I would say leave the politics to the politics threads. I am also not too fond about some of the views espoused by some founders and their personal invitees, which is a major reason why I have opted out of the politics topics to begin with.
Milord If I want to lose weight I can ask my wife to keep my fridge locked. This is perfectly acceptable. Different will be someone that tries to force it on me. Guess what? Abuse
I feel like people who say that the purpose of a lock is to supersede consent neglect that in human nature, habitual actions can be very different from conscious desires. "I want out" does not immediately translate to "I do not consent to being in" - it is an entirely different level of brain function behind that. Look at the phrase "keep honest people honest" - the point of certain security measures may well be not so much to assume malice, but to prevent not-inherently-malicious, but still problematic urges from taking over an otherwise benign person's behavior. A low fence does not prevent anyone from entering your yard, but it does communicate to people that you want to keep your yard as a private space and not have people cut across it to take a shortcut. Similarly, the lock on a toilet stall is often easily overriden by something as simple and ubiquitous as a coin, but it still prevents people from walking in on another toilet user much better than a basic "occupied" indicator would.
Maybe the pursuit of maximum-security locks is justified only by either non-consent or fantasies. I am not entirely convinced of that myself, but I could see that argument being made. But just the presence of a lock does not create that dichotomy.
So yes, a lock may absolutely have a place in a consensual dynamic, even if the lock is not part of someone's erotic fantasy.
