The strenght from S&M may not be an illusion
I don't see where there's any strength inherent in it. Some people may come out stronger, some weaker, some unchanged.
Brandt was a poser. he only wanted to play the game
Play which game? Was he playing at S&M, or is S&M playing at true violence?
I'm with Steph -- why can't tying up be tying up? Why can't people just find that a turnon? It's like a rape fantasy not actually having a damned thing to do with rape itself. An episode highlighting that for the viewer -- no biggie. But I don't think the implication that S&M is pretending (rather than a goal in and of itself) is fair.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I always thought that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is hogwash. There are lots and lots and LOTS of people on this earth who suffer, and their suffering is crippling, and they never recover. Some people recover, for wide variation in the definition of "recover," but plenty of people just don't.
If that were not so, then PTSD would not be in the DSM.
Play which game? Was he playing at S&M, or is S&M playing at true violence?
I meant that Brandt was playing at S&M.
Brandt was a poser. he only wanted to play the game
Are these equivalent? I mean, he was kind of a poser (at least in the sense of being all Cooler-Than-Thou to the FBI) and he only wanted to play the game, but I don't think he made any bones about it. I don't remember him ever claiming that rape and murder would have been a big turn-on, or an extension of what he was doing. He made a pretty clear distinction between consensual stuff and, you know, crime.
But that was not my real point. What I saw was Rebecca explaining her understanding of what he had experienced just as he explained his games to her.
And yet, quoting his exact words back to him creates a link between S&M and sexual violence.
Play which game? Was he playing at S&M, or is S&M playing at true violence?
I meant that Brandt was playing at S&M.
Versus participating in "real" S&M? What would that have looked like, then?
My opinion is that, from what little we saw of Brandt in an S&M situation is that he wasn't "playing at" anything.
I meant that Brandt was playing at S&M.
What was he doing wrong? He was a pompous romanticising blowhard, but I didn't see any indication that he was a crappy dom or anything.
quoting his exact words back to him creates a link between S&M and sexual violence
Or highlights the difference, which is what it did for me.
But I don't think the implication that S&M is pretending (rather than a goal in and of itself) is fair.
I don't think we're supposed to think that Rebecca was being fair.
(And looking at their first conversation from her perspective, who the hell does he think he is, trying to tell her what being tied up does to/for a person? What a presumptous asshole. So neither of them was being fair. He gets more of a pass because he had no way of knowing what she'd been through. She doesn't have that excuse.)
I don't see where there's any strength inherent in it.
I don't either. But if what he said was true, then the strength wouldn't necessarily be illusory. I'm just arguing about the if-then link, not the truth of the if.
