I got a lot of visits today to this page from Facebook and Mumsnet, I can never actually see who’s linked to me from Facebook, but I can see the Mumsnet thread. It links to this news article from the Metro; which is another clear demonstration of how meaningless ‘consent culture’ ‘safe words’ and ‘safe sane and consensual’ actually are, and how the ‘mainstream’ doesn’t actually discriminate against BDSMers, but in fact gives men free reign to abuse women, because, under patriarchy, a woman is considered to be in a constant state of ‘consent’ and women feel that if they have ‘consented’ once, they are no longer free to say no.
A bondage devotee inspired by Fifty Shades Of Grey has been cleared of assault after tying up his lover and lashing her repeatedly with a rope.
Steven Lock and the woman had signed a contract entitling him to whip her – and chosen a code word she could use if she wanted him to stop.
But she never used it – and he found himself in the dock after leaving her bruised and in tears by hitting her 14 times.
The jury found him not guilty of assault causing actual bodily harm, after hearing the pain he inflicted in August was similar to a ‘mistimed football tackle’.
The woman, who had ‘property of Steven Lock’ tattooed on her genitals, told the court she did not say the code word – red – as ‘I knew I wasn’t going to like it but I’d agreed to it and had to follow it through’.
But prosecutor Duncan O’Donnell said: ‘She went there expecting a fantasy when Mr Lock wanted reality.
‘She may have expected some playful spanking, to be hit lightly perhaps, but she received a lashing.’
Lock, of Ipswich, said he and the woman in her 40s ‘got the idea’ for their sessions from the hit erotic novel, after meeting through a dating website.
‘It was supposed to be kinky fun. I didn’t want her to cry,’ he told Ipswich crown court.
His lawyer, Roger Thomson, asked the jury: ‘Is this an assault any more than a mistimed tackle?
‘Fifty Shades Of Grey is not a manual: it’s a work of fiction and this is a case which demonstrates things can go wrong.’
Anti-Porn Feminists 
What does consent even mean when girls are groomed from early childhood to be eager to please and seek validation through their ability to attract men? Precious little. I can imagine all too well how those in the rape industry (porn, prostitution) must feel when they fake enthusiasm–I know I can’t be the only one who used to do this to gain a man’s approval and not be seen as ‘boring’ or ‘frigid’. We let ourselves be abused because we have been taught that this is what sex is. Now I’d rather live in complete celibacy than be touched by one more asshole who sees me as a fucktoy and fucking as his birthright. And 50 Shades is probably one of the most disgusting, violence-glorifying pieces of ‘literature’ I’ve come across since de Sade (who, I admit, was infinitely more disgusting).
Locke committed physical violence upon this young woman and I guarantee if Locke committed the same acts upon a male he would have been convicted irrespective of whether or not the male ‘consented.’ But of course grevious bodily harm only applies when a male commits violence against another male not when a male claims ‘she consented!’
The infamous Spanner case was one wherein a group of homosexual males were convicted of inflicting grevious bodily harm and sexual violence upon a number of other homosexual males. The men were convicted because a crime had been committed irrespective of whether or not the males had ‘consented.’ It is illegal for one to sell one’s organs but yet it is legal for men such as Locke to commit sexual violence against women because ‘women supposedly consent!’
Locke was enacting his male right of sexual access to any female any time anywhere because this is sacrosanct and not forgetting women aren’t human so therefore males cannot commit violence against a ‘thing!’
Why oh why is assisting someone to commit sucide a crime even when the person ‘consents’ to wishing to die? After all the person’s life belongs to them does it not? But then male supremacist laws are illogical because at same time women have no rights of bodily ownership but merely exist to be mens’ disposable masturbatory objects.