I got up today and went on a cycling course. Nothing too complicated save for the bike I was on had 14 more working gears than the last bike I rode a number of years ago. I didn’t fall off and nobody died so I will take that as a mark of success!

I can’t really say I did much for the rest of the day; certainly the revision didn’t get a look in. But in between telephone calls and ironing (rock & roll lifestyle I don’t think) two things caught my attention on the TV.

Firstly there was a big fuss about empty seats at the Olympic Games despite there being huge demand. How could this be the world (sic) is asking? Well, I would guess this is what happens when many seats go to corporate bodies rather than to people specifically wanting those seats and had to pay directly for them. Doesn’t seem rocket science to me.

Secondly, whilst ironing I caught the end of a programme about the book ’50 shades of Grey’ and was exploring the impact on the modern person of the world of BDSM in the bedroom. There was a number of groups of people offering their opinion, most of whom seemed to me to miss the whole point of the world of BDSM. Various persons tutting about how it put back feminism many years and much talk of ‘assault’ etc.

Whilst there is case law out there about some BDSM acts being considered as assault (R v Brown 1994) one might consider that it was a product of an era and were it to be considered currently, well the case may not have been successful (who knows, but the world has moved on). I feel they got a bit carried away – I guess this is populist TV though. But even in 2009 when the freebie paper I read on the train to work had a central spread about ‘BDSM in the bedroom’ – I was shocked as to how almost mainstream such material had become.

But ultimately I think the point the interviewees were missing was that of choice – was it degrading giving up control to another? Well if the individual being ‘sub’ chose to do that and agreed limits beyond which the ‘dominant’ person can go, I’d argue they’re exercising quite an element of control! If it’s all about escapism and fantasy and someone is providing that environment for a person to do this in a safe and controlled manner and the experience is mutual I can’t see it sets anything back anywhere.

If the nay-sayers really want to get hot under the collar, rather than reading R v Brown they might want instead to read up on R v Wilson 1997!