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.

I have to side with Jessica on this one. Rebecca was not there on a date. She was not someone he had met at a club and made arrangements to meet for play later. She was a Special Agent for the FBI in the middle of an investigation. Yes, it was likely not intentional and was likely a case of poor judgement, but IMO that does not mitigate the fact that it was still sexual assault. When it comes right down to it, S&M and all bondage and domination games are about trust. Like Rebecca said early on, it's commonly accepted that the sub is the one with the real power because they can stop the game at any time. Mixed signals or not, the rules had not been set between these two, and Rebecca certainly didn't trust Brandt. Rape without intent ("I thought she wanted it!") is still rape, poor judgement or not. Likewise, sexual assault is still assault. YBMV, yes, but I think that the two partners must both consent before it's consensual, especially if real or mock violence is involved.

Or if he cuffed his pants.