Should I report naughty friend

bb1234567 · 12-10-2020 06:52PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's like a creeper peering in through a crack in your curtains while you're sitting there watching the news and getting off on knowing he can do this without you knowing.

It is..but the pervert is present there, at your home, that's dangerous,and a lot more distressing if you were to find out about him having been **** outside your home. Online is also creepy, but the fact they're not physically present removes a dimension of the alarm you would feel. It sits very firmly in between the activity you described, and **** to somebody's photos on social media in terms of offensiveness. There isn't really a direct comparison to anything else,Imo there's no ither crime in existence that might inform how one should go about punishing or reacting to the individual who commmtted this offence. It's just a very specific recent modern problem

Gruffalux · 12-10-2020 06:52PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's like a creeper peering in through a crack in your curtains while you're sitting there watching the news and getting off on knowing he can do this without you knowing.

Yes, very good analogy. Or a landlord having a secret camera. It is abusive. And it is weird that people are somehow trying to justify it by saying everyone ****. Like Duh! tell me something I don't know.
I know the OP may be untrue but the scenario does throw into question if people should have to do group camera calls because of abuse potential.

bb1234567 · 12-10-2020 06:55PM

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yes, very good analogy. Or a landlord having a secret camera. It is abusive. And it is weird that people are somehow trying to justify it by saying everyone ****. Like Duh! tell me something I don't know.
I know the OP may be untrue but the scenario does throw into question if people should have to do group camera calls because of abuse potential.

Yes even if it's fake I think it raises a lot of salient issues

Gruffalux · 12-10-2020 06:56PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

It is..but the pervert is present there, at your home, that's dangerous,and a lot more distressing if you were to find out about him having been **** outside your home. Online is also creepy, but the fact they're not physically present removes a dimension of the alarm you would feel. It sits very firmly in between the activity you described, and **** to somebody's photos on social media in terms of offensiveness. There isn't really a direct comparison to anything else,Imo there's no ither crime in existence that might inform how one should go about punishing or reacting to the individual who commmtted this offence. It's just a very specific recent modern problem

So if a landlord had installed a secret camera and was **** about their tenant in real time, are you saying it is about the same as if they wanked about the tenants photos that they found on social media. People are arguing to defend privacy, including you, but here you are ignoring the invasion of the others privacy.

AndrewJRenko · 12-10-2020 07:10PM

Gruffalux wrote: »

People are arguing to defend privacy, including you, but here you are ignoring the invasion of the others privacy.

The proposed solution of having everyone switching on cameras, even if you ignore the privacy issues involved, does not solve the problem. A carefully adjusted camera will allow the offender to continue to jerk off if they wish.

Gruffalux · 12-10-2020 07:16PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The proposed solution of having everyone switching on cameras, even if you ignore the privacy issues involved, does not solve the problem. A carefully adjusted camera will allow the offender to continue to jerk off if they wish.

Yes, I can see the problem with that. But now I also think there should be nobody switching on their cameras, because it is obviously open to abuse if some have theirs off.

Sakana · 12-10-2020 07:41PM

I really can't see how this is anyone's business but the onanist.

sbsquarepants · 13-10-2020 07:10AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

not treating her like some masturbatory material while she is doing her job.

I'm not really sure what the difference is, if he's **** over her at the weekend, or on a bank holiday.

Now, i'm not defending him and i certainly wouldn't do it myself (mainly because i'm too stupid to operate my dick and anything else simultaneously, so i'd almost certainly get caught:D)

But each to their own i suppose, there's no real harm done is there?

People do some strange things, a bloke i know told me once that he fúcked an orange - i think that's a damn sight weirder, and even then i think there's no real harm in it!

EmmetSpiceland · 13-10-2020 07:56AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

People do some strange things, a bloke i know told me once that he fúcked an orange - i think that's a damn sight weirder, and even then i think there's no real harm in it!

I see your point but what it really comes down to is that the orange isn’t going to care either way but a colleague isn’t going to be “impressed”, or flattered, by some grubby toad beating it like it owes him money while they are going through the quarterly reports.

AndrewJRenko · 13-10-2020 08:01AM

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yes, I can see the problem with that. But now I also think there should be nobody switching on their cameras, because it is obviously open to abuse if some have theirs off.

There is a benefit to having cameras on, in terms of human contact, personal connection, body language.

It would be crazy to lose these benefits because of one or two crazies.

Gruffalux · 13-10-2020 08:08AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is a benefit to having cameras on, in terms of human contact, personal connection, body language.

It would be crazy to lose these benefits because of one or two crazies.

Perhaps the advent of things like OnlyFans and other personal web cam service providers - I think there are such things - have blurred the lines for more than just 1 or 2 crazies.
It is effectively in this instance being used as a secret camera and I am sure people would not say oh what harm is it! if the person renting them their AirBnB had one installed in the rental space for the purposes of their own stimulation.

Peehaps a tech solution would be if one chooses no camera for oneself then one does not get to see the others either. And in spite of your saying it, camera angles would not disguise ****, or at least they would curtail its enthusiasm considerably.

BrianD3 · 13-10-2020 09:24AM

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's like a creeper peering in through a crack in your curtains while you're sitting there watching the news and getting off on knowing he can do this without you knowing.

This and talk of secret cameras are bad comparisons. A better comparison would be some lad looking out the window of his house and privately **** about a woman that he sees walking down the street.

**** is a personal bodily function that is none of anyone else's business, not even the wankee.

A personal bodily function like many others like farting or scratching one's arse. I bet that there are people farting during meetings, maybe even sh*tting. Who knows what is going on when the camera and mic are off.

But as usual people lose the plot when it comes to anything related to sex - men are abusers and oppressors, women are victims. Yet I notice that nobody picked up on my link to the survey which found that more women have masturbated about a work colleague's social media pics than men have. It would be reasonable to infer that women are at least as likely as men to be masturbating in Zoom meetings.

sbsquarepants · 13-10-2020 09:42AM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I see your point but what it really comes down to is that the orange isn’t going to care either way but a colleague isn’t going to be “impressed”, or flattered, by some grubby toad beating it like it owes him money while they are going through the quarterly reports.

Maybe I'm just odd - but i just can't see why the quarterly reports makes the slightest difference. It's not as if she'd get all weak at the knees knowing he was pulling himself assunder imagining her bent over the desk either now is it?

There's a good reason why we generally don't tell people we **** over them!

B.A._Baracus · 13-10-2020 09:57AM

You are probably the only person he confessed this too :pac:
So being pulled a side by a manager might be a tiny indication you ratted him out op haha.

EmmetSpiceland · 13-10-2020 10:10AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Maybe I'm just odd - but i just can't see why the quarterly reports makes the slightest difference. It's not as if she'd get all weak at the knees knowing he was pulling himself assunder imagining her bent over the desk either now is it?

There's a good reason why we generally don't tell people we **** over them!

I’m fairly confident that if the office ladies found out that this lad was “flogging” it while on a Zoom call with them that they wouldn’t be impressed. Some might even refuse to have any dealings with him at all.

That’s when it becomes a bigger “issue”, right now no one knows. Just as a person may never know that someone has been “snurgling” their saddle, bus seat or, even, office chair.

The “fallout” of this being revealed will have lasting implications for the gross pervert and the office, as a whole, particularly those in his masturbatory crosshairs.

Gruffalux · 13-10-2020 10:17AM

Mastubatory crosshairs - a new and hopefully painful condition not unlike pseudofolliculitis caused by w (anking) fh during zoom meetings. They deserve it, the sleazy cretins.

Ash.J.Williams · 13-10-2020 10:20AM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Having a **** during work to pictures of girls that are talking at that time is not what many would deem normal behaviour.

i've never seen it mentioned in a company handbook

Ash.J.Williams · 13-10-2020 10:31AM

1990sman wrote: »

the attack on christendom wasnt neccessary to make your point

it's always necessary

B.A._Baracus · 13-10-2020 10:40AM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i've never seen it mentioned in a company handbook

That page is always stuck together....

*Grabs coat*

sbsquarepants · 13-10-2020 11:17AM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I’m fairly confident that if the office ladies found out that this lad was “flogging” it while on a Zoom call with them that they wouldn’t be impressed. Some might even refuse to have any dealings with him at all.

I can't see them being too pleased at any time, can you? I don't really think their own exact activity at the time of the alleged offence is what they'd particularly take issue with!

As I've said there is a generally a damn good reason why you should keep the object of any wankathons blissfully oblivious as to their starring role, however complimentary you may believe that admission to be:D

ILoveYourVibes · 13-10-2020 01:27PM

Piehead wrote: »

A co-worker who is a buddy of mine has admitted to fapping off to the pictures on zoom calls of female attendees when they are talking. Not everyone has their camera on so he can’t been seen as his is off (he claims it’s broken). Nevertheless its seems somewhat deviant behaviour and must be against some work policy. Should I report to HR? May be just my word against him though?

How did he admit it?

Do you have proof?

EmmetSpiceland · 13-10-2020 01:38PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I can't see them being too pleased at any time, can you? I don't really think their own exact activity at the time of the alleged offence is what they'd particularly take issue with!

As I've said there is a generally a damn good reason why you should keep the object of any wankathons blissfully oblivious as to their starring role, however complimentary you may believe that admission to be:D

No, certainly not. But there is a big difference between this creep “indulging” in a spot of social netwanking outside of work and him pulling the skeleton out of himself to a live feed meeting during working hours.

They might not happy be happy about him engaging in a spot of hand to gland combat over their Instagram but they know they can improve their security settings to keep him out.

If they found out he was up to this “carry on” while ogling them during work it could, understandably, lead them to feel unsafe at work or, at least, disgusted to the point of not wanting to be presenting over Zoom.

This all hinges on whether the OP highlights this perv’s “behaviour” to HR. It will remain a, somewhat, victimless crime until word gets out. Until then he’s free to continue jerkin’ the gherkin over these, unsuspecting, working professionals.

Weird that he told the OP, sounds like he might want to get caught.

bb1234567 · 13-10-2020 01:40PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

No, certainly not. But there is a big difference between this creep “indulging” in a spot of social netwanking outside of work and him pulling the skeleton out of himself to a live feed meeting during working hours.

They might not happy be happy about him engaging in a spot of hand to gland combat over their Instagram but they know they can improve their security settings to keep him out.

If they found out he was up to this “carry on” while ogling them during work it could, understandably, lead them to feel unsafe at work or, at least, disgusted to the point of not wanting to be presenting over Zoom.

This all hinges on whether the OP highlights this perv’s “behaviour” to HR. It will remain a, somewhat, victimless crime until word gets out. Until then he’s free to continue jerkin’ the gherkin over these, unsuspecting, working professionals.

Weird that he told the OP, sounds like he might want to get caught.

Can I ask why you put so many innocuous words in inverted commas? Or am I just not aware of a lot ofcommon double entendres

13-10-2020 01:45PM

I find it hard to imagine anyone seriously admitting this. Are you sure it wasn't just a joke, OP?

'God these Zoom calls are so boring.'
'Ah sure do what I do and just bang one out while they're yabbering on.'

I'd love to know exactly how this came up a serious point on conversation if there wasn't some history of sharing stuff like this. It's kind of remarkable if it's true and it was a full admission.

Gruffalux · 13-10-2020 01:59PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

No, certainly not. But there is a big difference between this creep “indulging” in a spot of social netwanking outside of work and him pulling the skeleton out of himself to a live feed meeting during working hours.

They might not happy be happy about him engaging in a spot of hand to gland combat over their Instagram but they know they can improve their security settings to keep him out.

If they found out he was up to this “carry on” while ogling them during work it could, understandably, lead them to feel unsafe at work or, at least, disgusted to the point of not wanting to be presenting over Zoom.

This all hinges on whether the OP highlights this perv’s “behaviour” to HR. It will remain a, somewhat, victimless crime until word gets out. Until then he’s free to continue jerkin’ the gherkin over these, unsuspecting, working professionals.

Weird that he told the OP, sounds like he might want to get caught.

What if the wanker tells someone else and also says ''I told Piehead too''.
And then the someone else thinks, I shall tell management. Then Piehead is in a somewhat difficult position for not having reported it.
The livestream component of the activity is what makes it different from ordinary private time perving. The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 Section 45 seems to cover mostly public places - perhaps it could be argued that the shared digital space in a Teams meeting or such constitutes a public place. Otherwise, without the public places requirement, part (3) of said section states - (3) A person who intentionally engages in offensive conduct of a sexual nature is guilty of an offence.

This last section is a matter for interpretation and argument.
The declaration to another of having engaged in the act would be a factor I think, as it moves from the private sphere more definitively to the public sphere.

Piehead · 13-10-2020 02:35PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How did he admit it?

Do you have proof?

Nah don’t have proof. Was talking to him on a call and I mentioned how boring the meetings and getting and then he said something along the lines of “well this is what I did to spice it up”

Trouser Snake · 13-10-2020 02:47PM

Piehead wrote: »

Nah don’t have proof. Was talking to him on a call and I mentioned how boring the meetings and getting and then he said something along the lines of “well this is what I did to spice it up”

Maybe he was jacking off telling you as well.

Ash.J.Williams · 13-10-2020 03:48PM

what does he do when the men are talking, take the hand off the throttle and wait a bit, or is it pedal to the metal? or does he mind?

EmmetSpiceland · 13-10-2020 04:11PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

what does he do when the men are talking, take the hand off the throttle and wait a bit, the pedal to the metal? or does mind?

You’d imagine he just eases off the “throttle”, something akin to having the camera pan to a dude, in a porno movie, as you hit the “vinegar strokes”.

There’s no doubt that this degenerate is a “seasoned” pro at flogging on.

ShatterAlan · 13-10-2020 04:25PM

Piehead wrote: »

A co-worker who is a buddy of mine has admitted to fapping off to the pictures on zoom calls of female attendees when they are talking. Not everyone has their camera on so he can’t been seen as his is off (he claims it’s broken). Nevertheless its seems somewhat deviant behaviour and must be against some work policy. Should I report to HR? May be just my word against him though?

I'm wondering who the wanker is here.

Should I report naughty friend

Comments