• ~ Secretary ~

    1248736677
    Morbidia [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 686
    • Joined: 25 Jan 2007

    And SL. i think its the case of people stop SHing for different reasons, i stopped as i found someone who loved me, so i think its not necessarily something that has to be done for you or by you, but having an external influence can make you realise certain things, that you sometimes cant on your own, some people need that external thing, others find the power within themselves to stop x x x

    1248737036
    OperationFilth [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 522
    • Joined: 12 Oct 2008

    sweetlove666 wrote:

    to be honest i loved the moviewhen i first saw it, it was my first introduction to the sub.dom relationships . but thinking about it now the consent thing is an issue

    re replacing the SI (self injury) with another kind of pain, she was vunerable when they had the first encounter. for quite a few people (me included) when you cant get to your "kit" to SI you just used whatever you had ( i used to cut/burn/ hair pull/take medicines and all sorts), and sometimes youre that vinerable that you just want someone to love you, in any way or form.

    yes it is liberating to say enough is anough with SI/SH but its got to be done for you and not someone else.

    But that's the thing though, i didnt read it as her stopping for him - more that he liberated her enough and she then stopped because she didnt need it anymore.

    if you remember, there is part of it where theyre not together and she keeps looking for people to dom her..

    Morbidia wrote:

    And SL. i think its the case of people stop SHing for different reasons, i stopped as i found someone who loved me, so i think its not necessarily something that has to be done for you or by you, but having an external influence can make you realise certain things, that you sometimes cant on your own, some people need that external thing, others find the power within themselves to stop x x x

    Id already stopped pretty much before i got with my gorgeous OH but he gives me the strength not to go back to it i think, not in that im doing it 'for him' but rather knowing i am loved and cherished by him grants me the strength to stop myself from returning to it.

    1248737862
    Morbidia [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 686
    • Joined: 25 Jan 2007

    And LF, i was the same, i saw it as her being liberated by him, by the end of it, she was a smart sexy woman, who knew what she wanted,and she fought fot it.

    And im the same, knowing im loved, gives me strength x x x

    1248740649
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    I've seen it but forgot most of it.

    LivingFire wrote:

    Ive always thought James Spader has something about him anyway, and in Secretary it really doesn't hurt (unintentional pun there) that he's dominant and spanky... heh.

    As for the whole consent issue... I don't know, I've always viewed it as the first time it wasn't consentual (which is a bit... dodgy - but again poetic license) but the ones after that, as i see it were - most of the time she was actively trying to get him to 'punish' her! (The errors, the worm anyone?!)

    I have to say as a film, I loved it.. I could easily watch it again in fact! Might well do that later! (But then again maybe not, always makes me a bit on the horny side... lol)

    From what I do remember I agree with LF's post more so than some of the others.

    I think it does become consentual and before is ambiguous.

    I disagree with Lubyanka "So here is one of only a tiny few mainstream examples of kink, and they just had to have significant transgressions of consent, as if this wasn't already a problem which is steroetyped?"

    I don't think it did have significant transgressions of consent. Maybe I don't understand 'kinkiness' being pretty vanilla, for me consent does not have to be explict it is mostly implied. I don't tend to get explict permission for sex from my girlfriend but that doesn't in anyway at all mean it's not consentual. She could of walked out or refused or at least not went back if she felt violated, because she didn't I'm led to believe she consented.

    And I agree even more so with LF.... I really want to give a good spanking during/after that film!

    1248741031
    OperationFilth [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 522
    • Joined: 12 Oct 2008

    Although I will add that legally, consent is never deemed as being implied, afaik... But IRL, of course it is! I don't say to my bf "i want to have sex with you" every time we do - it just happens. I think realistically a moderate view of consent can be taken to be agreement with the situation, and like it said above, she didnt *have* to go along with it. Though I can see that on the other hand, it could also be argued that she didnt have the strength to do so for fear of losing her first and only job... Still though I am firmly of the opinion that while in the first instance, consent could be questioned, in the latter ones it's fairly explicit- she even encourages the behaviour.

    But yes, if i'd had my way, after that film, i'd have had a very red arse! Sadly, I didn't. :(

    boohissboo.

    1248741821
    Lubyanka [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 879
    • Joined: 9 Jan 2007

    WandA wrote:

    I disagree with Lubyanka "So here is one of only a tiny few mainstream examples of kink, and they just had to have significant transgressions of consent, as if this wasn't already a problem which is steroetyped?"

    I don't think it did have significant transgressions of consent. Maybe I don't understand 'kinkiness' being pretty vanilla, for me consent does not have to be explict it is mostly implied. I don't tend to get explict permission for sex from my girlfriend but that doesn't in anyway at all mean it's not consentual. She could of walked out or refused or at least not went back if she felt violated, because she didn't I'm led to believe she consented.

    Cooperation does not mean consent. If a boss orders an employee to do something, an employee is in quite a different position to a girlfriend. If an employee refuses she could lose her job. A girlfriend has no such risk. This is part of the abuse of power in the employer/employee relationship in this film which bothers me.

    It seemed quite clear to me that Lee only cooperated but did not consent to that first spanking. Add in the job hierarchy and to me that spells abuse. Because of my issues with consent, I cannot enjoy a story in which a relationship is built on such a foundation.

    1282868863
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    *New film*

    The lead in Secretary is starring in a new film about 'hysteria'.

    Thought you kinkies at the OA would like to know!

    1282868894
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    WandA wrote:

    *New film*

    The lead in Secretary is starring in a new film about 'hysteria'.

    Thought you kinkies at the OA would like to know!

    Doh!

    http://www.buzzsugar.com/Maggie-Gyllenhaal-Hugh-Dancy-Star-Hysteria-About-Invention-Vibrator-10407352

    1282870267

    [suspended user]

    suspended user
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2373
    • Joined: 30 Oct 2008

    is it any good ?

    1282870695
    jackador123 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 545
    • Joined: 3 Sep 2009

    Why have I never heard of this film till today?!

    1282870823
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    It's interesting... some funny scenes some not so funny. It's just different and explores something many people have a curiosity for. I'd watch it again.

    1282908109
    chels18 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 217
    • Joined: 18 May 2010

    I like the film!!! "Dear Sirs....." smack. Ohhh lala!! Infact, I may even watch it now and watch the extra's too!!

    1282908686
    shellyboo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 825
    • Joined: 16 Apr 2008

    Secretary was the main tool in my seduction of my partner. Very cute and embarrassing story, actually :)

    1282908885
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    shellyboo wrote:

    Secretary was the main tool in my seduction of my partner. Very cute and embarrassing story, actually :)

    Do share then.

    1282911079
    shellyboo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 825
    • Joined: 16 Apr 2008

    WandA wrote:

    shellyboo wrote:

    Secretary was the main tool in my seduction of my partner. Very cute and embarrassing story, actually :)

    Do share then.


    Well, it's a bit of a long one, so bear with me.

    Back in January, there was a big night out for a friend's leaving party -- but Dublin was completely snowed in! So to make sure that he could come to the party and drink and not have to drive home in the snow and ice, I offered my friend the sofa for the night. Didn't have any ulterior motives at that stage, it was all very innocent! He accepted and we swapped numbers just in case.

    On the day of the party, he called me as I was getitng ready to see if we were "still on" for later, and asking if I wanted to grab a bite to eat beforehand... and then it dawned on me that while my intentions were innocent, his were not :P

    Off we went to the party, flirting ensued. Lots of flirting, including fishnet fondling, lol. We ended up coming home instead of going on to a club (the rest of my mates were going somewhere I hate), and I suggested we put on a DVD.

    "What do you want to watch?" says he. "Oh, I don't mind," says I, "what do you fancy?". He insisted that I pick, and my mischevious streak came to the fore.

    "Well I've never seen THIS one", I said, picking Secretary out of the rack -- which was true! My mate had given me the DVD (second hand) and I'd never gotten around to watching it. "Oh, me either" he said... "what's it about?"

    "Er... not sure!" says I, and stuck it on. We snuggled up under a blanket and as the kink unfolded, we got closer and closer... til it was bedtime. And he didn't sleep on the sofa that night ;)

    The funny thing is, the DVD was skipping like mad, so I had to take it out to clean it -- and it was all scratched! Which made my "I've never watched this before" claim seem like a total lie! He delighted in teasing me about it for weeks and weeks and weeks, that it was a calculated attempt to seduce him and corrupt him... until he told me that HE'D SEEN IT BEFORE TOO! He was just too embarrassed to say so on the night cos the only bits he could remember were the spanking and the masturbation scenes :D But that me choosing it helped him figure out that I liked him too, and gave him the courage to make a move... thankfully!

    Isn't it funny the knots we tie ourselves in when we fancy someone?! :P

    1282911546
    puss [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 59
    • Joined: 13 Apr 2009

    I really loved watching The Secretary. Thought it was a main stream version of a kink though. Have to say never thought before about the consent aspect of this film.

    If she really hadn't wanted to she would have given up the job don't you think?

    Just seen a new item for hysteria looks good. Amazes me that in Victorian times women would go to the drs for treatment of hysteria and he used a vibe on you. Imagine the queues if that was today!

    1282913017
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    Lovely story Shelly!

    Although somtimes those raging hormones make you miss the end. :/

    I still don't know what the film was when I got my first blowjob!

    1287512931
    Despina Rose [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2582
    • Joined: 18 Apr 2010

    Watched the secretary last night.

    I like it but I dont if that makes sense.

    Like:

    • A good portrayal of s/d relationships and the struggle behind them
    • Very sexy
    • Well written

    Dislike:

    • The whole employee/employer relationship
    • The 3 day thing is a big downfall for me.

    I dont believe the 3 day thing would work because:

    • As she had to pee she would have a serious rash after 3 days, her skin would most likely be bleeding as well.
    • 3 days without drink is a very serious thing and would likely mean hospitalization.
    • She would have needed to poo as well so the dress would be an complete mess.

    If he honestly cared for her he wouldnt have expected her to wait 3 days. A day yes, but not 3. 3 days is very serious to health, s/d relationships are supposed to be about true caring, 3 days isnt caring!

    1287516228
    BashfulBabe [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 716
    • Joined: 24 Apr 2010

    I love the film, but it's more a humourous vanilla-friendly version of the whole D/s thing. It did achieve one major plus, which was to bring the scene to the public realm and make it seem acceptable: he wasn't forcing her, or brainwashing her, it was something whe wanted and no matter how much he tried to give her ways out or push her away, she stuck it out. The three days thing was more symbolic of that: she was willing to do whatever it took to prove that this was what she wanted, even knowing that he might never concede to let her be his. And he did take care of her after her ordeal, which is a lot closer to the D/s way of caring, since no matter what pains or danger she went through, it was all her own choice, she wasn't bound in any way but through her own desire, and he made it better when she'd gone through it.

    I think that's what it was trying to prove: that despite her being the submissive, she was strong and could take more than he was willing to have her endure; and while he was the Dominant, he was the one struggling with his conscience and trying to keep her away from him. Might not be completely true to life in the possibilty sense, at least not for most people, but as a representation of the principles of the lifestyle it was immense.

    1287516751
    WandA [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6178
    • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

    MasqueradeMinx wrote:

    Watched the secretary last night.

    I like it but I dont if that makes sense.

    Like:

    • A good portrayal of s/d relationships and the struggle behind them
    • Very sexy
    • Well written

    Dislike:

    • The whole employee/employer relationship
    • The 3 day thing is a big downfall for me.

    I dont believe the 3 day thing would work because:

    • As she had to pee she would have a serious rash after 3 days, her skin would most likely be bleeding as well.
    • 3 days without drink is a very serious thing and would likely mean hospitalization.
    • She would have needed to poo as well so the dress would be an complete mess.

    If he honestly cared for her he wouldnt have expected her to wait 3 days. A day yes, but not 3. 3 days is very serious to health, s/d relationships are supposed to be about true caring, 3 days isnt caring!

    Hmmmm, bit too literal in the interpretation I think MM. Most films are generally unrealistic to some extent and I'm one of those annoying types who does point hem out when I notice but you just have to look past them if you're going to enjoy it.

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.