Actually, what I said about the danger to S&M enthusiasts seem to be what happened here:
One evening, in the course of sexual relations, J.A. placed his hands around the throat of his long‑term partner K.D. and choked her until she was unconscious. At trial, K.D. estimated that she was unconscious for “less than three minutes”. She testified that she consented to J.A. choking her, and understood that she might lose consciousness. She stated that she and J.A. had experimented with erotic asphyxiation, and that she had lost consciousness before. When K.D. regained consciousness, her hands were tied behind her back, and J.A. was inserting a dildo into her anus. K.D. gave conflicting testimony about whether this was the first time J.A. had inserted a dildo in her anus. J.A. removed the dildo ten seconds after she regained consciousness. The two then had vaginal intercourse. When they finished, J.A. cut K.D.’s hands loose.
K.D. made a complaint to the police two months later and stated that while she consented to the choking, she had not consented to the sexual activity that had occurred. She later recanted her allegation, claiming that she made the complaint because J.A. threatened to seek sole custody of their young son. The trial judge convicted J.A. of sexual assault. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and dismissed the charges against J.A.
What, you don't have juries in Canada?
Anyway, the complaint, if true, was about the sexual activity that took place, the continuation of activity during the unconsciousness brought about by their perverted experimentation was merely a pretext to keep a man in prison when the actual complaint has been recanted.
From the minority judgement:
The provisions of the Criminal Code regarding consent to sexual contact and the case law were intended to protect women against abuse by others. They aim to safeguard and enhance the sexual autonomy of women, and not to make choices for them.
It is a well‑established principle that the complainant’s genuine consent precludes a finding of sexual assault. There is nothing in the Criminal Code that indicates that Parliament has considered or adopted a statutory exception to this principle which would vitiate consent to unconscious sexual activity. Indeed, the wording of s. 273.1(2)(e) of the Criminal Code suggests that the complainant’s consent can be given in advance, as it was in this case, and remains operative unless and until it is subsequently revoked. Upon regaining consciousness, K.D. did not revoke her prior consent to the sexual conduct in issue — which was then still ongoing. And it has not been suggested that she had earlier revoked her consent by words or conduct, or even in her own mind.
A person cannot, while unconscious, consent or revoke consent. However, it hardly follows, that consenting adults cannot, as a matter of law, willingly and consciously agree to engage in a sexual practice involving transitory unconsciousness — on the ground that, during the brief period of that consensually induced mental state, they will be unable to consent to doing what they have already consented to do. There is no factual or legal basis for holding that the complainant’s prior consent, otherwise operative throughout, was temporarily rendered inoperative during the few minutes of her voluntary unconsciousness. It was not suspended by the fact that she had rendered herself incapable of revoking the consent she had chosen, freely and consciously, not to revoke either immediately before or immediately after the brief interval of her unconsciousness. The complainant’s prior consent to the activity in question constituted a valid consent only to the contemplated activity. In the absence of any evidence that J.A.’s conduct exceeded the scope of the complainant’s consent, or caused her bodily harm that would vitiate her consent at common law, there is no basis in the provisions of the Criminal Code for concluding that the complainant’s consent in fact was not a valid consent in law.
Rape is sex without consent. What we have here is sex with consent. And a man in jail because he had sex with a fully consenting woman who was into kinky stuff and then sought custody of their child. After he had previously been convicted for throwing insults. If you're really interested in what might cause misogyny, I'd say this bloke has a few motives for misogyny right there.
