Eric Schneiderman

Smedley said:

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’s not a binary thing, because if someone presumes him to be innocent, that person is also presuming the complainants to be liars. So sure he’s innocent of any civil or criminal charges until proven guilty , but in the court of public opinion, he’s deservedly toast. 

Well, it doesn't matter really. Again, I'm just trying to provide a context - not in any way am I trying to provide an excuse.

However, this:

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.

is off base. All of the accusers had some sort of intimate relationship with him right? Fetishes involving role playing do not require that both parties be in bed naked.  Also, while a lot of harassment involves a power relationship (i.e. the boss is asking for favors for career advancement) that does not appear to be the case here. So something else must be motivating him. That's all I'm saying.

Doesn't matter why. It matters that it happened. Repeatedly.

Smedley said:

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. 

 Agree on this.  If I was on a jury I'd presume him not guilty of any crime he was charged with until I saw the evidence.  But in terms of deciding whether he's guilty of outrageous, appalling behavior with women, there's a lot of evidence here.  Two women going on the record publicly with nearly identical accusations, and two more women going on record with their names withheld is pretty damning evidence.  I don't need to think Schneiderman is guilty of a crime to be certain that after this story he shouldn't be serving as AG.

A side comment:  Whenever I ready these stories and there's a spouse/former spouse publicly defending the accused, I can't help but wonder whether they truly never saw the allegations coming.  If the allegations are true, it's hard to believe that that type of behavior only began in recent years.  Sad all around...

For those doubting the BDSM connection, here's an interesting article:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-44041947

Good article, but it makes it quite clear that non consensual violent behavior is completely outside the pale of BDSM.

drummerboy said:
For those doubting the BDSM connection, here's an interesting article:


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-44041947

 The article doesn't inform my opinion that the "BDSM connection" claim is irrelevant, since this is a case of domestic violence.

drummerboy just doesn’t get it

conandrob240 said:
drummerboy just doesn’t get it

 lol