College student charged for re-enacting 'Fifty Shades of G.'

An University of Illinois at Chicago student leader has been charged with sexually assaulting a 19-year-old female student in what Cook County prosecutors say was a re-enactment of scenes from the film "Fifty Shades of Grey."

Freshman Mohammad Hossain, 19, appeared shocked after a Cook County judge set his bail at $500,000, walking back to the lockup with his mouth wide open.

Once inside his dorm, in the 900 block of West Harrison Street, Hossain allegedly asked the woman to remove ...

<details omitted>

Hossain's roommate came home soon after the assault and, prosecutors said, Hossain held the door shut to prevent him from entering. The woman then left and told another person what happened, then called police.

Police arrested Hossain later that night in another dorm building in the 700 block of South Halsted Street, according to an arrest report. He was interviewed by UIC detectives and, according to Karr, admitted assaulting the woman and "doing something wrong." He allegedly told police he and the woman were re-enacting scenes from "Fifty Shades of Grey."

The judge was taken aback after Hossain's lawyer, assistant Cook County public defender Sandra Bennewitz, said Hossain had been involved with several UIC leadership programs, was a student ambassador to the alumni association and was on the triathlon team.

"Sandra, how can someone involved in all that let a movie persuade him to do something like this?" asked Judge Adam Bourgeois Jr.

Source.

How indeed...

@loco145: Right, blame it on 50 Shades...does that mean that there were 2 guys who watched the movie?

... I thought the movie tame. Or has porn fucked with my head that much? Either way, that movie didn't show anything that I thought would have been a problem if she\he had consented. With any bondage or pain/breath play a safe word is needed which apparently these two idiots decide to go without, and now one of them is in jail. Idiots... Know your partners limits, and all ways have a damn safe word!

I'm guessing you're blaming higher education on this as usual?

Everyone needs to read the whole article.

Douchefuck is a goddamn rapist who doesn't know that "no means no". He kept on beating her with a belt despite her continually telling him to stop and crying.

Bail is about right. Dude needs to see the inside of a jail cell for a while and get some homoerotic ass therapy.

Clicking this, I thought you meant uploading bad fan fiction to amazon.

You do realise that during S&M play no doesn't always mean no, right? That's why you ALWAYS need a safe word...

This is all Obama's fault.

It only means doesn't mean no if it was agreed before hand that no doesn't mean no. In S&M it is very important that you understand your partners tastes and their limits. You should never make those kind of assumptions.

@toast_burner: As I said, the safe word means no. S&M is about power...one of you has it, the other doesn't and if you're the one who doesn't then you're not supposed to show you're enjoying it, so cries of "Stop! You're hurting me!" can actually be desirable (and true while you still don't truly desire the other to stop) and "part of the plan"; so when do you know stop means stop and not part of the fun? Safe word. There's no assumptions there.

There is an assumption, you are assuming that no didn't mean no.

If they did have a safe word then shouldn't she have used it? There is nothing in the article implying that they had ever agreed on any of that so why do you think they did?

@toast_burner: What part of "doesn't ALWAYS" escaped you? Fox mentioned that "no means no" and I said that sometimes saying no is part of the play and not used to stop everything and a safe word is used instead. Everything else about what I said is your assumption, not mine, especially since I wasn't even referring to this particular case but S&M play in general...I thought my post was fairly clear.

So what was the purpose of your post? To tell everyone what they already knew? The person you responded to wasn't talking about S&M in general but this specific case. So why would anyone assume you are not also talking about this case?

No means no, even in S&M with exceptions where you've been told by your partner that no doesn't mean no, and you have agreed upon a different method of communicating when the no does actually mean no (e.g. a safe word)

@toast_burner: If it fun to start an argument for the sake of arguing? Because I'm not particularly amused. You're the one who butt in the conversation, I wasn't even talking to you.

it's a public forum. I'm not starting an argument for the sake of arguing. You're spreading misinformation that is potentially dangerous.

@toast_burner: So I say that to be on the safe side you should use a safe word so that there's no confusion when no means no and it's dangerous misinformation? You misread my post, it happens, no big deal; own it and move on. You're not 13 anymore man...act like an adult (unless you are 13, in which case carry on)

@chaoscougar1: Very much so =P I apologise for my ridiculousness.

speaking from experience?

@comp_atkins: Sure. I'm up for trying almost everything that's not illegal, involves a third person or animals. S&M didn't really click with me but it was an...er...interesting experience =P We didn't really go all out with the leather outfits and the torture toys though XD

The title of the article is really just clickbait and somewhat undermines the severity of his crime.

You talk to everyone on a forum when you post. No one is excluded from replying to you.

Ban that movie already

A shit stain of a movie. Watch porn already

btw. The movie is not "porn for women". Women doesn't like this kind of stuff, unless they're sluts. It's porn for men, although with worse story than usual.

@themajormayor: Not sure about the demographic for the movie, but apparently the majority of the book's readers were moms over 30.

I don't know. I mean I'd assume so at face value, but again I get the feeling there is a disproportionate number of women who might buy into that, especially young women in their early 20s.

I'm pretty sure that >95% of the people who watched the movie were women as well. I was one of the unfortunate 5% men who had to endure this. But I think most women left dissapointed.

Women at that age are very impressionable. But it's not what most women truly want. Sure they want a muscly rich guy, I didn't need a movie to tell me that... but they also want a man with things going on in his head and shows love, in a manly dominant way. Not this empty shell who has no idea what he is doing.

Hi, you're an idiot. Women who are sexually adventurous are now labeled as sluts? You must be incredibly boring in bed, Mr. Missionary.

@themajormayor: But it was the same with the book. Nobody I know liked the book but most girls read it. It became a sort of "Superman 64"...it's so bad you just got to try it, I guess...

I was referring to that impressionable nature of women at that age on which this entire franchise seems to be based. As for what women want well I'm no guru myself but I'd say women want different things just like men want different things. More importantly however, most women want superficial and inferior things in much the same way most people in general fail to appreciate what actually matters in life and to savor fine things.

I'm not a politically correct guy but in this department I think generalizations are incapable of holding their own.

if you don't want to be beaten and have a banana shoved up your ass why are you even at the same bus station as me?

So I think this thread's conclusion is, Don't Watch 50 Shades of Grey, or read it.

@toast_burner: He's not assuming that's how BDSM works.... The safe word is no. NO does not mean no in a BDSM setting. These idiots didn't have one so there was no true word to stop things when things got to be too much. Their own fault they are in the situation they are in.

Sexually adventurous? He was sexually adventurous, she just accepted the circumstances in a zombie like fashion, because she got a car, and the sexual adventure involved the world's most common fetish. lol.

Nowhere in that article did it say they were involved in a BDSM relationship. Therefore, there would be no need for a safe word...and NO does, in fact, mean NO.

Of course everyone has different preferences. But there are some things which are generally more common than others. For example I think most women want a confident man than an insecure one.

@LJS9502_basic: They where reenacting BDSM scenes from the movie... So yes they were. Did you not read the article? Or did you just skim the top of the thread and make an assumption? She had him tie her to the bed with belts, and then whip her. If that isn't practicing BDSM then then I don't know what you consider a BDSM relationship. They aren't all dominatrix's and the likes, who do this kind of stuff. They didn't create a safe word, and so when NO came up he took it as a sign to keep going, as often no in such settings means yes.

Safe words are the no in such situations and anyone who thinks other wise has never been in such a situation.

Yes I did read it. I suggest you do so as well. He said HE was recreating the scene. Not that they were.

Takes two to tango.

"Once inside his dorm, in the 900 block of West Harrison Street, Hossain allegedly asked the woman to remove her clothing and she did, keeping on her bra and underwear, Karr said. He then bound her hands above her head and to a bed with a belt, used another belt to bind her legs and stuffed a necktie into her mouth, Karr said." At no point up until he hit her with the belt did she once say no to this event.

So she undressed and let him tie her up and put shit in her mouth and on her eyes. Ya that sounds like it was concessional. How you get that it wasn't up until the point when the rough play started is beyond me. Like I've said before. You need to know your partners limits, and have a safe word. Both of which these two idiots didn't bother trying to do, which turned fun kinky sex into a man going to jail and a woman acting like she's been done wrong by. Both fucked up, now the dude pays the price.

Yes, of course, but I highly doubt this was one of those BDSM relationships.

@foxhound_fox: True, just seems like your average "This was really cool, let's do it too before we establish exactly what we're trying to accomplish" situation...kids, man...But yeah, just want to clarify I'm not defending the guy in anyway, just not convinced that he thought "hey, this is a good excuse to rape a chick".

Man, loco hates college more than I do.

But isn't the Book/Film all the rage with the girls!?

I've got to hand it to you that's an interesting take on the scenario lol

WTF is concessional? You might want to use the proper words to convey your meaning. Nonetheless.....there is nothing in that article saying they agreed to what happened...and she said no. Period. Stop making excuses. It's disgusting.

A pity After Hours no longer exists. I'd like a proper fetish thread.

@foxhound_fox: I'm not one to ever completely blame media for something, but the fact that this trash is so popular isn't really healthy. It's basically an abusive relationship that also gets a lot of things wrong about what bondage is. So yes the guy is a fucking rapist and probably deserves to lose his nuts, but it's a bit disturbing that a lot of people find the idea of a girl drinking until she's drunk enough to consent to being tied up so appealing.

God I can't wait for this fifty shades bullshit to be nothing more than an embarrassing pop culture memory. I'm just sick of hearing about it from both supporters and detractors. Just let it fucking die.