Hmmm that whole lot is a massive reach based on a comedy hashtag.
I’m a criminal prosecution barrister and have tried far too many sex and violent crimes to even contemplate that 50 shades of gray or “vanilla shaming” has anything to do with violent intentional sexual acts.
I didn’t know about this case but have since searched and the facts are these; Pybus drank 24 beers before he went to have sex with the victim. The victim and him had been having an affair for 3 years and having sex 6 times a year. He didn’t have a long time to come up with his defence as he actually drove himself to the police station at 5.30am (remember he’d had 24 pints the night before) and admitted that he thought he had strangled her. The pathologist said there were no other signs of violence just the choking which had occurred later in the act. He accepted full responsibility immediately. It didn’t need a jury because there was no trial so nobody had to be convinced of anything. It goes straight to sentencing. When someone pleads guilty immediately that is taken into consideration when sentencing. The judge was convince that he had not intended to kill the woman and that is why the sentence appears lenient, in order to prove murder there needs to be intent. The defendant said that she enjoyed being strangled and it was something she encouraged, yes we only have his word on this but given the facts that he handed himself in almost immediately suggests to me that he is not some rabid woman beater and maybe there is some truth in his story. You and I don’t know these people personally and neither does a judge (or jury) they can only make decisions based on the facts presented to them. Nothing I have seen, other than hearsay by the victims family, suggests this was anything more than what the defendant stated. What leads you to believe that this man was some crazed woman abuser because I can find no evidence, do you know something that the sentencing judge wasn’t privy to?
As for John Broadhurst, well that’s a whole other kettle of fish. He used the rough sex as a defence, again he didn’t need to convince a jury because they were advised by the trial judge to dismiss the charge of murder based on submissions and because he pleaded guilty to manslaughter by gross negligence, so no jury needed to be convinced. He’s a multimillionaire and probably paid for a very expensive and top class QC. Again neither you or I know any more than the details that are out in the public domain so I’m struggling to understand how you have determined this case based on media and sound bites. However this case did lead to a change in the law and consensual rough sex is no longer a defence in serious harm or resulting deaths.
I do find it astonishing that people take offence by things said in jest on a gossip site, it was a throw away comment, I couldn’t actually give two shits what kind of sex MP has, I was commenting on the point made about middle age instahunz getting giddy about a vibrator. To throw two rare and completely unrelated cases into the commentary as an example of why someone shouldn’t do or say something on Tattle is total virtue signalling and quite frankly bizarre.
...on every thread with and instahun 
Will have a read through of that tonight.