Well, even the first one can be pushing it depending on the work environment.

I assumed D/S was Dianetics/Scientology and was pondering why they wore collars (something something auras thetans something...)

oh brother.

I have a high heels fetish, I demand to be able to carry a pair around with me at work.

I'm a fursuit fetishist, I need to wear this big mascot head thing all the time, it's part of my lifestyle.

I'm into latex, or having birthday cakes smashed in my face, or...

@5 I'm not familiar with UK law on this, but this is what we've learned over and over again from the seperation of church and state here, the only real way of avoiding showing favoritism is to have no special priviledges because of personal beliefs.

What is the exact rule that the hospital has? Is it no necklaces at all or do they allow some necklaces but not others? I ask this because it has a bearing on whether the rule may or may not stand up in court.

If it's a blanket ban on necklaces for safety reasons (a patient could grab it and women in labor are sometimes not at their most coherent) then she needs to take it off. My dad can't wear his wedding ring to work because he's an auto mechanic, it's a safety issue because a ring could get caught in an engine and with it the finger or hand it's on.

If however it's merely a dress code rule that is waved for people who wear crucifixes or other symbols of their belief systems then the hospital is out of line because it is choosing which beliefs they will recognize as valid.

I'm with the sub...provided that her collar was not intrusive. Many married people wear rings as a constant statement of their relationship.

@5, shooting a little wide there pal.

In my understanding from some UK nurse friends, many if not most UK healthcare facilities specifically disallow employee jewelry indicative of the wearer's "philosophical" or religious tendencies. It's seen as unprofessional.

@6 - There is no protection of belief in this country. There's a protection of *religious* beliefs. You can actually be fired for being a republican, a democrat, a communist, a member of PETA, or someone who practices D/S. This was in the UK, so I'm not sure how they go about making guarantees about religion vs. belief, but this would work out the same in this country.

Did anyone just get fired for opening up that last link?

@9 You still see a lot of crucifix necklaces in UK hospitals.

Only crucifixes mind. It's almost as if they were a special case.

I guess the places where my friends work and have worked don't even allow that, though. It came up in initially a conversation about U.S. doctors who use theological decor in their waiting rooms. It shocked them (well not one, she lived in the U.S. for a time) because they said even wearing a cross on a necklace is verboten in their workplaces.

As a nurse here in Canada, I was taught in school no necklaces or bracelets, only stud earrings/noserings, only smooth rings, no nail polish. Since I've been working, I've been in hospitals where they enforce those rules and hospitals where they don't.

So, my question is "Do they enforce this rule across the board at her hospital?" The article seems to indicate that the hospital has been known to stretch the rules in cases of religious expression, but gives no specifics. I can't find any other articles about this online.

@14

In fairness I'm only going by personal experience on this to be honest. Also thanks to the way our NHS is structured rules do differ hugely on all sorts of things across the country.

One thing you can guarantee though is that every time something like this crops up one of our papers will go to town on the "loony leftist liberals" who "want to BAN people of GOOD FAITH" from showing their beliefs.

It does get very tedious.

Is sexuality the new religion? It's not like wearing a cross or a burka. Why is it so important that she include everyone she comes in contact with in her sexual life?

trying to read that article, but can't get past the term "consensual slavery". Isn't that somewhat of an oxymoron?

I'm sure this woman knew what she was risking by making such a statement in the workplace. Just like I would be aware of the statement I'd be making if I wore a particular graphic tee. Own up to your decisions and deal with the consequences.

And, sorry, your "philosophical belief" argument reminds me a little too much of the defense used by homophobes for their actions.

@17, Why is it so important that everyone who wears a cross, Star of David, or pentacle include me in their religion?

I don't know, 19, I'm involved in some kinky shit and I'm far happier with a situation in a hospital setting like what my UK friends have described, i.e. no philosophical or religious jewelry of any kind, than the U.S. alternative. But if I have my choice of a stranger letting me know that they're Jewish versus a stranger letting me know about their specific sexual activities, I'm going to go with Jewish every time.

Pretty much agree with 20. Been a Dom for 14 years. Had D/s leanings since I was 12yrs old. Very, very few of my sexual encounters have been strictly vanilla. None of my relationships have been. I like subbies. I don't care what my nurse does in his/her free time. But I also don't particularly care to see them wearing obvious Collars at work. It's inappropriate. Sorry, but it is. There are any number of more subtle ways to show respect for your Dom/me at work. Leave the Collar at home, sweetie.

Still...hasn't Dan said to not involve others in your sexual practices? Did she explain the collar's purpose to co-workers? It sounds like she did, since she was fired for it. If she did, that's inappropriate. I really don't need to know what a co-worker is in to sexually. I think it's completeley inappropriate, you can leave that stuff in the bedroom. I would expect the same for me, like a poster said above, if I was wearing a graphic t-shirt or a tiny skirt. The world does not revolve around you! You have to consider other's feelings in this, and though I support people in doing what they want sexually, I don't need to know about it.

I feel like we're still missing a crucial piece of information -- is jewelry not allowed, or was her jewelry singled out because someone knew what it was? If it's the latter, well, that sucks, but lots of people in lots of jobs would be fired for advertising their sexual practices on the job.

If it's the former, though? If jewelry just isn't allowed, and IF her D/s practices are really this integral, always-on part of her life, then shouldn't her D bar her from working anywhere she can't wear the collar? I mean, wouldn't that be more fulfilling for everyone?

To me, it kind of seems like how people whose religious beliefs prevent them from dispensing birth control shouldn't be pharmacists, or people whose religious beliefs prevent them from marrying gay people shouldn't be civil clerks.

People whose philosophical beliefs prevent them from removing jewelry probably shouldn't choose professions where removing jewelry is de rigeur.

@2: Well, Scientologists are lifestylers, after all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitat… maybe they wear them at their forced labor "re-education" camps?

Seriously, though. This is a toughie in my case. I do think that the sub's trying a little too hard to be noticed, but she should be able to find a way to express her lifestyle in public.

To me, the fact that she was a midwife makes a big difference. Also whether the casual observer could tell that it was not just a necklace. Birthing women need to be able to focus on their labor. It's very hard work, and it's also painful and has some fearful aspects, too. You need to feel safe with your birthing team, especially the midwife.

When a woman is in the hot and heavy parts of labor, she usually needs to focus on the midwife, and feel that here is someone strong and trustworthy, who will stay there with her and get her through it safely.

Someone wearing a big, honking slave collar is likely to be off-putting to a significant percentage of her birthing patients, and that can put a mother and infant at risk.

Giving birth is hot, difficult, often painful, and sometimes dangerous. You have no idea, going into it, how it will go, what will happen. Women seldom die anymore, but that always remains a possibility.

Birthing is really mind-altering. It's not like anything else I've ever been through. The midwife is your lifeline, and it's crucial to be able to trust her, to feel that she's really there for you and will be up for whatever happens, and will see you safely through it.

That's really the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned. Anything that threatens the birthing woman's rapport with the midwife can threaten her safety and that of her child.

Plus, almost no one wants to think about sex in the midst of labor!

You know what? I am kinky. I have lots of fetishes and play all sorts of games with my partner but nobody else needs to know about that. Knowing about who my partner is is a whole other ballgame from knowing what position we take in the bedroom. Yes, yes, for many people D/s is not about sex, but about spiritual fulfillment, blah blah blah, bullshit.

Should I be allowed to go to work in a hospital wearing some sort of "I peg liek whoa" jewelry? Uh, no. And no gay man needs to go to work in a hospital with "I'm a slutty bottom" jewelry. So she doesn't need to wear her "I am a submissive" jewelry. It's pretty standard to not wear a wedding ring when you're going to have to glove up, so it's not as if her relationship is being discriminated against. Only her need to advertise her specific position in that relationship.

If something's part of your sex life, keep it to yourself. Don't bring it to work with you. As Dan and Mistress Matisse rightly pointed out in this Savage Love, it's incredibly creepy to foist your sex life onto others by sexualizing your day job.

Let's not forget that for some D/s relationships, the public announcement of ownership reflected by the wearing of the collar itself constitutes part of the sex act, for those who eroticize public humiliation. Which in a way forces me, as an observer, into an unwitting passive participatory role. No, thanks.

My collar just looks like a necklace except that it has no clasp, so I can't take it off without pliers. People who know what it is recognize it. People who don't are none the wiser.

Why didn't she just say it was a necklace? Was she going around talking about her sexual preferences at work and that's why they wanted her to stop? Is there a rule against wearing restricting necklaces at her workplace? There's more to this story than we're getting.

I just can't get over the "philosophical belief" thing. That is just not true. If it is a belief then it is about explaining the workings of the world, and how to live your life in it. But whatever D/s is, fetish, lifestyle choice or whatever else, it does not even try to explain the world.
Other than that: I don't want to know about the sexual preferences of strangers. It sounds a lot like exhibitionism to me that she (or her Dom) insists on wearing the collar at work. (She probably could have worn a turtleneck over her collar, and no-one would have known.)

32 is definitely correct.

Keep your bedroom shenanigans at home.

"My philosophical belief's require that I be paddled on the bottom every night. Therefore, it is unfair to expect me to sit while working. I request a standing desk, and the right to stand during all meetings. Also, I hope no one minds this battery powered fan I have attached to my belt and directed towards my rear end."

@6: here in the UK, we don't have separation of church and state: http://alturl.com/ctx4e. Amongst (many!) other issues, that makes it nearly impossible to operate the same 'no religious symbols at work/school' rule that you tend to see in France, for example.

@23 and everyone else who's wondered about UK hospitals' policy on jewellery: I just checked with my wife, who's an NHS doctor in London, and officially, wedding rings and stud earrings only (for doctors, nurses and midwives alike). In the case of rings, it's a hygiene/infection control thing, but with necklaces, which aren't really such a hygiene risk, it's more about the need to present a professional 'blank canvas'. However, this tends to get waived in the case of religious symbols. So a Christian midwife could wear a crucifix, and a Muslim midwife could choose to wear the hijab (headscarf - not a necklace, I know, but a related example of religious dress permitted under NHS guidelines). It's pretty common to see both those examples.

Hence why the distinction between fashion/lifestyle and philosophical/religious symbol is important in this case - because the NHS hospital dress code makes clear exceptions for existing religious symbols.

I'm surprised at the line that the quoted expert took. Why didn't she just say "no, it's not slavery, they're just pretending", which is simple and accurate?

A collar is not about sex any more than is a wedding ring. Most people's wedding rings are a signal to others that the wearer is sexually monogamous with someone, i.e. not a potential sexual partner.

I don't think that a midwife or anyone else should wear sexually explicit garments at work. If it's just a necklace, though, then she should be allowed to wear it no matter why she wants it.

(Looks at pic) Okay, creepy. My boss gave me a necklace that looked a bit like that once. How did her coworkers even find out that it was meant as a slave collar?

@32, and on the other hand, if female submission really IS an overarching philosophical belief in someone's life, I definitely wouldn't feel safe giving them power over me in any way, and that includes my obstetric health.

Either people at her workplace or in her position can wear a necklace to work or not. If not, then she should be quiet and do her job. If she can normally wear a necklace, then it would not have become an issue unless she went around broadcasting the significance of the jewelry. In that case, she should be allowed to wear the necklace and then she should be quiet and do her job.

The advocate's description of her "help" is quite bizarre. It sounds like she said precisely all the wrong things in front of the judge. I also find it offensive that she assumes we could not "claim as much for the average marriage". What makes you think that because a certain kind of relationship has unique rules, it's more likely to be based on equality, negotiation of said rules, or respect any more than anyone else's relationship? The comparison to "wage slavery" was just boneheaded.

I am somewhat baffled by the claim that English hospitals are knee-deep in nurses wearing crucifixes since there was a very well reported case where a nurse tried and failed to insist on her right to wear one on a chain around her neck. The Courts here won't wear it, if you will pardon the pun.

And Dan really needs to stop to think for a few moments before the knee-jerk reaction, since one of the consequences of a successful appeal on the slave collar would be to give the guy who wanted to give sex advice only to heterosexuals, because of his sincere belief that gays inevitably burn in hell, his well paid counselling job back. That was a real case and his claim was thrown out by the Court of Appeal.

Is that what Dan really wants? More well paid bigoted homophobes telling people they are going to burn in hell unless they change their ways? Because that is what he would get if Fae's wonderful idea ever succeeded...

@41, that's more along the lines of my understanding. I'm sure, as with any policy, there are individual workplaces and administrators who make exceptions, but I think the actual policies forbid this kind of jewelry across the board, not just for sexual lifestyle advertising.

I also have to agree with people who point out that there must be more to the story than a discrete sub wearing an innocuous necklace for it to have become an issue, as well as those who point out how particularly inappropriate that kind of thing is for a birth professional.

This sounds like utter bullshit from every angle. If necklaces are not allowed, then necklaces should be not allowed, in all cases. I assume that if necklaces actually interfere with the job or pose a risk, this is also true for necklaces with religious iconography. Religious exemptions are inherently unequal, as they privilege "religious" belief and practice over, say, beliefs and practices that have evidence-based motivations or beliefs and practices that are socially constructed but not "religious".

Thinking that someone wearing a "slave collar", if one even recognizes it as such, is less competent in hir job is just baseless prejudice. If a patient has that hang-up, that's hir fucking problem and sie should get over it. I have no sympathy for women who are giving birth don't feel secure because of the received meaning of particular jewelry someone is wearing.

The objection to "consensual slavery" (entirely possible, by the way, #18) is weird: there are all sorts of instances in which we willingly cede decision-making ability and agency that are perfectly well accepted. "Traditional" patriarchal Christian marriage, where the husband is the head of the household and not to be questioned, IS a dom/sub relationship, though often less-than-healthy, given the social coercion that pressures ALL women in fundamentalist culture X to enter into such relationships. Although the meaning of the wedding ring has been expanded and multiplied (as have the meanings attached to leather or locking collars: search "goth"; I've known a number of people who wear bondage/fetish gear but aren't into BDSM, at least not as far as they acknowledged), the wedding ring itself can be a symbol of ownership/"slavery"/control, but apparently no one's raising a fuss around people wearing (or being required to not wear) them. "Wage slavery" was another good example - employment contracts intrinsically cede some of one's agency to an external authority (including, in some cases, wearing jewelry, which is a bit of irony apparently overlooked by the court and commentators).

The entire concept of contract law involves agreeing to specific behavioral terms for two parties, and the only difference with negotiated "consensual slavery" is the scope of the contract. The judge is entirely wrong - the whole legal system is a precedent for "consensual slavery", as is the social contract between a government and its subjects. Laws are dom/sub (consensual power exchange, though with laws they're sometimes less-than-consensual, which renders your average D/S relationship less ethically-problematic and dysfunctional than your average legal system) played out at the level of a social community. I really don't see why people find something they experience every day so strange, except that maybe they're uncomfortable with confronting the fact that such a system is an artifice, which is exposed by the visibility of D/S on a personal level in this case.

My take: everyone involved here is a fucking idiot.

I'm starting to understand what Adam Carolla was ranting about yesterday. Alt sex lifestyles are great, but not in the work place.

A collar tells you nothing about the sex I have.

A wedding ring tells you nothing about the sex I have.

Being "obviously" gay tells you nothing about the sex I have.

Wearing a collar does not bring my sex life to the workplace.

About religious exemptions and Great Britain:
There is a "Church of England" and its head is the Queen. This should give everyone a hint that a necklace with a cross might get preferential treatment over other religious symbols.

Migrationist appears to be wholly ignorant of the fact that there are no religious exemptions in British law which give anyone an unfettered right to wear a 'necklace with a cross'. That was why the Courts here refused to allow a nurse, Shirley Chaplin, to wear a necklace with a cross.

Had Migrationist bothered to do even the most minimal of reading s/he would know that...

wow. for the subject to have come up at her workplace, she either told someone the significance of the necklace, or its significance was obvious enough to at least one person.
both are inappropriate. there are plenty of birthing women who would be icked out by it. its just the plain reality of that particular job that you can't be icking the customer out.

and to those who insist that even if someone figures out that it is a sub collar, they shouldn't assume it means anything about sex: its up to you D/s people to correct that impression. until you do, IT MEANS SEX to 99% of the population.

@41, 47: yes, dice, fine but in fact it's relatively common for British hospitals to permit/allow/turn a blind eye to the wearing of certain religious symbols, including crucifixes, whether it's officially permitted or not. This is straight from the horse's mouth: a London-based British hospital doctor (aka my wife). Given that, might this be a case where legal precedent/official rules and common workplace practice don't quite match up? It seems so to me.

@45 Sex life or erotic kink, what's the diff? I still don't want to know about yours at work.

Being gay does not bring your sex life into the work place

Being gay and wearing a cock ring on a necklace does.

If you can honestly say that wearing a collar has nothing to do with your kink and is just a wholesome commitment to a loving partner, well then maybe I'll reconsider (of course, then I'll think your kink is pretty dull).

@50: Besides, if you can't find a tasteful representative of your lifestyle that won't be obtrusive to others, you should probably just find a different line of work more in line with the lifestyle. I mean, is it symbolic as is claimed, or is it a direct extension/expression of your sexuality?

@50
Still missing my point. You have no idea if it's erotic.

BrideofFrankenstein
Firstly the courts here have specifically rejected the claim of a nurse to wear a necklace plus crucifix - the Chaplin case- and secondly a Kent based hospital doctor, aka my daughter, tells me that it has been forbidden in the hospitals she has worked in.
I have a personal interest to declare since I have a lung disease which puts me into hospital frequently; the last thing that someone with a multi-resistant pseudomonas infection - your wife will be able to explain to you what that means- needs is a nurse who is a walking infection hazard. The London hospital I go into, without being too specific, has a reasonable claim to be the best heart and lung hospital in this country, and none of the nurses wear jewellery because it is an infection hazard. Of course, the rest of the patients don't want to acquire my multi-resistant infection, so we are all happy with that policy.
Incidentally, midwives are supposed to be independent professionals who make decisions in accordance with the standards laid down by their regulatory body. No slave can do so, by definition, since they are bound to do what their master or mistress tells them to, whether or not their master or mistress has any knowledge whatsoever of midwifery. This is not an appealing prospect for anyone who might encounter the midwife in question, and one could not blame anyone for refusing to allow the midwife anywhere near them. Do you really believe that a woman in labour should be forced to do so?

@54: "Incidentally, midwives are supposed to be independent professionals who make decisions in accordance with the standards laid down by their regulatory body. No slave can do so, by definition, since they are bound to do what their master or mistress tells them to, whether or not their master or mistress has any knowledge whatsoever of midwifery."

Er, so the Dom/Domme orders her to tentatively obey the authority figures while at work. Problem solved? It's not like she's going to let a patient die because she wasn't told what to do by the right individual.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Wow, dice @54 ftw!

@dice:
I made a statement about separation of state and religion in England in my post. I didn't say that nurses , doctors or midwives in NHS hospitals can wear crosses despite hygienic regulations.

No slave can [make decisions based on a regulatory body,] by definition, since they are bound to do what their master or mistress tells them to, whether or not their master or mistress has any knowledge whatsoever of midwifery.

I wear a collar/necklace, and I can assure ya'll, my partner (I don't call him my master because that's not our thing, but yes, he is the boss of me) doesn't exert control over how I behave at work. Just because I'm pervy doesn't mean I'm stupid, irresponsible, or trying to put my sex life all up in your face. And it doesn't mean I'm going to make harmful choices just because my partner tells me to-- which he wouldn't, which is why he's my partner.

If this chick was making people uncomfortable by being obviously fetishy at work, that's another matter, and indicates bad judgment.

As for Mr. J's points about it not necessarily being erotic/about sex, uh... BDSM and sexuality are pretty strongly linked in the minds of most people, kinky and non-kinky alike. Don't get all butthurt because people make that assumption.

If you want to show your consensual slavery, where a wedding ring like the rest of us.

Uh...what someone feeling the need to advertise their owned sub status in the workplace (because again, if they were truly subtle about it, we wouldn't be having this conversation) tells me about their sex life is that it features a D/s power dynamic. Unless we're trying to pretend now that those who are so committed to the D/s way of life that they consider it a "life philosophy" have vanilla sex with with no particular power exchange.

It also wouldn't be the first time a sub wanted attention drawn to herself, I suppose.

@54: rings are a recognised infection hazard, necklaces rather more under debate (by which I don't mean "they're not an infection hazard", I mean "doctors have different opinions on whether they present a significant infection hazard, and some don't think they do"). Even given the ring issue, every hospital my wife has worked at permits the wearing of wedding rings unless you're scrubbed in and sterile. I think that from putting together the information we both have, we can see that actual hospital practice varies when it comes to jewellery. That's all I was pointing out.

If necklaces and dangling jewelry are specifically prohibited due to work conditions, that should be applied across the board.

If the potential significance of that adornment makes people feel uncomfortable, then wedding rings should also be forbidden as symbolic adornment indicating a sexual relationship.

It's become a pet peeve when people who whine about "having [insert uncommon behavior] rubbed in my face" blithely and blindly embrace equally questionable behavior that just happens to be what they like doing. This goes for gay relationships, atheism, and kink.

Also, I had hoped that people going to a midwife would have an appreciation of how it feels to be less mainstream.