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.

Because if I'm on a date with someone and, suddenly, find myself in handcuffs?

Yeah, but -- that scenario leaves some questions unanswered. Did you know that Dude was into S&M? Rebecca did. If you knew, were you curious about it? Rebecca was.

Now, had Rebecca punched Brandt in the throat once he freed her, I'd say good for her.

Wait -- that fits the Cedars-Sinai scenario. Fair enough.

Or if he cuffed his pants.

That's just sick and wrong, man. Pants can't consent!

Or....what kind of crazy Hollywood pants are you wearing these days?

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?

If it's dogs, I can pretty much get up and walk out. But if you've restrained me, you've taken away my ability to do that. And, frankly, I'm not sure my brain would immediately go to a, "Oh this person is a bad top," place. More like, "Omigod, I just had dinner with Angelo Buono."

I'm assuming that if he cuffed himself you'd just leave.

I might take pictures first. Just so I could show you guys.

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.

FWIW, this is not how I understand "the real power" accruing to a sub. It's not the ability to stop the game - that's a safeword, a mechanism. It is the more complex dynamic that the sub gives the dom power. The shift in the power dynamic is under the sub's control.

FWIW, this is not how I understand "the real power" accruing to a sub. It's not the ability to stop the game - that's a safeword, a mechanism. It is the more complex dynamic that the sub gives the dom power. The shift in the power dynamic is under the sub's control.

Well, yes. I was just going with the explanation provided. But by "stop the game" I don't just mean a safe word--I'm referring more to the entire game of sub vs. dom.