Been reading the thread since, well, recent events, and I'm sorry in advance if I seem like I vouch for forces of evil - the dude's behaviour is obviously horrible - but the most egregious receipt here confuses me. I must say I don't really get the "consent accident" angle. I've read the thread, but what it reads to me like is a hysterical person claiming to have PTSD and literally have been raped by a dog hair. Given the kind of company dude keeps, this checks out - I've met crazier. But the OP kinda makes it look like "consent accident" post was before the dog hair post, and is referring to some prior context of accusations. Was that archived somewhere?
Excuse me, but what about "consent accident" do you think is nbd? First, there is no such thing. Second, in a negotiated interaction, which was purportedly the context, the whole point is explicit consent and limits. Disregarding them is a no, and publicly making light of them is insult added to injury. LFJ addressed what was apparently a significant, negative event for a partner - caused by LFJ - in a flippant, self-serving way. That approach correlates, for any and every
reasonable grown adult, to a 99% likelihood that, regardless of the sensitivities of the partner, the person at issue (LFJ) disregarded some very specific boundaries agreed to in advance.
I don't claim to know or necessarily endorse whatever was the intended interaction, but 100% if you are entering into a style of interaction that requires explicit consent and honoring of boundaries, then you have a heightened ethical obligation to respect those. It is clear from the flippant address of the interaction and concern that LFJ did not and does not respect boundaries, nor the person who trusted LFJ to observe those boundaries.
Failure to observe a fundamental term of an agreement in a sexual context is a far clearer case of sexual violation than many others in non-negotiated contexts (and to be clear, running over or ignoring or failing to consider the willingness and/or boundaries of a sexual partner is a violation in any context...but in LFJ's case, it is even clearer and more clearly/probably violative than many intimate situations).
Short story: LFJ unequivocally behaved like a pig toward someone who entrusted their physical and mental safety to LFJ, and LFJ not only violated that trust but went further in violative and ethically abhorrent behavior by publicly dismissing and minimizing the offense and violation caused. That runs counter to the whole negotiated spirit of that kind of interaction, and - even extracted to a more standard interaction - goes further, to a compounded sexual violation.
Just as for many vanilla rapists, the private nature of the intimate situation at issue works to the advantage of the violator. Deniability, recasting the facts, sideways ridiculing of the violated person - all of these are common tools in rapists' and violators' arsenals. It's what keeps them out of courts and their violated partners stuck trying to pick up the pieces and square the dissonance between what they know really happened vs what their violator spins up/what are the real-world options for some approximation of justice (none; just deal).
TL; DR: Fuck you, and fuck your bait.
We'll meet again, don't know how, don't know when....
but I know we'll meet again, some sunny day...keep smiling through, just like you always do...Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away! 
