I was all set to yell "fake" when I read BRAHS letter... and then I changed my mind. Good luck to him.

What changed your mind, @1? While you answer, I'll be standing here in my corner yelling FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE.

Well I think Dan has a decent fake radar. BRAHS might be fake, but I'm sure Dan would have called with sarcasm and derision, both of which he is awesome at (and that's a compliment!).

Either way, speed bumps ahead!

BRAHS does sound fake, but I've heard of cousin-husbands swapping partners before which is close. They ended up remarrying each others wives. This is a similar situation, except the wives may run off together, so not so great for the BRAHS.

I'm almost positive that the makers of Yahtzee did not envision that exclamation being used to describe this situation. But perfectly done, Dan.

Putting I'm not an abuser, regardless of the specific wording and if you use a fancy new name for it, into a dating profile does not inspire confidence. Since the only person vouching for your non-abusiveness is you, it's not like it distinguishes the abusers from the non-abusers. And it just comes across as weird and creepy. Do you also put into your dating profile, "I am not a murderer. I really won't come up with a way to get you alone and then kill you if we meet." I mean, sure, people want to date non-murderers, and yet that declaration does not inspire confidence.

Thank you, Dan, and bravo for giving Yahtzee a whole new meaning to GGG!

Good luck to BRAHS, whether the quartet's situation is fake or not. Hopefully nothing turns irretrievably ugly between the sibs and couples.

BRAHS sentences 1, 2, and 3 read like a slow motion car crash, raising the dude...Dude...dUDe...DUDE! alert level factor in my head as it dawned on me what these brahs were up to. I wonder if they first considered any lower mortality activities like cave diving, grizzly snuggling, or wing suit base jumping before stepping up to the big boy stabby danger table?

What makes BRAHS seem fake? Not the least bit of embarrassment the morning after. Sure, booze is a lubricant that makes us do things we normally do, but waking up the next morning without a hangover and without regret? Nah, brah.

That, and it's so... concise. It sounds like it was written by a junior copywriter at Penthouse Forums.

@ 9 - A couple of years ago, I met a couple of gay brothers who like to do threesomes. A friend of mine was with them once. They never do anything sexual between the two of them, just with the third. They're really not attractive in any way (unless you like extremely thin guys with crooked noses and really bad teeth), but they do get laid a lot. So, unusual, guiltless near-incestual arrangements don't seem impossible to me.



The writing, though, is just too Penthousy, as you pointed out.

@ 3 - Isn't "It's in God's hands" sarcastic enough for you?

BRAHS & Co. should discuss what happens if one brother and the other wife want to have sex, and they should consider the possibility of unintended pregnancy. If they can't talk about that like adults, then they're playing with fire.

BRAHS fake? Have ya read some of the stuff that Dan put's out there from over his desk? Nothing surprises me two brothers their wife's kind of boring straight now a midget and a wilder beast in the mix I might think it a bit far fetched... but then again who am I to judge.

Dan says he's "never heard of an arrangement like this".... Hooray, I've finally heard of something Dan hasn't! At least approximately like this: I got to know two couples once (it was in a swinger-friendly environment) in which the wives were sisters. There was no male or female bisexual activity (so far as I know), but they did all play together and swap partners. I can't say if the arrangement "lasted" because I don't know when they started, but these four individuals were all in their late 50s/early 60s so it's fair to say there was some stability involved.

The Belt is a nice touch Joe.
No idea what the rest of the image is referencing, though.

Any discussion of Gomeshi is incomplete without this:
http://emiliathoughts.wordpress.com/2014…

Is anyone surprised to learn that the kind of guy who gets in this kind of trouble is also the kind of person who "hires" an unpaid intern to do his laundry and clean his house?

Who knows what's fake anymore? I swore that last week's SLLOTD about the husband who revealed himself to be almost a caricature of a sex-monster was fake, and it turned out to be real. As some dude a bit older than Dan said, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

But I have to say that the idea of having sex in close proximity to my sister and brother-in-law would NOT be my idea of a good time.

So how much commission did Jillian Keenan earn for this week's column?

@9: Concise? Possibly written from a tablet, or edited for publication.

Dear Penthouse Forum:

I never thought I would be writing you, since I always thought these letters were fake, but boy o boy was I in for a suprise last weekend! During some drinks with my 6'2 195# blond haired, blue eyed twin brother, (and best friend), he revealed to me that his wife, a part time ski instructor...
(etc)

@17 nocutename: I fully agree, as usual, with your comment. I cannot possibly imagine doing what BRAHS and their wives--good friends or not--consider having a good time, either.

Good luck to BRAHS' intermarried foursome, but I'll admit it sounds like their arrangement is a rolling oil train bomb waiting to explode, leaving behind countless billions in smoking wreckage.



Where's Xaviera Hollander when BRAHS needs her?!?

@20 - my thoughts on BRAHS exactly...if not, jeez these people are playing with fire!

@SPANKME will have zero trouble finding plenty of men happy to indulge her fetish at a munch...once she gets over how scary "those people" are and sits down.

Who said the spanking fetishist is a woman?

@6: Excellent point. When I read personal ads that say "I am funny" or "not a drama queen" I figure there's a pretty high probability that the opposite is actually the case.

And Dan's answer to BAD was perfect. What Ghomeshi has been doing isn't BDSM.

@16: Jesus this guy is a real piece of shit. "Is that all you care about, money?" to an UNPAID intern who was basically just providing him with free housekeeping? Unpaid internships need to be illegal, because they're bullshit.

@24: Presumably Dan, since Jillian refers to her as "she", "her", or "this lady" multiple times.

@wayne: So how much commission did Jillian Keenan earn for this week's column?

What makes you think Dan has to pay people to take his questions? Don't you think the promotion they get from appearing in his column, the inherent benefits of spreading good information on sexual health, and wanting to scratch the back of a famous friend are motivation enough?

If I had some expertise to share with Dan, I sure as hell wouldn't ask for money, nor would I expect it. Would you? Ok, then I guess you'll be keeping your expertise to yourself, asshole.

And why are you so fixated on something that really isn't any of your fucking business? Please, take the axe off the grindstone and find somewhere nice and cozy to stick it.

Per The Globe and Mail, Ghomeshi was fired before the story in the Toronto Star was published, not after. In short, he was fired for the wrong reason - his extensive documentation of his purportedly consensual BDSM relationships freaked out the-powers-that-be at the CBC - but it turned out that he absolutely deserved to be fired.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati…

A lot of people have an instinctual squick about the idea of fucking in front of their relatives, I think this is reflected in the pretty irrational comments here. Just because something weird has never happened to you, does not mean that is has never happened. Every call that Dan fields could be horseshit but it does not help the format to question all of them and require corroborating evidence.

@15, plug "obedire manu vermiculus" into Google Translate and select "Latin" in the source-language choices (otherwise it tries for Romanian and gets nothing). Don't know if it's grammatically correct or not, as written.

(I should have added "scire volunt omnes, mercedem solvere nemo.")

Oh, true or not, it makes us read every week, right? ;-) Admit it, we're all voyeurs here.

MY biggest concern...and the one that should be setting off 5 alarm fire bells in BRAHS head...is - What happens when this arrangement ends? All is well? Seems a VERY unlikely scenario. So my suggestion is: if you know you have a cold dead heart...and can actually survive the emotional fallout that is sure to accompany this scenario...the potential of never having the same relationship with your brother...the likelihood that you end up divorced....etc...then by all means.... knock yourself out. But eventually, the sexy side of this will disappear... and all you will be left with is the scarred burned hole in your life. The trouble with the sexy side disappearing is that it will not disappear for everyone simultaneously. So the 4 of you will NOT be on the same page. All that said...to each his own. Only you know if its all worth it to you.

Dan's assertion that Ghomeshi was "never one of us" reflects a mentality that does not help keep BDSM communities safe. Every time we say an abuser is "not one of us," we reinforce the idea that no one who is an accepted or established member of the scene can be an abuser. Sadly, this is not the case. While most kinksters are good people, there is a small set of individuals who, for a variety of reasons, continue to be included in community events despite incidences of abuse an consent violation. There is no substitute for vetting, even when your potential partner is "one of us."





I get where Dan is coming from. He's trying to avoid the stigma log attached to BDSM practitioners. However, his wording risks being misinterpreted as a reassurance that abusers do not lurk in our midst. They do. And every time we claim that someone like Ghomeshi is not one of us, we make it easier for the abusers in our midst to find victims.

Stigma being. Please forgive typos. Typed that on my phone.

Kinksters perhaps SHOULD reference Ghomeshi, just the way 'youth pastors' should reference Fred Phelps and Jim Jones. It isn't quite enough to say that they aren't 'true Scotsmen' AFTER their behavior blows up. Ghomeshi apparently passed for kosher in somebody's eyes.



As for the brothers? Dan's quote says the important stuff:

"the four of you were tight before your wives started fucking each other"



Tight? Shikkered, plowed, polluted, sloshed.... It does sound as though they've repeated the 'scene' with out being legless. Maybe, just maybe, this is a thing than can be workable. At least for a while. Being ready for the plan to fail is another unanticipated challenge. The Big One.

@35 thanks for posting. I agree that vetting is important, but it's important to remember that it's not infallible. People can do their best to vet, and still get hurt by some jerk.

$20 brahs' and his brothers' wife have been fucking for a long time and decided to see if it could go legit. Another $20 says neither wife works. A third $20 that they live in very close proximity (within 15min commute). Centres of galaxies are formed by smaller implosions than this will end with.

Why the assumption that the person with a spanking fetish is a woman who wants to be spanked? Why not a woman who wants to be the spanker? Or a man who wants to be spanked? The assumptions in the answer seemed kinda sexist to me.

"No wife swapping" adds a nice touch of verisimilitude. And the only adjective use to describe the wives or the letter writer was "incredible". And a better composed letter would have mentioned the wife was bi at the beginning, along with how all hung out together a lot and so on.

So pretty good fake letter. They know that liars always give too much detail. Of course these are edited before going into the column...

Kylecheez @#20

now THAT'S a classic Penthouse letter.

@40 Absolutely. I just think that every time we point to someone like Ghomeshi and say "Oh, he's not one of us, he's not a real BDSM player" we are copping out on keeping our community accountable. Just because someone is an established, respected member of a community doesn't mean they can't be an abuser. And Dan's comment could easily be read to suggest that "real" players can never be abusive. Consent can be difficult to negotiate, and consent violations happen. Even when "real" players are involved.

@30 genie1974: LOL--Yahtzee games aren't going to be the same for me, either!

No one is saying that Ghomeshi didn't claim to be in the BDSM scene or even that he didn't ever practice BDSM - Dan interviewed a woman who had a positive BDSM friends-with-benefits relationship with him for a few months. What Dan and others are saying is that with the other women what he was doing was abuse, not BDSM, and that it's important to keep that distinction clear.



Of course there are some abusers in the BDSM scene. But that doesn't make abuse a type of BDSM.

seems to me that debating whether a letter is fake or not is pointless. The point of a column like this is to offer advice for various scenarios. Who cares if it is fake or not? You can bet this scenario has played out in real life somewhere...

@50, I think what Forthepowderroom and I are trying to emphasize is that drawing a bright line between Ghomeshi and the BDSM scene is not super helpful for someone entering the scene and looking for partners.

Abusers don't wear signs around their necks to identify them. Some hang out in the scene, and look for partners there. And if they are powerful (like Ghomeshi), it's often hard for their victims to speak up about their experiences.

Training people on how abusers look like everyone else, and groom their potential partners by transgressing small boundaries and then larger and larger ones -- that can be more helpful than speaking as if there's a safe, consensual BDSM world where abusers don't exist.

OK, that's it.

I'm going over BRAH's house for Thanksgiving.

@55, do a video while you're there, eh? Then this" is it fake or not" can be put to rest. Make sure you see the brothers birth certificates, too.

@54 A good dom may be sadistic or dominating, but only in a purely consensual way. Any mind games, insults, belittling, hitting, etc. is done within the context of consensual scenes. It is not a factor in the relationship in general, except to the extent it is negotiated and consented to. Abusers violate boundaries without consent and attempt to manipulate without being explicit that that is what they are doing. So, while some people into BDSM may refer to some actions as "abuse" if they are into the term, there is a huge difference between consensual BDSM and abuse, whether that abuse is within the context of a BDSM relationship, a vanilla relationship, or any other context. It's kind of like saying you are into "non-rape sex", the non-rape is not a contradiction of sex, even though rape generally implies sex, sex does not imply rape. Dom does not imply abuse.

@58 When a person explicitly states she tells her daughters that their husbands should and will have sex with them whether they want to or not, then yes, an outsider can state that the children are being abused, because they are explicitly told that they should put up with being raped. There are some cases where it's hard to know if something is abuse or not. And I generally advocate being very careful when judging relationships from outside it. But when somebody goes around publicly claiming they abuse their kids and that they teach women to be abused in marriage, then it isn't a gray area or a tough call. How much more blatant could they be?

I am a radio listening person. My most listened to radio is CBC RadioOne and my best like shows includes "Q". I was a fan of Ghomeshi from the days that he was a guest host.





It is likely that he was the most popular CBC RadioOne hosts.





CBC did the right thing in firing him. Articles in the Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail and even The New York Times, reveal that there were other problems in the ways that he dealt with people, including the staff of Q.





I feel sorry for his ailing mother who is experiencing a triple wammy, first with the death of her long time husband (Jian's father), her own illness and now knowing that her son is not the person she must have assumed and, no doubt, been very proud of.

Oops, wrong thread. Umm, ignore everything I just said. I got mixed up. In that case, uh, I don't know why you asked me what you did.

Judging whether or not something is abuse is very difficult. I was just pointing out that wanting a dom is not wanting abuse and doms are not inherently abusers. Actually identifying who is and is not an abuser is a really tough call in practice. But it is unrelated to BDSM. Some abusers are into BDSM, some aren't. But abuse is orthogonal to BDSM.

Has anyone else heard the gaypegoating start up yet for Tuesday?

@54 (Hunter): I don't know if the distinction I'm drawing sounds too fine, but I understand it. For me (and I'm only speaking for myself here, and I'm not 100% and exclusively and always submissive--but that has more to do with who my partners are) there is a vast difference between abuse and BDSM, and a non-abusive dom not only exists, but is really the only kind of true dom there is.

I expect to submit, to be told what to do; I expect to be--sometimes--pushed beyond previous felt limits or set boundaries; I expect to experience pain; I expect to be degraded, humiliated, used; but I don't expect and have never in fact been abused.

Every- and anything that's been done to me or that I've been asked (or told) to do, has been done with my consent, and that consent is attained both explicitly and tacitly, verbally and nonverbally, but always unequivocally and unambiguously. I have never, for instance, been standing next to someone, or kissing him when he hauled off and punched me in the side of the head.

Doms check in with their subs, making sure that everything's okay. They may do so by telling the sub to repeat what the dom just told the sub s/he is going to do, or they may check in in other ways, but the minute that I use a safeword (or a safe gesture, because sometimes my mouth is being treated in a way that makes it impossible to speak) every dom I have ever known has stopped whatever he is doing or having me do. I have the right of refusal--always--even if I choose not to exercise it.

A true dom provides "aftercare," which means he is tender to his sub after having put him or her through intense physical and sometimes psychological experiences.

I know this isn't true for all dom/sub relationships/dynamics, but I'm not a sub 24/7, and the toppy/dommy men I date aren't toppy or dommy when they're not in the sexual realm. We're equals. Both of us understand that these are roles--perhaps core identities, but roles nevertheless--that we voluntarily take on in a sexual capacity. There isn't a power imbalance, but rather a power exchange and a symbiosis: without a bottom, one cannot top; the dom needs the sub. So it is possible to see the give-and-take or power--indeed, to reconceptualize what "power" is, through dom/sub interactions. There is enormous power in knowing that what you're doing is turning your dom on so much and there's strength in knowing that not everyone could or would take the humiliation or the pain that you're going through (or at least that's how I experience it).

My submission is a gift, freely given to someone who appreciates that it is a gift, who respects me. Neither I nor any man who's ever topped me has seen the fun in topping a doormat, and I don't want to hang around a controlling asshat.

From what I've read, Ghomeshi preyed mostly on younger women in positions far below his, socially and professionally. In other words, they weren't in any way equals; the women may have felt they couldn't refuse him, or they were flattered by the attention from someone so powerful and successful and older than them. Their submission wasn't voluntary (and it wasn't really obtained); their status was lower. This is a major difference.

Anyway, that's just my definition and my two cents, for what it's worth; other subs' mileage may vary.

If those two brothers are cute it isn't "creepy" it's fucking hot.

Hunter - Yes bdsm seems to encompass everything that could be violent about sex if done without consent. But this seems so quibbling because everything sexual could be violent if done without consent. I don't think it's the people who are attracted to violence that are abusers. I think it's the people who don't respect consent or preferences, who have the abusive streak. Bar brawlers are not real boxers, they're failed boxers. Ghomeshi failed domming.

@66 nocutename: What a great description. Thank you for that.

BRAHS letter isn't fake, I buy it 100%. Finally! Dan has put pen to paper and believes this display of sexuality is wrong.



In high school after a homecoming dance, my date's younger brother asked if the three of us would like to go for it. We all had fun that night, but we did keep it somewhat clean. I was too young or drunk to realize how creepy it was.



I’m amazed that open-minded, GGG, forward thinking readers, are saying “I don’t believe it, it’s fake!”

Hunter, that's not what I said, not at all.
I was responding to your post @54, in which you said: " Doesn't "non-abusive dom" sound oxymoronish? Doesn't the sub expect, want abuse?"
At that point, you hadn't brought up battered women.

And of course there are abusers in the BDSM community--I was not trying to deny that. There are abusers in every community and from every walk of life, as you point out. (For what it's worth, I'm not in "the BDSM community," nor any "scene." I can't speak to, for, or about any aspect of an organized community.) I was talking of my own experiences of BDSM, and how I don't feel abused even when the sex I'm having includes acts and elements that can obviously be abusive, that if taken out of context and performed without consent, would absolutely be abusive.

I didn't mean to invoke cultural imperialism; I meant to say that it's not always and only the acts in isolation that make them abuse per se, it's the context in which they occur. And that for me, anyway, as someone who seeks them out and has experienced those acts in the context of BDSM sex and a D/s relationship, I feel a distinction, in that I'm not abused.

I have no idea what goes on in the mind of a battered woman, nor why she stays with her batterer. I am sure that most of them are able to see the abuse as abuse, but hope that by changing their own behavior the abuse will stop. Maybe they stay because this is the kind of relationship that was modeled for them, and it's all they know, and they think it's probably what goes on behind most closed doors. Maybe they are afraid for their lives and the lives of their children if they leave. Maybe they try to rationalize by saying that it doesn't happen all that often, or only when he's been drinking, or only when he's really stressed out, or if they hadn't done ________, or . . . Maybe their church tells them it's for their own good and women are to submit to their husbands. I don't know.

But I do know that whatever the reason, it has nothing to do with the consensual behavior practiced in BDSM.

Isn't it Sunday morning over there?
Shouldn't you be getting ready for Church, Hunter?

@76: Thank you, LavaGirl, that was perfect! Now I have to wipe up all the coffee I spit on my computer screen . . .

@75 You dirty mistaken fucker. Gaypegoating actually refers to a line of crawling guys gaping the next with a mouth dildo, with a woman getting head at the head of the line. (Actually it was a guy but a girl can dream)

@76 LavaGirl for the win!! LOL! Thank you for making my Sunday!

@77 nocutename: Too bad I have already finished my caffeine intake for the day, or I would also be wiping spit up coffee from my computer screen.



Can U.S. women form our own separate Congress, House and Senate, now that the ones in D.C. got auctioned off to corporate pigs? Obviously, the only option left to hurt the GOP is take their crooked money away by bankrupting them.

Hey SPANK ME - Dark Oddysey is this upcoming weekend in SF - 11/14-11/16 . You might want to check it out. http://darkodyssey.com/

LOL I ironically did not find Brahs to be very strange at all. I've been in similar situations and it worked out fine.



There is a thing between the two women that is a secondary sexual relationship while being a primary BFF relationship and the two straight guys are best friends too whose primary relationship with their wives is reciprocated. Really no cause for trouble unless there is a new dynamic added to it or like if Dan says it ends badly. There would be no reason though that I can see that any of the relationships should conflict with any of the others.

I've heard enough people blaming marriage equality for the loss of control of the Senate that it would not surprise me if the FMA were to get the required majority after all.

I have a moral question for the group. The other day, I was referred to as "little f*" in public. Is it very wrong of me to take any consolation in being called little, when my waistline persistently refuses to go back to 32 again?

BRAHS was fake because it read like a beer ad. Drink and you'll get pussy and lesbian sex shows. (When has the media hinted it was possible to have more than one man for sexual service at a time). It was all about what rigid straight guys (brahs) brag about to other straight guys. They don't seem to brag about their partner coming until passing out, their prowess is about what a woman will do for them without reciprocation, and how often or willingly it happens. The less likely the man would be to reciprocate, the better bragging material, so this is perfect for rigidly straight guys.

@66 Nocute - There is enormous power in knowing that what you're doing is turning your dom on so much and there's strength in knowing that not everyone could or would take the humiliation or the pain that you're going through (or at least that's how I experience it).
Although I like a really horny guy and I can pretend it's all me and an ego boost, porn really has the same effect on them. It's very important for me to feel like I'm better than porn for a guy so this is not sufficient. But I must be better than porn when a guy spends time and effort getting to know what my body and mind like. They don't tend to do that as much with porn stars, as there is no need; I think some guys prefer porn and hooker masturbation-like sex for this reason. I don't choose to keep having sex with a guy unless it's better than masturbation. Also I don't appreciate difficulty in and of itself. So this is hard for me to imagine. I enjoy some sensations that others consider painful or would dislike, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

Hunter - Next you'll say the rape is a perfectly valid form of sex like Ghomeshi's behavior was a perfectly valid form of domming. And men have the nice tight spankable butts you can bounce a dime on. And it's more natural for women to call the shots in sex so they achieve orgasm/have fun and continue to do it. Men seem to understand women's bodies less than vice versa.

@Nocute: I might get where you're coming from. A hard-to-please guy requires lots of effort and that fosters intimacy. In a Romeo and Juliet, overcoming challenges way. Anyway, I can see the utility, I just prefer a different kind of attention for sexual satisfaction.

So, you got a special Belt, Hunter? Studded, no doubt.

@Philophile: Nothing as complicated or Romeo-and-Juliet-going. I already said I'm not part of any "scene," which means that I tend not to date men who are part of an organized BDSM community or scene either. So a lot of the guys I've dated have only ever fantasized about doing some of the things we do, or they've done them with only a few partners. When I'm with a guy who gets off on doing things that aren't so mainstream, and he's never or rarely found someone willing to accommodate him--let alone who likes it, for her own sake, too--and we're doing something (or I'm taking something) that I know not everyone does, I feel, in addition to the physical pleasure, a psychological thrill and a sense of power in fulfilling some desire of his that many people either couldn't or wouldn't be willing to fulfill.

This in addition to the ego boost that everyone who's with someone that clearly seems to be into the sex with them feels.

My point was only about the power in being submissive, and the strength in submitting to physical pain and psychological humiliation.

@NoCute-
I disagree that there's any inherent strength in submission. What you are describing is very familiar, finding uncommon common interests is huge to me although I dislike orders and degradation. The uncommon places I like are different, and when I find someone on the same page it feels more like a stable match than powerful. If you actually enjoy it I don't see how it can be a powerful sacrifice. Whatever gets you off of course, but this particular desire is not superior to others.

There's strength in accepting your desires and learning to fulfill them, or negotiating them well with someone else. But that's not a D/s thing.

@Philophile: This isn't a competition and we're not vying for the title of "superiority of desire."

I was giving my perspective, back @66 in direct response to a question asked @54, in relation to the issue of whether Jian Gohmeshi's brand of "BDSM" is like other forms of it as it is often practiced.
I tried to describe MY OWN FELT/LIVED EXPERIENCE of what would look, to others from the outside, perhaps, as abuse, and say how I think it differs from actual abuse. One of those ways is that I experience a sense of power in my submission.

You seemed to want clarification @84 and 86, and I tried to give it to you. I wasn't trying to compare people's sexual experiences and responses and promote one over the other.

But when I willingly submit to pain (last week I had clothespins all over my upper arms, breasts, both sets of labia, clit, and tongue, the bruises of which still haven't faded), pain which many people wouldn't appreciate, pain which the man who inflicted it on me said he couldn't tolerate, and it not only turns me on, but I get turned on seeing how excited it makes him to do that to me and that I let him do that to me, I experience a feeling of power.

I'm not trying to compare my responses to yours; I was trying to suggest that whatever the women Ghomeshi assaulted felt, I very much doubt it was a sense of power.

"My point was only about the power in being submissive, and the strength in submitting to physical pain and psychological humiliation. "

I disagree there's inherent power in submissiveness, any more than in any other type of consensual sex. I'm not attacking you, but I am disagreeing.

If it makes you feel powerful, awesome. But there is no objective power in submissiveness if you have no strong preferences about it.

@Hunter, do you seriously think that these women felt intensely desirable after he punched them in the head? From reading their stories, they seem to have felt stunned, both literally and figuratively -- they didn't feel sexy, and they didn't (most of them) go back for another round of being punched in the head.

Philo, I don't read nocute is saying there is inherent power in submissiveness.
I'm reading, that for her, when in these scenarios, she feels power.
" I experience a sense of power in being submissive" is NOT saying
" There is inherent power in submissiveness. "

That's not what the quote I keep addressing said. But if she's saying subbing is powerful to her cause she likes it, that I can applaud. As for convincing Hunter of the power of clearly obtained consent, that's a lost cause. If you don't try it, it's hard to understand why it works unless you have good social skills. But you don't have to understand it as long as you respect the law.

If she's trying to say that you can identify abuse by noting how powerful or powerless you feel, I'd disagree with that too. Sex abuse is about neglecting to obtain consent, and a power imbalance (vulnerabilities like naivette, poverty, mental illness) can contribute but isn't directly related.

The woman who wrote to Dan felt respected and probably powerful. But it was due more to accidentally compatible desires than Ghomeshi ethically obtaining consent in Dan's opinion, and in mine as well.

This might be a good rule of thumb for consent- someone who's decent at consent can verbally request any sex they participate in, and gracefully accept no for an answer. Someone who's talented at consent approaches new things slowly and can sniff out a possible "no" from body language, voice inflections etc, far before the reluctant partner needs to say it.