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.
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.
Yes, this was what I was trying to say.
Plus, this:
Did you know that Dude was into S&M? Rebecca did. If you knew, were you curious about it? Rebecca was.
is still our supposition, not an established truth...and more importantly, certainly not something discussed directly between the two of them.
Also, I say again,
she was the FBI agent investigating a rape/murder!
She was also the FBI agent who let him kiss her.
I'm thinking here. He had those cuffs for BDSM purposes, sure. But randomly cuffing ANY person, for any purpose - would that not just be assault? What I'm saying is, I know we can't overlook the sex here, but if a person were to say, "But there WAS no sex, so he's ok!" couldn't you say, "But there WAS assault, any way you look at it, so he's not."?
Also, I am interested in speculation on the fact that these were all powerful businesswomen that he played with. If I were going to read something unpleasant into the episode, I think that might be it - if I were looking for things - that there's some indication that women who are powerful outside the bedroom particularly enjoy the switch of feeling (though not being) powerless inside it.
not an established truth...
She *didn't* know he was into S&M? She *wasn't* curious?
Okay, I'll grant that maybe she wasn't curious, but by asking him about it, she was, at the very least, gave the appearance of being curious.
there's some indication that women who are powerful outside the bedroom particularly enjoy the switch of feeling (though not being) powerless inside it.
I've seen the same implication about powerful men many many times.
If I were going to read something unpleasant into the episode, I think that might be it - if I were looking for things - that there's some indication that women who are powerful outside the bedroom particularly enjoy the switch of feeling (though not being) powerless inside it.
Why do you think that's unpleasant? And that's a sincere question, not a challenge.
