Eric Schneiderman

I read the New Yorker story on the train this morning, and wow. Just wow. 

Guy was throwing stones from his glass house for a long time.

This is a pretty bizarre story, but it mostly looks like a case of S&M getting a bit out of hand. Glad to see he resigned so quickly.

And damn, Ronan Farrow is turning into a monster journalist.

Yes, Ronan Farrow broke the news about Harvey Weinstein,also. Was just reading about him on Wikipedia to refresh my mind. He's the son of Mia Farrow and probably Woody Allen, although some say Frank Sinatra. Graduated from college at a very young age,became an attorney and now is a reporter at the age of 30. Wonder what will be his next story.

drummerboy said:
This is a pretty bizarre story, but it mostly looks like a case of S&M getting a bit out of hand.

 At least one woman made it clear that it was anything but that.

galileo said:
Wonder what will be his next story.

 Trumpists hiring Black Cube to try to undermine the people behind the Iran Deal

drummerboy said:
This is a pretty bizarre story, but it mostly looks like a case of S&M getting a bit out of hand. Glad to see he resigned so quickly.
And damn, Ronan Farrow is turning into a monster journalist.

 I heard Jane Mayer on the radio this morning.  Apparently, this started when someone at the New Yorker learned what happened to a friend of hers with Schneiderman.  She told Mayer, and then I guess Ronan Farrow was included because of his prior work exposing Weinstein.

All I can say is, if you have both Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow on your case, you're in a whole lot of trouble.

drummerboy said:
This is a pretty bizarre story, but it mostly looks like a case of S&M getting a bit out of hand. Glad to see he resigned so quickly.
And damn, Ronan Farrow is turning into a monster journalist.

 I disagree. If you read the story, his repeated actions were horrendous and they involved vile language as well as violence against women he was not sleeping with. This wasn't consensual activity where one person accidentally went a little too far. He's using the S&M explanation either as a cover story or misapplying the term to refer to behavior that only excites him and that only he's agreed to. Either way, it's violence.

According to one article, one of the complainants is Tanya Selvaratnam who was born in Sri Lanka and "has dark skin".   Selvaratnam stated of Schneiderman:  "Sometimes, he'd tell me to call him Master, and he'd slap me until I did,"... "He started calling me his 'brown slave' and demanding that I repeat that I was 'his property.' "      http://www.nydailynews.com/new... 

Sounds like quite a guy...

drummerboy said:
This is a pretty bizarre story, but it mostly looks like a case of S&M getting a bit out of hand. Glad to see he resigned so quickly.
And damn, Ronan Farrow is turning into a monster journalist.

 Yeah, no. Not that at all. It was abuse, not consensual sex games.

conandrob240 said:

drummerboy said:
This is a pretty bizarre story, but it mostly looks like a case of S&M getting a bit out of hand. Glad to see he resigned so quickly.
And damn, Ronan Farrow is turning into a monster journalist.

 Yeah, no. Not that at all. It was abuse, not consensual sex games.

I didn't say it was consensual sex games. "Out of hand" doesn't mean someone forgot the stop word. In this case, it means that one party, Schneiderman, looks to have let it bleed into real life, forgetting when and what the lines are.

I'm not trying to excuse the guy.  He's clearly effed up.

you are 100% wrong and your characterization minimizes what actually happened.

conandrob240 said:
you are 100% wrong and your characterization minimizes what actually happened.

Because you have intimate details of what happened, right, and you're inside the minds of all involved?

And it doesn't minimize it at all. It provides a possible context, and that's it.

Even before I heard Schneiderman's excuse about role-playing, it clearly sounded like an S&M thing.

based on what’s been said so far, this is not an S&M thing AT ALL. 

conandrob240 said:
based on what’s been said so far, this is not an S&M thing AT ALL. 

 well then, that explains your position - incorrect as it may be.

DB, it cannot be an S&M thing if it’s just S and no M.

I'm wondering now whether anyone has actually read the Mayer/Farrow article.

I did, and other articles, and got more of a sense that he is a violent person, a misogynist, an abuser of his power and position and potentially an alcoholic, less so that all of this is related to S&M tendencies.

There seemed to be a lot of verbal abuse towards women - belittling their careers and activism, criticizing their looks and wardrobes, etc. - not sure how that relates to S&M.

drummerboy said:
I'm wondering now whether anyone has actually read the Mayer/Farrow article.

 Some highlights:

"This did not happen while we were having sex. I was fully dressed and remained that way. It was completely unexpected and shocking. I did not consent to physical assault."

“He seemed not to know what the word ‘consent’ means.”

“Our top law officer, this guy with a platform for women’s rights, just smacked away so much of what I thought he stood for.”

“...we could rarely have sex without him beating me.”

“I began to feel like I was in Hell...”

"He had said he would have to kill me if we broke up..."

It's domestic violence, period.

exactly. Domestic violence, attempted murder, rape. Any of those are appropriate.

Just not “an S&M thing that went too far”

Attempted murder? Rape?

sheesh

Now you're just making stuff up.

And if you folks don't see,that this is clearly a case of fetishism gone way bonkers, I can't help you.

I am not saying that the women involved initially agreed and then it went awry. All I'm saying is that Schneiderman's behavior was driven by it.

You know, male abusers abuse for a reason, however effed up that reason may be. Something motivates them. And in this case, it was a sexual fetish that he apparently completely lost control of, and decided that only one party, himself, had to consent.

Why there's so much push back on an obvious point is beyond me.

eta:

Someone explain what this means:

When she told him that she wanted to leave, she recalls, he started to “freak out,” saying that he’d misjudged her. “You’d really be surprised,” he claimed. “A lot of women like it. They don’t always think they like it, but then they do, and they ask for more.”

drummerboy said:
And in this case, it was a sexual fetish that he apparently completely lost control of, and decided that only one party, himself, had to consent.

ridski said:
DB, it cannot be an S&M thing if it’s just S and no M.

drummerboy
 this is clearly a case of fetishism gone way bonkers

This sounds like their best bet as a courtroom defense, if it comes to that. 

But I don’t for a second buy it in reality, as it’s way too narrow of an explanation.

Was his drunken driving, belittling comments and manipulative behavior (while fully clothed) all due to fetishism gone way bonkers?

I think the guy is just a serial d-bag, hypocritical entitled (bleep) who is finally getting a long-overdue comeuppance. 

Smedley said:

drummerboy
 this is clearly a case of fetishism gone way bonkers

This sounds like their best bet as a courtroom defense, if it comes to that. 
But I don’t for a second buy it in reality, as it’s way too narrow of an explanation.
Was his drunken driving, belittling comments and manipulative behavior (while fully clothed) all due to fetishism gone way bonkers?

I think the guy is just a serial d-bag, hypocritical entitled (bleep) who is finally getting a long-overdue comeuppance. 

Other than the drunk driving, the other things are certainly part of the fetish. Not sure what being dressed has to do with it.

drummerboy said:

Other than the drunk driving, the other things are certainly part of the fetish. Not sure what being dressed has to do with it.

If threatening to kill someone is part of your fetish, Miss Manners always suggests informing the other party first.

Dear Mr. 23,

It is with regret that I must decline to acknowledge that a threat to kill someone can be made without informing that party first. 

Or do you know about a third party? If so, I’ve run out of R.S.V.P.s.

Sincerely,

Otis B. Driftwood

let's bring back spitzer.  He paid for sex... just like our president.  

I remember the Day Care Child Abuse scandals of the 80s or 90s.

I still believe in the presumption of innocence.

LOST said:
I remember the Day Care Child Abuse scandals of the 80s or 90s.
I still believe in the presumption of innocence.

One of which happened right here in Maplewood.

I am not judging whether the guy did any of these things or not.

But, if true, the things that are described are not S&M gone bad. They are domestic violence, attempted murder, rape, abuse, physical assault 

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy
 this is clearly a case of fetishism gone way bonkers

This sounds like their best bet as a courtroom defense, if it comes to that. 
But I don’t for a second buy it in reality, as it’s way too narrow of an explanation.
Was his drunken driving, belittling comments and manipulative behavior (while fully clothed) all due to fetishism gone way bonkers?

I think the guy is just a serial d-bag, hypocritical entitled (bleep) who is finally getting a long-overdue comeuppance. 

Other than the drunk driving, the other things are certainly part of the fetish. Not sure what being dressed has to do with it.

Fetishes are about sexual gratification so I don’t know how a pattern of belittling comments and manipulative behavior in non-sexual situations, as is alleged, can be explained away as a fetish gone wild. 

And really even if it is a fetish, how and why should that matter? Should schneiderman’s fetish be considered a sickness and thus it’s not his fault, like being found not guilty by reason of insanity? 

Lastly on the presumption of innocence —I believe in that too but it becomes problematic if it’s a binary thing, because if someone presumes him to be innocent, that person is also presuming the complainants to be liars. So sure legally he’s innocent of any civil or criminal charges until proven guilty in a court of law , but in the court of public opinion, he’s deservedly toast.