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.

I thought that Strong kidnapped him after Rebecca left..

That was what I got out of it too. But Web and Rebecca and Paul had no inkling of that at the time of the reenactment.

I side with Kristen here. Brandt is, what I'd call, a wanker. Toss pot. Who happens to like BDSM. It's not the BDSM which is his problem, it's more the fact he's a toss pot.

I had to look up what TOGoM meant. I remember watching TOGoM a while ago, shooting script to hand, thinking "This should be great". And then I watched it. And kinda thought, if I see Tim, I'll not mention that one - it didn't quite work out how I'd pictured it.

Not that I'm saying I can do better mind, to clarify. Hell, I write in the perspective of a cat sometimes.

It's not the BDSM which is his problem

Who's saying it was, though? The text didn't seem to, and I'm not reading anyone here doing it either.

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

I'm not excusing it, but I don't think it's in the same category as sexual assault.

I can honestly say that I've been with guys who I had no intention of having sex with, but I was flirty and made out with them, etc., and then they went for the zipper of my pants. It was an unwanted sexual escalation, you betcha. Was it sexual assault? No. It was poor judgement based on what was going on at the time.

Other than the hardware involved, I don't see any difference between that and Rebecca/Brandt.

What nobody's said yet in this discussion (this specific one, from today; not just discussion of the episode) is that Rebecca was a dumbass, too. She put herself in a stupid situation.

Does THAT excuse how Brandt behaved? Of course not. It never does. It doesn't *excuse* it, but it contributed to a situation with fuzzy boundaries and really bad assumptions.