It's semantics for me, Steph. It's what I'm calling freaking on his side.

And, honestly, the same thing could have happened if he had actually done the right thing and asked her if she wanted to be cuffed and she said yes. Sometimes you think you can handle a scene and it turns out to trigger something when it actually happens, and you freak. Which makes the dom get a little freaked, too.

Cashmere, that's my take on it. It's just that for some reason I thought that there were other rapes not related to the murders that Strong or other policepeople suspected him of. But it doesn't really fit well with the rest of the storyline, so I may have made that up.

I thought the ex accused him of rape, then recanted. Then the investigating officer became so determined to prove him guilty, he started following him and then got caught up in the fantasy and started committing the actual crimes (the rapes and then the murders? because they started out as rapes and then progressed to murders, right?)

Gotcha, I'd forgotten. So, were we supposed to take something from that - Paul and the rest of the team, really, were so focused on This Must Be The Guy because of the S&M (and, to be fair, the attitude), that their investigation was going off the rails a bit without their noticing. It suddenly feels to me like maybe there was supposed to be a parallel there with Strong's obsession.

I *can* picture him saying "Oh, holy FUCK, I thought you wanted this, crap sonofabitch crap crap crap," and letting her out of the cuffs. Which I wouldn't call freaking out as much as making a HUGE error in judgement (or, perhaps, a total LACK of judgement), and getting a rude awakening.

I could call it either, and mean more or less the same thing.

I thought the ex accused him of rape, then recanted. Then the investigating officer became so determined to prove him guilty, he started following him and then got caught up in the fantasy and started committing the actual crimes (the rapes and then the murders? because they started out as rapes and then progressed to murders, right?) against the women who associated with Brandt--making him a natural suspect on all of them.

This is what I thought happened, too. I'm not sure that it's known, but it's not contradicted by anything, and it makes sense.

Well, the fact that the rapist took the victim's underwear and Strong kept the dead women's hair is a little confusing to me, but I can ignore that easily.

I wasn't saying that Rebecca was fair, or needed to be -- I was saying that I disagreed with what I'm reading you as saying - that it wasn't a fair (as in mine -- watch the world revolve around ita, why don't we?) reading of the text.

oooooohhhh! 'kay :)

So far as they knew, he immediately fled the scene (his home, to boot) upon releasing Rebecca. I'd say that qualifies as freaking out, even if it was warranted by events

I thought that Strong kidnapped him after Rebecca left..

And I got the impression that Brandt was never guilty of anything (other than being an asshole). I thougth that the girl initially filed a fake rape charge against him because she was mad that he broke up with her, Strong spent 5 months building a case, and then she recanted. Strong then lost it, and started raping women and blaming it on Brandt (maybe initially to try to frame Brandt). Then Strong escalted to killing.

An analogy to what I mean-- a guy reads a book about sculpture, buys a spot welder and welds together a bunch of scrap metal and calls it art. To him, it is art, he worked very hard at it, and it's legitimate. However, critics and dealers may call it junk.

But how is that different from any artist? Is playing at it something that's determined by their attitude, or their results? For me, playing at something is dilettantish -- it means you aren't taking it seriously. Overzealousness, arrogance -- a whole 'nother abll of wax.

He didn't release her because she said the safe word, he released her because she scared him

Or he released her because he realised he was wrong. I don't think the text was explicit.

were he not involved in BDSM, I have no doubt he'd have some other thing to assist in the manifestation of his arrogance

Not arguing with you on that point.

Brandt makes that link by non-consensually handcuffing her. It starts as seduction and she's going with him, then he breaches that trust and recalls her emotional traumas.

I think it was a lack of judgement on his part -- since she did seem to be going along with his seductive routine, he assumed she'd be up for a little hardware. Which is a horrible situation in which to lack judgement.

Is it sexual violence? I'd have to say no. A horrible lack of judgement, yes. So I *don't* think that Brandt makes the link between S&M and sexual violence.

As always, beagles vary.

I'm with Steph, so I'm glad she's more eloquent than I am. I think the cuffing was dumbdumbdumb and Brandt's an idiot, but I think Brandt read consent where there was none, rather than intentionally crossing the line. On the other hand, since at the time we were believing Brandt was the perp, it wasn't at all clear.

Also, what does Unsub mean?

Unknown subject. Took me forever to get that one.

Is it sexual violence? I'd have to say no.

It was both sexual and violent. The fact that it wasn't malicious doesn't make it excusable.