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.

I know nothing about BDSM. This is the most I've ever heard (read) it discussed. Now I'm afraid to watch the episode. I think it might be a squicker, for me. Is it squickly?

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.

It's kinda both, really. Because the sub does give their power up to the dom, but can always say stop at any time.

Like the cars driving instructors use that have a brake pedal on the passenger side for the instructor to use if need be. The instructor gives the student control of the car, but can literally hit the brakes at any time.

Not being able to say stop and have it mean stop is *not* power. (Which I realize you weren't saying.)

I think it might be a squicker, for me. Is it squickly?

It's not any squickier than some things I know you've seen. I thought the episode was really fascinating (even if all the parts didn't exactly work for me). It's an interesting subject--proven by the interesting discussion here.

Is it squickly?

I didn't find it squickly, but it is emotionally disturbing at times.

Did you know that Dude was into S&M? Rebecca did. If you knew, were you curious about it? Rebecca was.

But I still don't think that excuses it or, honestly, even mitigates it. If my hypothetical date likes skydiving and I say, "Oh that sounds cool. Tell me more." I doubt that would lead to the assumption that it's okay to toss me out of plane without my consent after creme brulee.