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.

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.

Most professional female doms report that their clientele is largely high powered professional men. I don't think that's a stretch or sexist. I think the dynamic is that many subs are looking for an outlet to release control.

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.

You could also read that this arrogant prick enjoyed dominating successful women.

She wasn't there on a date, she was there in an official capacity. She showed extremely poor judgement in letting him kiss her (actually she showed really poor judgement all around -- go over there and all).

But Brandt also showed extremely poor judgement becuase she wasn't there on a date, he didn't get any kind of consent from her, he just made assumptions and acted on them and was wrong.

Even if she hadn't had flipped out what he did was still wrong.

Steph, I don't know why it bugged me. It just did.

But I like ita's reading, and I think it is the one I shall take from now on.

ETA:

First, a disclaimer - I am very sleepy, so if I make even less sense than usual, that is why.

Second, on further thought - I think the reason it bothered me a little was that somewhere some time I have heard something about "all women" having a rape fantasy, and I hate "all" anything statements. All of them. (All absolutes are false, including this one, hardy har har har.) I think that common thread among the women touched my "all" button (hmmmm. we'll leave that alone). I assume you all know how it is - we all have things that bug us, and we sometimes see them when they're not really there, because we're kind of looking for them.

he didn't get any kind of consent from her, he just made assumptions and acted on them and was wrong

Was he wrong to kiss her? Was that assumption incorrect too? Or did he make two assumptions, one of which was wrong?

Don't get me wrong -- all the way from the kiss I figured it was way out of line. Rebecca was less clear (judging from the lack of her yelling "No! Don't! Gross! SPECIAL AGENT HERE!" like I was).

I just realized I sure used "all" a lot in my complaints about "all."