Lets Talk About Sex...

Recent news reports have focused on the fact that members of the Royal Navy have been making use of various hosting sites to produce and sell explicit content online. This has raised concerns about the potential for blackmail, as well as the wider security risks that could be posed.

There is perhaps a wider issue to consider here, which goes beyond the basic challenge of whether it is acceptable for members of the armed forces to produce and sell pornography online, to a wider question about how much control can the military have over a person’s private life?

The British Armed Forces are rightly proud of their extremely high standards and expectations. They represent the core values of the nation, and expect people to meet them – issues that would not be considered an offence in civilian life can be considered a real challenge for the military – ranging from the minor (e.g. dress codes in messes) to the serious – e.g. offences that breach military law.

While on duty, personnel are subject to strict rules about their activities, and they must adhere to clearly understood regulations. But what about when they are off duty- if they live ashore, or they are engaging in business outside of core military work, is it the business of the military to take an interest?

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

This may sound a minor issue, but it perhaps illustrates the potential for a growing culture clash between the armed forces and the current generation of recruits who are both digitally literate, see value in a portfolio career, and who have vastly different attitudes to how they are seen on and off duty.

In the past, the mere idea of an officer who holds the Queens Commission undertaking work like that seen on Only Fans would be unthinkable. The idea of appearing in something as seedy and disreputable an area as a porn magazine would just not happen – how would an officer be able to lead their people if they were seen without their clothes on?

But something seems to have changed in recent years, and the growth of the internet, and the more mainstream acceptance of pornographic material in daily life is an indicator that for many younger potential recruits, there is no stigma to producing this work. After all, if you can earn a reasonable second income for not an enormous amount of effort, then why not give it a go?

Traditionalists will be outraged, and there are serious questions to be asked about how this may impact on the ability to lead. Can you command the respect and attention of men and women that you manage who may have paid money to masturbate to images of your body? How do you lead them into situations where lives may be on the line, if all they can think about is you, online?

There is also an equally compelling argument that there could be a security risk – after all, if you were found to be producing this material, could a foreign nation or journalist seek to exploit or blackmail you in return to for material to ensure the problem ‘went away’?

To that end it is entirely understandable that there has been concerns raised, but equally there is a counter argument that could be made, and which deserves at least to be tested and considered, even if not upheld, that this may not be that big a deal.

If we look to the current pool of talent that are being recruited, many recruits have a different attitude to digital use. Having grown up in a world of online dating, easy access to pornographic material, and a more comfortable attitude both with ‘sexting’ and wider sexuality. To them, there is nothing instinctively wrong with seizing the opportunity to make money on the side, via a variety of means, and in creating an extensive digital footprint.

If their activities are conducted in their own time, in the privacy of their own home and are done in a manner which does not exploit or use Service assets, and are declared to the Taxman and in vetting interviews then why should the legal activities of a consenting adult in their spare time be any business of the Service?

If someone has found a way to discretely conduct a successful business opportunity, that has nothing to do with their day job, then is it possible for their employer to have a veto or apply disciplinary action to them as a result?

It perhaps cuts to the heart of the debate about whether the armed forces are a calling, a career, or a job? In years gone past this was clear – the military life was an all embracing one where the control over you was total, and your life, accommodation, children’s education all revolved around the military. It would be unthinkable to suggest that service life was anything other than a calling and full-time lifestyle – and to that end, these activities would be inappropriate.

But as time has passed and the service culture changed, this line seems increasingly blurred. The rapid rise in people owning private homes, and their service life and private family life being separate places has grown. The modern military officer may see the mess as a place to live in during the week, but it is not ‘home’, it is merely temporary work accommodation.

As the military have retreated from their hold on all parts of the serviceperson’s life, so too have the opportunities grown for people to see a world in which the armed forces are an employer, but they have less control over you. If you are a private homeowner, at home for the weekend, then what business is it of your employer what you get up to on the weekend?

There is a strong view that even off duty, you are still on duty, and that you are paid 24/7/365, and that the military discipline acts do not cease applying, even when at home. But it’s hard not to blame service personnel who feel a more remote connection to the service, or where they are mostly shore based, or not deploying, that the military life feels more like a job than a calling.

To that end, doing things like setting up Only Fans sites seems perfectly innocuous and acceptable – there is an air gap between home and work, and it is a private income for private activity. Plenty of military personnel run businesses or work on the side for extra income – why is consensual sex work any different?

Perhaps part of it comes down to the notoriously prudish British attitude to sex, which sees this as something to be ashamed of. There is also perhaps something about seeing work of this nature as demeaning or debasing and not something that an Officer should do.

Equally though, if the work is legal, then is it appropriate for the military to act as a moral guardian of values and standards – can it legitimately state that people cannot do this work simply because it feels it fails the Service values test?

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

This becomes even more challenging when one considers that for some personnel, if they undergo the Developed Vetting (DV) process, and declare this, then they have effectively told their employer of their activity. If the decision is taken to declare this, then this removes the blackmail potential immediately (after all, the threat to ‘tell your boss I saw your porn shots’ is perhaps reduced if you can say that the office already knows as you told them ages ago).

If DV is awarded, then does this implicitly mean that the Service is aware of your activities and income, and while not endorsing or stating a view on it, has accepted it as a risk that it is prepared to tolerate?

This could potentially make for an interesting case – if disciplinary action followed purely for having an ‘OnlyFans’ account, then could a counter argument be that it was fully declared during vetting and still awarded, which must imply that part of the Service saw acceptable risk in it – this points to an inconsistency in policy application between different parts of the same employer.

This too raises questions about what happens if a reservist was found to have an OnlyFans (or equivalent) account. Would, could or should the Service act if it found a spare time member of the Service was running this account, on their own time and with no connection to the Service itself?

After all, if a reservist is not deemed to be full time military, and is essentially spare time labour, then what right does another spare time employer have to make demands of them, or subject them to disciplinary action as a result? It does not seem as clear cut as saying that there is a breach of military values and standards, when you may only be on active service for 24 days per year – can the military tell you what you can, and cannot do, for the remaining 341 days?

The challenge is perhaps that when we look at cases like this, we instinctively feel it is wrong, but trying to define why it does not seem right is harder. The workforce is intelligent, well educated and motivated, but also has different values and views to those of 20-30 years ago and sees the world in a totally different way.

It should not be assumed that just because the military have always thought it obvious that one should not make porn, that this view prevails among newer members. Perhaps the takeaway from this that it is time to consider more clearly educating, explaining and contextualising why the military life is not necessarily compatible with a private ‘onlyfans’ account.

The biggest risk here is to assume that saying ‘this is bad, don’t do it’ is the right course of action. Instead, its important to ask more widely, why did people see no conflict of interest with their military life, why did they feel comfortable doing this, even knowing of service discipline, and why should they pay any attention to what could (to them) feel like a middle aged, middle class bunch of men telling them what they can, and cannot, do with their bodies?

This gets more uncomfortable when you consider that for centuries the military has had an interest, bordering on obsession with sex and pornography. The sharing of porn mags, visits to brothels, and all manner of at times niche sexual activity defined much of the military experience. Look at the old cultural images of sailors and prostitutes in every port, submariners with numb hands and painted fingernails or squaddies in a whorehouse.

Let us not pretend that the military are somehow virginally pure innocents who have never once seen a porn site, and do not have carnal knowledge of another. The avid consumption of porn has been a central part of so many military careers that it would be hard to pretend otherwise.

So, is there a risk of accusations of hypocrisy here? After all, many of those outside the service who are currently harrumphing from the side-lines about how dreadful this is have almost certainly looked at porn sites at some point. If they are retired military, then they doubtless had the opportunity to do some explicit things when they were serving.

Is it fair or appropriate now to turn on those who are merely providing, in their spare time, a legal and consensual service, that others enjoy? Or is this something that crosses a line and should be stopped?

Humphreys own view is that this is not as binary as it may seem. There is without doubt a question of professional credibility – if anyone were known to be producing pornographic images, then their credibility on their team would be impacted in some way – people would look, they would be curious and they would have less respect for that individual as a result – even if it had nothing to do with their professional situation.

It would be hard to retain long term professional credibility in your industry if people found out and knew about it, because word would spread. In an organisation driven by gossip, this would be something that would always be known about and remarked on.

Some people though may have no issue with that. It’s entirely possible that some people who produce these images are sufficiently relaxed, comfortable, and confident in themselves that they genuinely don’t mind – and to that end, it becomes something that is part of their character and who they are. It could be made to be the thing that makes them stand out but doesn’t detract from their operational or professional credibility.

Perhaps the challenge here is not the issue of whether it is done or not, but how the Services communicate their values and standards to a new audience of recruits. Rather than if people get it ‘because we’ve always done it this way’, the time is right to take another look and ask if things need to be communicated differently.

Does training need more of a conversation about what activity is, and is not, compatible with service life? Is there a need for more support to those who are thinking about this sort of option to make them aware of the consequences – one way to easily kill something off that was popular is to make it officially sanctioned and supported – kill it with Service supported kindness may sound flippant but could be a good way of talking about the issues.

Rather than sweeping the existence of sites like OnlyFans under the table, perhaps there needs to be an easier way for people who are considering doing this, and who are serving military, to tap into the system to declare that they are thinking about it, get good advice and support on what to do, and then ensure that even if they do it in their spare time, the Service is aware of it, even if it does not condone it.

This may sound ridiculous, but the easiest way to make something non-sensational is to legalise it, support it and then just get on with life. It’s not that dissimilar from the concept of women at sea, or gays in the military – lots of people thought it was a big deal, then it happened, and then nothing happened so we all got on with life and wondered what the fuss was all about. Perhaps maybe this is the answer here.

Both the fantastic thing about, and the challenging thing about the British Armed Forces is the amazing men and women who serve in them. They are among many other things, funny, kind, frustrating, brave, courageous and at times fundamentally a huge pain in the arse.  The privilege and challenge of leadership is trying to tap into the talent they represent and make the most of it in a way that brings their full potential to bear.

It can be difficult to talk about things like private sex work on the side, but the fact is that it does happen, and it clearly is happening. This is not going to go away overnight and understanding this and identifying what to do about it is more than just saying ‘this is bad, don’t do it’. It cuts to the heart of the debate about how to train people, how to support people and how to ensure that the values of the Service are aligned with the values of the society that it recruits from.

It’s probably the right thing that serving personnel should not have an Only Fans site, and that there is a clearly defined boundary to what is or is not the right thing to do. But this needs to be regularly reviewed and tested to ensure that it remains the right boundary, because if the military lose their connection to the recruiting pool, then they run the risk of recruiting fewer brilliant people as a result, if they think the military does not reflect their views.

Fundamentally, its okay to talk about sex, let’s just do it in a way that’s JSP101 compliant.