Arson is not the purpose for which candles are intended. Confinement is the only purpose for which handcuffs are intended.
Of course, they are often used consensually, and their mere presence in a private room is obviously not ipso facto evidence of an attempt to commit a sexual assault, but this is a case where they were intended to be displayed in a context in which an unsuspecting target was already being surprised by unwanted sexual overtures and harrassment, in a setting where she would be alone with an aggressor. The open display of bondage equipment in this already unwanted and non-consensual situation, in my opinion, could well be seen as a suggestion that Keefe was prepared to go to even more coersive lengths. I certainly think that it would not make the unwilling target of this “prank” (who is not in a position to know exactly how crazy this aggressor really is, or how far he’s willing to go) feel very safe.
I really have to agree with Dio here. Unless there’s some agreement ahead of time, you don’t seduce a woman with handcuffs and a blindfold. Especially not after luring her into a situation she would have difficulty escaping from and surrounding her with pornography, making the situation explicitly sexual. That’s pretty threatening. Does it mean that he was planning to rape her? No. But I think that would be a reasonable fear for a woman in that situation.
If you both agree to kink there are uses for blindfolds and handcuffs, but their primary purpose is to restrain and blind someone. Those aren’t entirely innocuous or meaningless items.
I love how he made sure to get the word “non-threatening” in there. Covering your dumb, boney, redneck ass much, O’Keefe? That’ll only fly with his staunchest base and even Bozell and Breitbart have condemned him for this one, that ought to tell you something.
Again that word ‘seduce’. I realize he might not have a lot of experience with women, but just because one is talking to you doesn’t mean she’s flirting with you, James.