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.

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.

And twenty years later it might be called art. Playing by the rules doesn't guarantee anything.

It can still be BDSM even if it's immoral or skirting the rules. Brandt got off on the power, the domination. Whether he was properly within the bounds of the culture or not, you can't say he wasn't into dominating. He was.

A better analogy is a pitcher who is throwing illegal spitballs. He's still pitching - he's just cheating. Brandt "cheated" - that doesn't mean he wasn't in the game.

ita, sorry, I wasn't infering anybody else was saying that. Which suggests I was actually thinking it in the back of my mind.

Shit, I'm Paul.

I best hide before Tim kills me off. In a Buffy cross over episode.

Unknown subject. Took me forever to get that one.

Thank you. I've been feeling dumb all week.

It was poor judgement based on what was going on at the time.

I think I have to walk away from this.

I think it gets messy because a) sex is involved and b) BDSM is involved.

Rape is supposed to be about power, not the sex. BDSM is intricately entwined with power, and is sexual. So is an assumption that BDSM is okay in a given instance a transgression on the rape-power axis, or on the sex-is-okay axis?

I lean with Steph, but it's murky murky water.

I lean with Steph, but it's murky murky water.

Oh, hugely. I realize I'm being all dogmatic and black-and-white about it, and that's disingenuous. It *is* incredibly murky. And S&M and sexual violence are NOT mutually exclusive. I just feel that, in this week's episode, they weren't linked.

But. Yes. Very very murky.

I think it gets messy because a) sex is involved and b) BDSM is involved.

Yes, this. Because if I'm on a date with someone and, suddenly, find myself in handcuffs? Well, someone, who is not me, will find themselves at Cedars. Or possibly the Sheriff's office.

And the, "But I thought you'd be into it," excuse wouldn't wash with me.

And the, "But I thought you'd be into it," excuse wouldn't wash with me.

Would they be more in Cedars than if .. I don't know dogs were involved? I don't know how to phrase it -- is it that it's an unwanted mode of sexual expression (where you haven't even cleared up if there's to be any sex), or that it's one that involves you being restrained? I'm assuming that if he cuffed himself you'd just leave.