Thoughts on The Secretary (huge spoilers inside!).

sunstruck

Super Jewess
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Posts
26,888
Ok, so I watched this film the other night and there was something about it that bothered me.

At the begining of the film this woman is a cutter. Now when I was volunteering at the youth center we had several seminars (for the councelors and volunteers, not the kids) about cutting. Without getting too clinical about it, it's basically when someone purposefully causes themselves physical pain (often by cutting shallow slices in their skin). The idea is that the external pain is, a distraction from internal pain. Cuts heal, it's a pain that they can deal with, something they can control as opposed to whatever they are suffering mentally and emotionally.

So this character has just gotten out of a psychiatric hospital for her disorder and she goes right back to it. Then she starts working for this man who becomes her "dom". She no longer cuts herself because he told her not to. She is now obsessed with following his orders, with being subjected to his dicipline. She needs it. She purposefully makes mistakes she knows will result in him punnishing her.

He is also obsessed. He can't control his need to dominate her. He can't stop himself.

So at the end of the movie they are a couple. She has proven her love by sitting at his desk (by his order) until he comes and gets her - three days later. She has peed herself, been humiliated in front of everyone she knows. She has gained a little spunk though, pulling herself from her mother's thumb and
willfully ditching her unwanted fiancee.

The end scene is the woman and her dom, now husband living happily in the suburbs. The film leaves you with the idea that the once mousey cutter is now strong and healthy and completely in control of her life. Just another happy couple living in suburbia.

This is the part I have a problem with. She's basically just traded one masochistic behavior for another. She's still relishing in physical pain, whether she's causing it with her own hand or forcing the hand of another (she is in control in the sense that she does things to "make" him punnish her and she doesn't allow him to "free" her from the relationship). She is still in the grips of an obsessive and masochistic behavior that she can't break free of.

In my opinion, the happy ending is nothing of the sort and I was wondering if anyone else who has seen the film, had any thoughts about the ending.
 
brokenbrainwave said:
wathing cheap french porn at 10AM? Seriously, seek help.

Umm no. lol It is neither porn, nor French. I saw a lot of raving for it at the IFA's and was curious.

Plus James Spader is a sexy bitch. Though not in this film.
 
It's one that I haven't but would have liked to have seen. I don't watch that many movies and my taste and hubbies are so very different that I miss out on a lot of the ones I'd like to see. I'm glad you enjoyed it and based on your post and assessment of it, I can see where the 'happy ending' would seem questionable.
 
PepperminTrish said:
I'm glad you enjoyed it and based on your post and assessment of it, I can see where the 'happy ending' would seem questionable.

I wouldn't say so much that I enjoyed it. It was interesting though.
 
I haven't seen it, but from what I've read, and from your description here, I'm not sure if the filmmakers were trying for a "happy" ending so much as a sardonic ending.
 
Yeah... I didn't like how she implied that they gave it up at the end.

Why did you give away so much?
 
Although you bring up something I've always wondered --

Your description of "Cutting" as a neurotic way for her to create external pain she can deal with to bury the internal pain she can't, and how subsitutes submissiveness for cutting, is interesting. I've always felt that Dom/Sub relationships that involve pain and/or humiliation have more to do with internal psychological problems than getting "turned on". There's a line, of course -- people who like the occassional handcuff or rough sex or to be called a "bitch" in bed are not Section-8s, and there's something downright sexy about fantasy play, and I'm sure there are plenty of Kittens with Whips who are perfectly Grade A. But the uber-extreme dungeon nipple clamp sitting at a desk for three days because he told you to acolytes have, in my not so humble opinion, deep psychoglcal issues that they're avoiding, and should be lying on a couch, not suspended above a candle. In other words, I think chronic boot licking is more about the internal pain than the external pleasure, and they should all be handed Dr. Phil's phone number.
 
Dixon Carter Lee said:
I haven't seen it, but from what I've read, and from your description here, I'm not sure if the filmmakers were trying for a "happy" ending so much as a sardonic ending.

You're probably right. But I'm not entirely sure. The more I think about it, the more I can see how that could be. I don't think I would have seen it from that point of view though without someone pointing out the possibility.
 
Dixon Carter Lee said:
Although you bring up something I've always wondered --

Your description of "Cutting" as a neurotic way for her to create external pain she can deal with to bury the internal pain she can't, and how subsitutes submissiveness for cutting, is interesting. I've always felt that Dom/Sub relationships that involve pain and/or humiliation have more to do with internal psychological problems than getting "turned on".

I totally agree. There is a huge difference between being aroused when your partner tells you what to do in bed and soiling yourself in a chair because he told you not to move until he got back.

That was what I found so interesting about the film, that they protrayed her as having issues right off the bat instead of trying to take some innocent, mentally stable young thing and suddenly spark her interest in pain and submission. This seemes A LOT more realistic.

It's just that a lot of the reviews I read claimed that she found strength and freedom in the situation and I didn't see that at all. Giving into an unhealthy obsession isn't strength.


Spinaroonie said:
Yeah... I didn't like how she implied that they gave it up at the end.

Why did you give away so much?

I warned in the title that there were major spoilers.

Also I didn't think there was an implication that they gave it up. Especially since she threw the roach on the perfectly made bed, implying that she wanted him to punish her again.
 
sunstruck said:
I totally agree. There is a huge difference between being aroused when your partner tells you what to do in bed and soiling yourself in a chair because he told you not to move until he got back.

That was what I found so interesting about the film, that they protrayed her as having issues right off the bat instead of trying to take some innocent, mentally stable young thing and suddenly spark her interest in pain and submission. This seemes A LOT more realistic.

It's just that a lot of the reviews I read claimed that she found strength and freedom in the situation and I didn't see that at all. Giving into an unhealthy obsession isn't strength.
<snip>

So Sunstruck, using your psychological expertise, where is the line which differentiates those who enjoy a healthy relationship with a little kink and those that are symptomatic of a deeper problem. I can easily see a more closeminded person than you saying "enjoying being told what to do is a sign of low self-esteem and self-image and confidence problems."

Those two situations are actually very similar in that the act of submitting is the psychological turn-on. So where do you draw the line? By your logic, a playful spanking is just as symptomatic of a psychological problem.

To be honest, I find it amusing that both you and DCL are so quick to label something that you don't enjoy as a psychological problem. That is the same argument that was (and still is) used by people to explain homosexuality. Perhaps you can get together with KillSwitch to discuss how to clasify the various sexual preferences and identify the psychological problems that they are suffering from.

I often wonder why it is necessary to try and denigrate others who have different sexual preferences, either from a moral or psychological standpoint?

I think it is far better to embrace sexuality, in it's various forms than repress it or condemn it.
 
Relax, Zip. I gave plenty of leeway to people who find sexual pleasure in deviance in my post, and made a distinction between that and what I deem psychologically troubling. Don't take every other word of what I say and start a Crusade. You're overreacting to something no one actually said. Everyone does that every day on the net. Don't be like Mike.
 
Zipman, is this one of the posts where you tell me you weren't trying to be insulting or superior but just making a point?

I don't recall making any statement about BSDM in general at all. What I did do was state an opinion about a character in a MOVIE. And yes, I do have a right to judge and state my opinion on that character. That's why people make movies.

As to my comment that there is a huge difference between enjoying a little direction in bed and pissing your pants because your "dom" told you not to move for three days, I think it would be far more narrow minded to say that there is no difference than to see that there is.

Have you seen the movie? I don't recall you mentioning it at all in your post. Or did you just come in here to slap another label on me?
 
sunstruck said:
Zipman, is this one of the posts where you tell me you weren't trying to be insulting or superior but just making a point?

I don't recall making any statement about BSDM in general at all. What I did do was state an opinion about a character in a MOVIE. And yes, I do have a right to judge and state my opinion on that character. That's why people make movies.

As to my comment that there is a huge difference between enjoying a little direction in bed and pissing your pants because your "dom" told you not to move for three days, I think it would be far more narrow minded to say that there is no difference than to see that there is.

Have you seen the movie? I don't recall you mentioning it at all in your post. Or did you just come in here to slap another label on me?

DCL - my bad. I saw what Sunstruck quoted and did not read your entire post. You are absolutely right.

Sunstruck - Yes I did see the movie and no, I was not coming to slap another label on you.

However, while you are discussing the movie, you are also making comments about BDSM as a whole.

sunstruck said:
Giving into an unhealthy obsession isn't strength.

The way I read this comment you made, the unhealthy obsession is either masochism or submission. If that is not accurate, I am curious what you did mean by it.

Another reason that I felt that you were being negatively judgemental of BDSM was how you viewed the movie.

sunstruck said:
That was what I found so interesting about the film, that they protrayed her as having issues right off the bat instead of trying to take some innocent, mentally stable young thing and suddenly spark her interest in pain and submission. This seemes A LOT more realistic.

This post asserts that you find it more believable for a person with psychological issues to embrace BDSM than a mentally stable woman. My biggest criticism with the movie was that they felt the need to make her a woman with problems. I have met many wonderful, strong mentally healthy and stable women who were into BDSM.

I agree that there are differences between being told what to do in bed and sitting in a chair for three days until you soil yourself. They are both extremes on a continuum of submission, and I believe my question as to where you draw the line on that continuum to be a valid one. At what point does it become indicative of a "psychological problem?"

As to being insulting and condescending, you're right, I was. It was more a reaction to the many posts I have seen on this board that do assert that BDSM is a symptom of psychological issues, which I believe to be both untrue and close minded. However, if that is not what you are saying, then I do apologize for insulting you.
 
zipman7 said:
However, while you are discussing the movie, you are also making comments about BDSM as a whole.

You may choose to see it that way, but I was only commenting on the film.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sunstruck
Giving into an unhealthy obsession isn't strength.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The way I read this comment you made, the unhealthy obsession is either masochism or submission. If that is not accurate, I am curious what you did mean by it.

Again, you are reading too much into my comments. I was refering to the obsession of the character in the film ONLY. Her's WAS unhealthy in my opinion.

you find it more believable for a person with psychological issues to embrace BDSM than a mentally stable woman.

I find it more believable for a person with psychological problems to embrace the extreme situation she embraced and with such an obsessive need.


At what point does it become indicative of a "psychological problem?"

I believe it becomes a problem when you can't function properly without it. When he turned her away she started to break down again. She couldn't walk away from the situation and remain stable. Also when you are willing to go to any extreme to feed your adiction: she made it quite clear she would have sat there till she starved to death. That is indicitive of a psychological problem.

As to being insulting and condescending, you're right, I was. It was more a reaction to the many posts I have seen on this board that do assert that BDSM is a symptom of psychological issues, which I believe to be both untrue and close minded. However, if that is not what you are saying, then I do apologize for insulting you.

It wasn't what I was saying, and I think it would have been great if you could have read and responded to my posts based on their content alone and not chosen to insult and belittle me because of what others have said. Apology accepted.
 
Last edited:
Sunstruck,

I now see understand your position. Thank you for your thorough reply and for accepting my apology.

zip
 
I saw this movie last night.

It was good.

B+

To answer Sunny's question though, I have no idea what the connection between cutting and true masochism is. In my limited experience cutting is a function of an earlier (many times sexual) wound.

I'm not sure if getting spanked, humiliated, and dommed would "solve" the problem.
 
Back
Top