3P’s — Provocative, Prudish, Professionalism

What a deleted post taught me about professionalism, prudishness, and the increasingly narrow definition of what respectable people are allowed to discuss.

I recently shared an article I had written in a professional community to which I belong. It examined a curious reversal in modern relationships: we increasingly live in a world where two people may sleep together before they have decided whether they actually like each other.

The post was deleted.

I was subsequently reprimanded. The content, I was told, was inappropriate — “lewd,” even — and I was reminded that posts in the group ought to have some connection with professional speaking.

My first reaction was indignation.

My second was considerably more useful.

Perhaps I was wrong about the room. But were they wrong about the word?

The article was not erotica masquerading as psychology. It was about intimacy, attachment, dating and the changing sequence of modern courtship. As a psychotherapist, these are hardly exotic subjects. People bring sex into the consulting room alongside grief, jealousy, loneliness, infidelity, shame, ambition and fear because sexuality is not some extracurricular activity attached to the human condition. It is part of it.

But the professional community had a legitimate objection.

What did any of this have to do with professional speaking?

Fair question.

A community devoted to speakers is perfectly entitled to ask members to keep contributions relevant to speaking. Communities require boundaries or they eventually become WhatsApp groups with better logos.

So perhaps the article didn’t belong there.

What stayed with me was the description of it which made me feel I had written something lewd.

Because when did talking about sex become the same thing as being sexual?

A cardiologist can discuss a heart attack without causing one. An addiction specialist can describe alcoholism without encouraging you to order another whisky. A psychologist can discuss suicide without advocating death. Yet introduce consensual adult sexuality into a professional conversation and description itself can suddenly acquire the moral character of the behaviour being described.

We confuse subject matter with intent.

And sex exposes that confusion rather beautifully.

Professional speakers routinely discuss childhood trauma, addiction, domestic violence, divorce, depression, infidelity, abuse, bankruptcy and death. These are painful, intimate and sometimes deeply disturbing territories. Yet nobody walks out of a keynote on alcoholism complaining that the speaker was promoting drinking.

Mention sex, however, and somewhere in the metaphorical auditorium somebody reaches hurriedly for the curtains.

Perhaps this isn’t hypocrisy.

Perhaps it is something more interesting.

We have confused professionalism with sanitisation.

“Professional” ought to mean thoughtful, relevant, responsible and respectful. Yet sometimes it quietly comes to mean safe, culturally familiar, emotionally sterilised and unlikely to make anyone shift uncomfortably in their chair.

But discomfort is a terrible test of whether an idea deserves discussion.

Mental health was once whispered about. Divorce was scandalous. Menopause barely possessed a public vocabulary. Therapy carried stigma. Workplace harassment was something people were expected to quietly endure.

Culture has an amusing rhythm: first we whisper, then we argue, then we normalise, and eventually we hold a conference about it.

Yesterday’s impropriety has a curious habit of becoming tomorrow’s panel discussion.

Sexuality, particularly in professional spaces, appears to remain somewhere between the whisper and the panel.

Yet this incident taught me something uncomfortable about my own profession too.

Speakers love the mythology of courage. We tell ourselves that our job is to “speak truth,” “challenge thinking,” “start difficult conversations” and “make audiences uncomfortable.”

All admirable.

All incomplete.

Because a speaker is not merely responsible for the idea. A speaker is responsible for its address.

The same sentence can be courageous in one room, gratuitous in another and completely irrelevant in a third.

Context is not censorship. Audience awareness is not cowardice. Reading the room does not require surrendering your ideas to the room.

It simply means recognising that communication has two participants.

Perhaps, therefore, my original post really was misplaced.

I can concede that without conceding that the conversation itself was indecent.

Because there is a considerable difference between saying:

“This conversation doesn’t belong in this room.”

and saying:

“This is not a respectable conversation.”

The first is moderation.

The second is discomfort acquiring a moral vocabulary.

And that distinction matters enormously to professional speakers.

Provocation without context is noise. But context without provocation can become intellectual upholstery — tasteful, comfortable and utterly incapable of disturbing anything.

Our job exists somewhere between the two.

We have to know when to challenge the room, when to respect the room and, occasionally, when to ask why the room is uncomfortable in the first place.

So yes, my article was deleted.

Perhaps rightly.

There is an irony in that which I rather enjoy.

An article deemed insufficiently relevant to professional speaking ended up teaching me something fundamental about professional speaking.

I may have been wrong about the room.

They may have been wrong about the word.

And somewhere between those two errors lies the craft itself: knowing when to respect a boundary, when to question it, and when to make a room uncomfortable enough to examine why that boundary exists at all.

Because sometimes, what a room refuses to discuss tells us as much about the room as what it applauds.

—

This post was previously published on Dr. Sheetal Nair’s blog.

***