resistant to sound and not completely private.

I had the experience of going to a mixed-sex "restroom" while I was on holiday: three cubicles next to each other for men, three for women. The doors came down to the ground, and the partitions between the cubicles had eight inch gaps under them, perfect for putting a camera under. This included the partition between one of the women's and one of the men's cubicles.

I think that may be the exact opposite of what might be a reasonable design from the privacy point of view, though to-the-ground partitions would clearly make cleaning the cubicle floors more difficult.