102 réponses à ce sujet

[Peekimon]

Agree with OP, I loved it. It was funny, delightfull and also very comfortable to watch. I guess because we really get the idea of feelings between the Iron bull and Inqui, it wasnt just dull and edgy - well done!

[FadelessRipley]

So why do some people complain about Bull but not about Isabella? She's into BDSM and is also always the dominant one.
 
Anders: Sometimes, I think you have the right idea.
 
Isabela: Handcuffs, whipped cream, always be on top?

 

 

Restraints and always on top? Sounds exactly like Bull. But for some reason, no one ever complained about her. Is it because she's a woman and thus not as threatening or intimidating as a 7 foot tall wall of muscle with massive horns, so no one thought of her as being able to truly be dominant like they think he could be? Hell, there's even a bit of a food fetish in there.

I see your point. However, with Isabela it's more an off-the-cuff quip, rather than her expressly laying out rules to Hawke as is the case with Bull and the IQ. We have no way of knowing if Izzy is truly only into BDSM or not. I mean a lot of people incorporate some elements into their bedroom fun to varying degrees. With Bull it's pretty clear that's how it has to be. Plus, with Izzy's sense of humour it's hard to know how seriously to take her. And as (Disgusted Noise.) rightly said, being on top isn't the same as being "a top". 

 

For the record if it were explicit in Isabela's case as well, then there should be no difference in reaction to it either way IMO.

 

Different Audience maybe? Dunno about lesbian women, but there's plenty of guys I know who wouldn't say no to an attractive girl who wanted to get rough with them even if it's not their personal thing. Genuine enthusiasm is worth the sacrifice.

I'd let Isabela top me any day, and that's not usually how I roll...   

[Seraphim24]

I see your point. However, with Isabela it's more an off-the-cuff quip, rather than her expressly laying out rules to Hawke as is the case with Bull and the IQ. We have no way of knowing if Izzy is truly only into BDSM or not. I mean a lot of people incorporate some elements into their bedroom fun to varying degrees. With Bull it's pretty clear that's how it has to be. Plus, with Izzy's sense of humour it's hard to know how seriously to take her. And as (Disgusted Noise.) rightly said, being on top isn't the same as being "a top". 

 

For the record if it were explicit in Isabela's case as well, then there should be no difference in reaction to it either way IMO.

 

I'd let Isabela top me any day, and that's not usually how I roll...   

 

Do you really need to have actual roleplay or toys to identify someone as into power exchange or something though? Most people practice some form of power exchange in their relationships, it's just not always made explicit.

 

Iron Bull is I suppose the first one to explicitly follow the code of a "scene" and all these specific limitations and such but he is not the first to invoke power in the context of a relationship.

 

It kind of smacks of the "is X or Y gay or lesbian" sort of thing just applied to a slightly different sort of thing.

[Malthier]

Kefka you're still trying to analyze sexual politics. It's annoying because you're not good at it

[Seraphim24]

Kefka you're still trying to analyze sexual politics. It's annoying because you're not good at it

 

I don't want to actually, for sure, but I'm trying to find someone that is though and it's definitely not you. I can't say I've encountered anyone who gets everything right to be honest though.

 

I'm sure the fact that you (or whoever else) can't meet my expectations is annoying, but that's a different kind of annoying.

 

Anyway I also happen to be right about that particular point, people who don't practice BDSM at all might be terrifyingly intense in terms of power exchange is a part of the relationship. Breaking out chains (or honestly a ******) or whatever doesn't automatically =/= power exchange.

[Wissenschaft 2.0]

Wow, a thread about explicit sex and romance content on the BSN that's been around for half a day with no flame war? 

 

Cool. 

 

Hey, miracles do happen. Believe, my friend, believe!

[RevilFox]

I don't want to actually, for sure, but I'm trying to find someone that is though and it's definitely not you. I can't say I've encountered anyone who gets everything right to be honest though.

 

I'm sure the fact that you (or whoever else) can't meet my expectations is annoying, but that's a different kind of annoying.

 

Anyway I also happen to be right about that particular point, people who don't practice BDSM at all might be terrifyingly intense in terms of power exchange is a part of the relationship. Breaking out chains (or honestly a ******) or whatever doesn't automatically =/= power exchange.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by power exchange in this instance? 

[Seraphim24]

Can you give me an example of what you mean by power exchange in this instance? 

 

Uh..... well it's kind of like what happens in dating all the time..

 

I mean just to use a really, really basic example like when a girl (I mean guys can do this too) will be ready to go out with someone like an hour earlier but will tell the other person they just got ready right then. This is like High School sort of hijinks but basically.

 

Or a lot of people just focus on spending hours in the gym and getting really fit and bodily healthy, because an attractive body can capture someone's heart and mind much more quickly and effectively than a gruff mug with a box of chains.

 

Meanwhile, you can practice BDSM and actually be pretty clumsy with respect to wielding power, easily persuaded to do this or that, don't resist things easily, whatever.

 

If someone is for example uninterested in being extremely attractive or clever or any such thing but whips out the handcuffs that's not a powerful thing really, that's a boring thing.

 

Essentially, people who use their personality and body as a source of charisma and magnetism are wielding power effectively, regardless of the toys or implements involved. 

 

I was watching Outlanders for example and the guy and girl go to a hotel and the guy breaks out his impressive knowledge of Scottish history, and all the things he's memorized, he's using power effectively, she is interested and finds him interesting because he seems like a forceful personality and therefore has reason to continue to stick with him. No toys required.

 

Someone who combines both instances of being clever and also wants to use some toy or another to emphasize the point of the commentary is not so different really. To be fair, perhaps there are some important differences, but I don't think power or how it's used is one of them really.

 

In fact I think you could argue effectively that the use of power (in a traditional sense) is diminished in a (traditional) BDSM context, because of the extra emphasis on rules and consent and regulations. It's disclaiming the use of power, much of the time.

 

Of course, that isn't to say that it can't exist with people who literally practice BDSM (not at all), but that the practices and scenarios are simply a microcosm of human behavior (and perhaps even organic life) on a grander scale.

[RevilFox]

Uh..... well it's kind of like what happens in dating all the time..

 

1. I mean just to use a really, really basic example like when a girl (I mean guys can do this too) will be ready to go out with someone like an hour earlier but will tell the other person they just got ready right then. This is like High School sort of hijinks but basically.

 

2. Or a lot of people just focus on spending hours in the gym and getting really fit and bodily healthy, because an attractive body can capture someone's heart and mind much more quickly and effectively than a gruff mug with a box of chains.

 

3. Meanwhile, you can practice BDSM and actually be pretty clumsy with respect to wielding power, easily persuaded to do this or that, don't resist things easily, whatever.

 

4. If someone is for example uninterested in being extremely attractive or clever or any such thing but whips out the handcuffs that's not a powerful thing really, that's a boring thing.

 

5. Essentially, people who use their personality and body as a source of charisma and magnetism are wielding power effectively, regardless of the toys or implements involved. 

 

6. I was watching Outlanders for example and the guy and girl go to a hotel and the guy breaks out his impressive knowledge of Scottish history, and all the things he's memorized, he's using power effectively, she is interested and finds him interesting because he seems like a forceful personality and therefore has reason to continue to stick with him. No toys required.

 

Someone who combines both instances of being clever and also wants to use some toy or another to emphasize the point of the commentary is not so different really. To be fair, perhaps there are some important differences, but I don't think power or how it's used is one of them really.

 

7. In fact I think you could argue effectively that the use of power (in a traditional sense) is diminished in a (traditional) BDSM context, because of the extra emphasis on rules and consent and regulations. It's disclaiming the use of power, much of the time.

 

Of course, that isn't to say that it can't exist with people who literally practice BDSM (not at all), but that the practices and scenarios are simply a microcosm of human behavior (and perhaps even organic life) on a grander scale.

 

Okay, so I went through and numbered most of your points to make them easier to address. But before I get into that, I'd like to make a blanket statement that most of your examples are instances where someone is exerting power, but simply utilizing your power does not make what you're doing a Power Exchange. In order for it to be Power Exchange, someone has to give up their power in a situation to get something in return. Hence the Exchange part. If we're strictly talking about bondage in a sexual situation, then the person getting tied up is giving up freedom of movement in exchange for sexual pleasure. If we're talking strictly about bondage in a non-sexual situation, then the person being tied up is again giving up freedom of movement, but instead of receiving sexual pleasure is typically gaining a sense of security from the confines of the bondage itself. 

 

You're not wrong in your opinion that bondage does not always equal Power Exchange, nor in your assertion that bondage does not need to be involved in a Power Exchange situation or relationship. I've known people who hated the very idea of bondage, but very much enjoy the idea of someone else controlling various aspects of their life. For example, I've known a woman who's sole interest in Power Exchange was giving up the ability to eat or drink anything without permission. She found someone she trusted (a dietitian) and set up a situation where she had to text or call her before eating anything, and then could only eat or drink was she was told was okay. They were not in a romantic relationship, and in fact I'm not even sure you could really say they were friends, as the entirety of their interactions was predicated on this one dynamic. The woman giving up the power (the ability to eat or drink at will) was gaining piece of mind, as she didn't believe she could be trusted to eat right without this kind of agreement, and the woman getting the power got pleasure from the idea of holding this amount of power over another person. I'd guess that it had a lot to do with her job, and the fact that people rarely listen to their dietitian, although that's just speculation. She was never cruel with it, but she did make her do some weird, very specific things sometimes. 

 

But let's get to your points. 

 

1. This is not an example of Power Exchange as you present it. This is an example of one person exerting her power over another person, but there is no exchange here. Unless the person waiting is actually getting something out of being made to wait, and as you refer to this as "hijinks" I tend to doubt it, then it's simply an example of one person having power in a specific situation and deciding to use it.

 

2. Not only is this not an example of Power Exchange, but one could make the argument that there isn't even an example of Power in this. You might as well say that people just focus on spending extra hours at work and getting really rich, because a large bank account can capture someone's heart and mind more quickly than a "gruff mug with a box of chains". It's just as true as what you said (although how true that is would be up for debate), but there is no Power being Exchanged here. Unless you're saying that the person working out is giving up their free time in exchange for a "better" physique. If that's what you're saying then...I guess that fits? But is sort of outside the scope of this conversation.

 

3. I'm not 100% on what you're saying here, as it could be taken two different ways. On the one hand, it's absolutely true that someone who is dominant in a BDSM relationship is bad at actually being dominant. Maybe they're not good with coming up with ideas, and the submissive is the one who lays out what they want to do and plans situations or whatever. Even in the scene they may be the one both being tied up and actually calling the shots. This is called Topping From The Bottom.

 

On the other hand, if you're saying that the person who is dominant in a BDSM relationship is bad at being in charge, say, at work, then what you're describing is again not an example of Power Exchange. It's an example of someone not knowing how to effectively wield the power they have, but there's no real exchange going on.

 

4. I'm again unsure of what you're saying here. It sounds like you're saying that if a person is just okay looking and of average intelligence and takes out handcuffs then they're boring. Which, if the case, is problematic on a lot of levels, and also simply wrong within the context of the conversation we're having. I've known plenty of okay looking people who are of about average intelligence that are also really good at being dominant.

 

5. Again, while you could argue that they have Power because of these things, there is no Exchange here.

 

6. I've never seen the show, but what you're describing isn't a Power Exchange. What you're describing is someone displaying a bit of knowledge that someone else finds interesting and wants to continue talking to. This is pretty much how every relationship starts, and not just romantically. Not only is there no Exchange, but there's no Power here either. 

 

7. I'm glad that this one came last, because it seems insane to me. Your argument is literally that the more rules, regulations, and consent that's involved, the less actual power there is. That doesn't actually make any sense. What you're saying is that, if I consent to letting you have total control over my sleep schedule and my ability to leave the house, then you have less power over me then if I didn't consent to follow those rules and regulations. Which is just patently false. 

[Seraphim24]

Okay, so I went through and numbered most of your points to make them easier to address. But before I get into that, I'd like to make a blanket statement that most of your examples are instances where someone is exerting power, but simply utilizing your power does not make what you're doing a Power Exchange. In order for it to be Power Exchange, someone has to give up their power in a situation to get something in return. Hence the Exchange part. If we're strictly talking about bondage in a sexual situation, then the person getting tied up is giving up freedom of movement in exchange for sexual pleasure. If we're talking strictly about bondage in a non-sexual situation, then the person being tied up is again giving up freedom of movement, but instead of receiving sexual pleasure is typically gaining a sense of security from the confines of the bondage itself. 

 

You're not wrong in your opinion that bondage does not always equal Power Exchange, nor in your assertion that bondage does not need to be involved in a Power Exchange situation or relationship. I've known people who hated the very idea of bondage, but very much enjoy the idea of someone else controlling various aspects of their life. For example, I've known a woman who's sole interest in Power Exchange was giving up the ability to eat or drink anything without permission. She found someone she trusted (a dietitian) and set up a situation where she had to text or call her before eating anything, and then could only eat or drink was she was told was okay. They were not in a romantic relationship, and in fact I'm not even sure you could really say they were friends, as the entirety of their interactions was predicated on this one dynamic. The woman giving up the power (the ability to eat or drink at will) was gaining piece of mind, as she didn't believe she could be trusted to eat right without this kind of agreement, and the woman getting the power got pleasure from the idea of holding this amount of power over another person. I'd guess that it had a lot to do with her job, and the fact that people rarely listen to their dietitian, although that's just speculation. She was never cruel with it, but she did make her do some weird, very specific things sometimes. 

 

But let's get to your points. 

 

1. This is not an example of Power Exchange as you present it. This is an example of one person exerting her power over another person, but there is no exchange here. Unless the person waiting is actually getting something out of being made to wait, and as you refer to this as "hijinks" I tend to doubt it, then it's simply an example of one person having power in a specific situation and deciding to use it.

 

2. Not only is this not an example of Power Exchange, but one could make the argument that there isn't even an example of Power in this. You might as well say that people just focus on spending extra hours at work and getting really rich, because a large bank account can capture someone's heart and mind more quickly than a "gruff mug with a box of chains". It's just as true as what you said (although how true that is would be up for debate), but there is no Power being Exchanged here. Unless you're saying that the person working out is giving up their free time in exchange for a "better" physique. If that's what you're saying then...I guess that fits? But is sort of outside the scope of this conversation.

 

3. I'm not 100% on what you're saying here, as it could be taken two different ways. On the one hand, it's absolutely true that someone who is dominant in a BDSM relationship is bad at actually being dominant. Maybe they're not good with coming up with ideas, and the submissive is the one who lays out what they want to do and plans situations or whatever. Even in the scene they may be the one both being tied up and actually calling the shots. This is called Topping From The Bottom.

 

On the other hand, if you're saying that the person who is dominant in a BDSM relationship is bad at being in charge, say, at work, then what you're describing is again not an example of Power Exchange. It's an example of someone not knowing how to effectively wield the power they have, but there's no real exchange going on.

 

4. I'm again unsure of what you're saying here. It sounds like you're saying that if a person is just okay looking and of average intelligence and takes out handcuffs then they're boring. Which, if the case, is problematic on a lot of levels, and also simply wrong within the context of the conversation we're having. I've known plenty of okay looking people who are of about average intelligence that are also really good at being dominant.

 

5. Again, while you could argue that they have Power because of these things, there is no Exchange here.

 

6. I've never seen the show, but what you're describing isn't a Power Exchange. What you're describing is someone displaying a bit of knowledge that someone else finds interesting and wants to continue talking to. This is pretty much how every relationship starts, and not just romantically. Not only is there no Exchange, but there's no Power here either. 

 

7. I'm glad that this one came last, because it seems insane to me. Your argument is literally that the more rules, regulations, and consent that's involved, the less actual power there is. That doesn't actually make any sense. What you're saying is that, if I consent to letting you have total control over my sleep schedule and my ability to leave the house, then you have less power over me then if I didn't consent to follow those rules and regulations. Which is just patently false. 

 

You completely misinterpreted at least one point, which wasn't to say that people that invoke BDSM (i.e. use rules, regulations, and consent) are never engaging in power exchange or great amounts of power exchange, that is obviously possible. It's neither by definition more or less. You could have someone follow an unofficial rule that they can't leave the house, or an official rule that you can do anything you want, or vice versa. That addresses points 7, and 3.

 

As to the rest, I don't really have anything to add, there isn't anything to add, control is always hidden, and power exchange is frequently hidden, otherwise, it wouldn't be control right? Whether consciously or not, people who practice BDSM (or any other thing) obey the rules of attraction, for example, they gravitate towards more attractive partners, period. So how is someone drawing that person in? It's by their body of course. As to exchange, maybe all they wanted was the attention itself? People don't always declare their motives for everything they do in life, you know. This addresses points 1, 2, and 4.

 

As for 5 and 6, the exchange is obvious, he pays for the car that takes them to the hotel and the room (where they have the conversation), and then she in return provides her body (although also opinions or other things at times) for sexual pleasure. The exchange is her intuition, sex appeal, warmth, willingess to be understanding, for his money, intelligence, and power.

 

The only differences you cited are the ways in which it was made express (i.e. rules and regulations).

 

The example in 5 and 6 could of been them sitting down and made all that explicit, but the mere fact that they didn't doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

Anyway, I'm not really interested in replying more to this topic so if that is unsatisfying I shall have to apologize beforehand for being unable to made it clear in this instance.

[RevilFox]

 

Whether consciously or not, people who practice BDSM (or any other thing) obey the rules of attraction, for example, they gravitate towards more attractive partners, period. So how is someone drawing that person in? It's by their body of course.

 

 

Two things. First, what you're saying is that every relationship between two or more people in the entire history of humanity is an example of Power Exchange, which completely renders the term meaningless. By your definition, the idea of a relationship, of any kind, inherently contains the idea of Power Exchange, in the same way that every relationship contains aspects of Breath Play because at least one of the participants has to be breathing. It might be true, but it's so pedantic a definition that any conversation on the matter is absolutely pointless. Do you also believe that a book and a condor are the same thing because they both contain molecules?

 

Second, I want to address the quoted text above, because it's pretty erroneous. Because what you're saying is that a person's physical attractiveness is the only factor in determining who you "gravitate towards". Or, in other words, if someone who is a 10 on the traditional attractiveness scale expresses the same amount of interest in me as someone who's only a 6, then I will choose the 10 100% of the time. I've seen you express this same idea in other threads, and it's utterly absurd. Is what you're saying true for some people? Sure. I absolutely believe that some people will choose a relationship based on nothing more than physical attractiveness. It's probably true for you, and that's fine. I hope those people and yourself are very happy. But is it true for everyone? No. It's not true for me, and it's not true for a lot of people I know, without even getting into the idea that not everyone has the same standard of beauty. 

[DaemionMoadrin]

Are who enjoy BDSM now yet another oppressed class that necessitates 'representation'?

 

No, but the previous thread about this topic went down in flames within hours, got at least one person banned permanently and attracted all kinds of annoying people... like this one:

 

Actually I just think Solas seems more like someone that would be into BDSM than IB, that's literally all I had to say on the matter.

 

You still do not know what you're talking about, you're still peddling your insane theories and you're still misunderstanding everything on purpose... because you are still trying to prove that you are right, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

 

Kefka you're still trying to analyze sexual politics. It's annoying because you're not good at it

 

Word.

[Seraphim24]

First, what you're saying is that every relationship between two or more people in the entire history of humanity is an example of Power Exchange, which completely renders the term meaningless.

 

Correct. At least on some microcosmic level, it's hard for me to imagine relationships without the exchange of power. A relationship without the exchange of power or possibility of disturbance, uncertainty, and chaos is probably not much of a relationship, more like a business transaction or something. Ok, well, romantic/sexual relationships, I don't know if we ever made that clear.

 

As to your point about rendering the term meaningless that's not really my point but merely to try and distinguish what makes people who practice BDSM special or unique, it's not really the presence of power exchange, IMO.

 

If you had said a book and a condor are not the same thing because one flies and the other is a stationary thing that you read I would agree with that, but it sounds like you are saying that a book and a condor are different things because they both contain molecules to me.

 

I think I said multiple times the fact that people who practice BDSM seem more ready to analyze the dynamics of relationships makes them unique (and perhaps interesting). Most people don't, but that doesn't mean they don't have dynamic relationships, or power exchange.

 

It's not (and I'm not trying to make) anything meaningless, just pointing out it's a common enough thing even if you don't follow the specific rituals of BDSM.

 

Second, I want to address the quoted text above, because it's pretty erroneous. Because what you're saying is that a person's physical attractiveness is the only factor in determining who you "gravitate towards". Or, in other words, if someone who is a 10 on the traditional attractiveness scale expresses the same amount of interest in me as someone who's only a 6, then I will choose the 10 100% of the time. I've seen you express this same idea in other threads, and it's utterly absurd. Is what you're saying true for some people? Sure. I absolutely believe that some people will choose a relationship based on nothing more than physical attractiveness. It's probably true for you, and that's fine. I hope those people and yourself are very happy. But is it true for everyone? No. It's not true for me, and it's not true for a lot of people I know, without even getting into the idea that not everyone has the same standard of beauty. 

 

I never said it was the only factor, but yes it is a major one and people respect it everywhere. Attractiveness, intellect, there are a handful of things people will almost always prioritize in some fashion or another.

[Seraphim24]

I think I already said I have no real desire to be a master of sexual politics, but I hope you would agree I am free to reject your own collective interpretations yes?

[TheOgre]

No, but the previous thread about this topic went down in flames within hours, got at least one person banned permanently and attracted all kinds of annoying people... like this one:

 

 

It's hardly just one person responsible for getting a thread locked. I'd say quite a bit of your posting and a few others choosing to respond to Kefka's posts also contributed to it. I wouldn't be surprised based on the rest of your post, and a few others that this one gets locked too.

[Seraphim24]

It's hardly just one person responsible for getting a thread locked. I'd say quite a bit of your posting and a few others choosing to respond to Kefka's posts also contributed to it. I wouldn't be surprised based on the rest of your post, and a few others that this one gets locked too.

 

That sense of annoyance is a one way street, I'm not annoyed by anyone here, I just disagree with how they view things.

[Firky]

I didn't romance Iron Bull, but I went vaguely youtubing romances and other bits of the game I didn't see, after the fact.

 

I had the opposite impression to the OP, oddly enough.

 

My feedback is, I thought Iron Bull was a great character. I loved Sten and Iron Bull was like a completely opposite take on the Qun.

 

But, the romance bits were people walking in on them, Iron Bull making explicit references to the sex he has just had with you and Iron Bull being (IMO) kinda mean about people's "watchwords." I couldn't figure out if it was supposed to be comical or what was going on.

 

It made me go from thinking, "Iron Bull is pretty great," to, "Iron Bull is kinda mean."

 

Actual style of sex or whatever aside.

 

But. Just my 2c. I love the qunari characters, so I'm really interested in them.

[FemShem]

I guess I took the BDSM romance, just like I approach all of them.  Josephine was too into "The Game", I started dating Iron Bull, he just wasn't my type, I moved on to Sera.  Just like as fem Inquisitor I can't date Cassandra in the cannon (snap)...though I did like being the let's be friends speech, rofl, it adds to my RP.  Who is my Inquisitor into?

I might come up with an Inquisitor who would be into being a sub, but probably not.  I just put him in the "only if you want to unlock the keep" category.  I'd have to make a huge c@ckswinging a$$hat to be a sub to pull it off for me...might be fun though.  A male elf over compensating;)

Personally, I liked that they did it, and that the character is bi and cool with all races.  Not an Iron Bull fan, but the sex scene is friggin' hysterical.  Changed my mind later, but great scene!

[ask_again_later]

Cole sort of goes into detail about it, and it's definitely kinky stuff. 
 
I too would have liked my lady to take charge and show IB the right way to do things. Her submissiveness and cuteness was way OOC for how I was playing her.

Cole goes into detail? Oh dear god.

[Firky]

PS. And, I was reflecting on it. The whole point (so far as I saw it, I may have missed the point) was that Iron Bull and the Inquisitor want to take time out behind closed doors and forget the world for a while. It requires trust on the inquisitor's part because Iron Bull is being clear the kind of sex he wants. Then the doors are literally flung open and their advisors go, "ew," at them and Iron Bull makes an explicit joke about what they have been doing. (I watched the male inquisitor scene.)

I dunno, but none of that makes me want to trust either the writers or Iron Bull. And isn't the point of that kind of sex, trust? Or at least, a large part of the point.

Mind you, this'll learn me for youtubing romances I didn't do. Ironically, I'd be more inclined to trust Blackwall with "rough sex" because he came across as a private and respectful kind of partner. (Apart from the whole other thing, which is why I said, "ironically.")

Videogame romances. I'm still secretly in love with Anomen from BG2.

[ask_again_later]

Lol yep! If you take him and IB on a quest and you have already slept with IB, Cole will talk about it. Solas should be there too for his comment about being "tied down" if your Inquisitor expresses humiliation. 

That is absolutely brilliant. XD

[ask_again_later]

Lol yep! If you take him and IB on a quest and you have already slept with IB, Cole will talk about it. Solas should be there too for his comment about being "tied down" if your Inquisitor expresses humiliation. 

I don't think this is it but I was looking through another of my favorite forums and someone linked me to this video in response to something I had said. I can't remember the last time I laughed this loudly.

I just laughed for about a minute straight.