OK, that's a fair point. What I was really meaning to get at was how BDSM seems to always be portrayed as a dominant who is in charge and owns the submissive and the submissive does what they're told regardless of how they feel about it because they're the submissive and they exist to please the dominant. As a result it's often a REALLY unhealthy dynamic, whereas what I'm presenting as a 'true' BDSM relationship in this context is a healthy one - a relationship where both partners are equal, where they both get something out of their roles, and where they can roleplay a power dynamic while the dominant still has full respect of the submissive's consent, agency, and wishes.
You're right though, it was a bit intentionally disingenuous of me to phrase it that way. Disrespectful BDSM relationships should never be validated, but I could have made it clearer that that's what I was talking about, apologies for not being clear enough about what I meant.
It's not so much the psychoanalysis itself but the fact that he's constantly bombarding Lena with it. Sure, he's assessing her as the meal goes on - she's doing the exact same to him, that's kinda what the dinner is about. But he's not just engaging with her on a human level and getting a feel for her personality, he's sitting there waxing lyrical about how intelligent and sophisticated he is and how everything she's doing is impacting him and his view of her and it's just so self-indulgent and self-centred. A calculating predator type is one thing, but the way he feels the need to exposit his knowledge of philosophy and his view of everybody's place in the world speaks of insecurity - he's insecure about his importance so he needs to show that he's more important than everybody else, he's insecure about his intelligence so he needs to talk about philosophers, he's found a philosophical totem pole and puts himself at the top rung and then he recharacterises the top rung from 'the baby' to 'the master' because the top itself isn't quite top enough for him.
In the entire dinner scene (to me at least) Lena comes off as being way more secure and powerful and sophisticated than he is solely because she doesn't feel the need to psychoanalyse him directly to his face for the duration of an entire dinner and talk about all the philosophers she knows and how most people don't really understand them anyway and how she's IMPROVED on their philosophy because 'the baby' wasn't quite alpha enough for her. His analysis is one thing, but the way he chooses to present his analysis is pure smug showoff hiding insecurity and absolutely NOT the sort of person I would feel safe being a sub to.