April 22, 2013

"Dressed in a leopard print hijab she darted into the white shingle house to collect some belongings and her pet cat..."

I see you've got your brand-new leopard skin print hijab....

It's Katherine Russell, the widow Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  "She was just this All-American girl who was brainwashed by her super-religious husband. Nobody understands what happened to her." She was the daughter of a Rhode Island doctor and nurse. She "dreamed of going to college and joining the Peace Corps."

Brainwashed. Are you buying that or do you think that Peace Corps aspirationalists are just the kind of American kids who feel drawn to the idea of becoming the other?



I tend to think people are responsible for their own choices.

279 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 279 of 279
virgil xenophon said...

In the early 60s we had a guy from Yemen on the LSU tennis team who had come to study petroleum-engineering. He was a really nice guy and dated a red-head. They were "in LUV." They got married in '63 when he graduated and he took her back to Yemen. I didn't have the heart to warn her--thinking it would have done no good and raised a stink.

I've always regretted that decision...I mean things COULD have worked out all right, but still..

garage mahal said...

Darrell
Just pointing out you and the KKK have similar dislikes. No need to get all defensive about it.

Tibore said...

"Ann Althouse said...
Why go back to the topic of leaving when I specifically focused on entering?


You've got a good point in bringing this up. She would've entered the relationship voluntarily, and it behooves people to take care of who they associate with.

But that said, Shanna had a good point too. Sometimes the abusiveness isn't apparent until further into the relationship, so you don't catch the red flags until after the fact.

But so much of this is presumption. There's too much not known for anyone to draw conclusions. I don't know the history of their relationship, but there are two definite possibilities that are mutually exclusive yet reasonably (as far as I can tell) probable:
1. That she met him, and only after their relationship took root he radicalized and became abusive. Or,
2. That she knew all about him going in and still chose that path.

There's no way for me to tell from where I'm at which one it is.

jr565 said...

I'm not saying Timothy McVeigh was a rightist, I'm just saying he and rightists share a common anti-government worldview.


Conservative means overthrowing the govt? Since when? Maybe you're talking about libertarians, but in my view libertarians are in fact leftists, except when it comes to economic policies.

Roger J. said...

I read a bio of a Dagestan leader several years ago--cant remember the name of the bio nor the chieftan, but I was struck by his charismatic effect on the people around him, including many Russian higher class ladies. IIRC he died in exile. Perhaps, like Rasputin, he had high cheekbones and piercing dark eyes.

furious_a said...

...even a more recent literary one, or an evolutionary reason for this phenomenon?

Anna Karenina and Count Vronsky? Tina and Ike Turner?
Nicole and OJ?

Darrell said...

I hate Lefties, so I have something in common with the KKK? Want to play that game with you and Hitler or Stalin? garage mahal masterdebater.

Nomennovum said...

I'm afraid that's non responsive. -- Chickelit

I think of it as a tautology: Women like bad boys because they are attracted to bad boys.


[W]hat is the genetic advantage?

Bad boys are seen as more masculine. Hyper-masculine, if you will. As men among men, they are, accordingly, seen as better genetic stock. Women always think that they will be the one who will tame the bad boy, that he will love her, commit to her and help her raise her family.

Chickelit, every man remembers from his high school days how girls are attracted to the bad boys. We spend our lives forgetting that lesson (until perhaps we have daughters of our own or some other event occurs in our lives to rudely remind us of nature.)

Nomennovum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sakredkow said...

@garagemahal you need to dumb down your comments. just sayin'.

Shanna said...

Conservative means overthrowing the govt? Since when? Maybe you're talking about libertarians, but in my view libertarians are in fact leftists

If you go far enough libertarian to want to actually overthrow the government you've passed libertarian and gone straight to anarchist, and those folks in my experience tend to be idiot and/or violent liberals.

Whoever said it's a circle was absolutely right. The far, far ends of both left and right meet up somewhere into a big ball of crazy that can't be labeled.

Roger J. said...

I read a bio of a Dagestan leader several years ago--cant remember the name of the bio nor the chieftan, but I was struck by his charismatic effect on the people around him, including many Russian higher class ladies. IIRC he died in exile. Perhaps, like Rasputin, he had high cheekbones and piercing dark eyes.

Darrell said...

McVeigh was never linked to any militia group even though the FBI spent millions of man-hours trying to do so. His record with the races was also clean--even regularly driving some black guys he worked with to work everyday. He was a self-professed agnostic and a libertarian. Yet some of his rants to others sounded somewhat left with anti-capitalism and other lefty-favored themes.

Nomennovum said...

As men among men, they [bad boys] are, accordingly, seen as better genetic stock.

To elaborate, remember that we have spent most of our history on this planet as hunter-gatherers. He-men are stronger, better able to put food on the table, and better able to protect their families.

The bad boy attraction is in every girl's genes.

chickelit said...

It fascinates me that so far no women will answer the question I posed. Yet men are eager to do so.

Ladies, blame yourselves for letting men speak for you.

Nomennovum said...

Ladies, blame yourselves for letting men speak for you.

The nurse will with some self-referential B.S., doubtless.

Darrell said...

If past history provides a clue, Inga will be back a few hours after this thread goes dormant and will call me an asshole and what she thinks are definitive zingers. Maybe she will even pile on with some of her sockpuppet friends. I enjoy the laughs, Inga. Good times!

Shanna said...

Ladies, blame yourselves for letting men speak for you.

Maybe none of the women here are the Stanley Dunham types and thus don't feel like speculating? Which is all the men are doing.

Plus, once we go down this route we get all the men going 'why don't women like nice guys' and then we have to get into the why do men love bitches thing and it's just a big circle that's been done. Ugh.

I'd rather say that some people make mistakes in their choice of partner, whether they are fooled or have deep personal issues or some other reason.

sakredkow said...

Islam has a gender problem.

jr565 said...

In regards to extremist islam not being left wing lets remember that Islamic nationalism was in fact a socialist movement.
The baath party, were actually labeled the Baath Socialist Party (note that word socialism) was the original arab secular national movement founded to combat Western colonial rule. Does that shtick sound familiar to lefitsts? It should. Since it's their shtick.
The two founders of the Baath party were in fact educated in France and taught, natch, socialism and america as the imperial agressor.
And this pan arabist movement held sway for a long period of time across many countries.
This is not to say that these brothers were pan arabists, only that you can't say that there is no leftism in the Middle East.

Nomennovum said...

I eagerly await hearing about the evolutionary evidence for men being attracted to bitches.

Julie C said...

The person quoted in the article mentions joining the Peace Corps as though it was as simple as filling out an online form and hopping on a plane.

I was a Peace Corps volunteer and becoming one was a pretty rigorous process. Lots of forms to fill out and recommendations to get (think typical government bureaucracy). Followed by physicals and dental exams. Had to get my wisdom teeth removed or else they wouldn't let me go!

The next step was a three day, very intensive long weekend with a lot of the other potential volunteers. Every waking hour was programmed and we were constantly being watched and evaluated by returned volunteers and psychologists. They had to weed out the weak ones - like the guy who thought he'd go since his late brother had had the dream to be a volunteer.

Once we got in country for training we lost at least another half dozen volunteers. They couldn't handle the climate or the food. Some developed weird physical problems.

Going native so to speak, is sort of unavoidable. There aren't any department stores or grocery stores so you wear what the people wear and eat what they eat. I picked up the local accent - it made it easier for my students to understand me. Some people go overboard - like the gal who took up with a soldier who ultimately became part of a bunch of coup plotters. She went to the Embassy to get him help and she was given what was called at the time the "Pan Am Award." I don't even think she was given time to pack her bags.

I still maintain contact with my fellow volunteers and yes, the vast majority are a bunch of knuckleheaded leftists. I was perhaps the exception to the rule - for me, I came back with a greater appreciation for our country and became more conservative.

Anonymous said...

Is there some ancient Biblical archetype (besides Eve and the Serpent) or even a more recent literary one, or an evolutionary reason for this phenomenon?

chickelit: During our long history in hunter-gatherer groups, tribes were constantly raiding each other. Males would be killed or enslaved, women and children would be assimilated. In those circumstances being able to submit and bond to an alpha male was a handy key to survival.

I've seen this over and over again with women. It's not that the guys are necessarily powerful in society, but that they give off the vibe. The whole PUA (Pick-Up Artist) scene is based on this insight.

furious_a said...

Ladies, blame yourselves for letting men speak for you.

It says so in the Bible...somewhere near the back.

Darrell said...

Or maybe Inga is already doing it at another thread at Althouse right now.I didn't look. She's done that several times now, too. It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

chickelit said...

chickelit: During our long history in hunter-gatherer groups, tribes were constantly raiding each other. Males would be killed or enslaved, women and children would be assimilated. In those circumstances being able to submit and bond to an alpha male was a handy key to survival.

OK that explains the evolutionary aspect. I shouldn't have over thought it. It doesn't explain the present circumstances or the Stanley Dunham circumstances -- where was the marauding tribe?

I'm thinking there was just a healthy dose of "fuck you daddy I hate you and will get you back" going on in their heads. Juvenile males do the same thing but express it differently.

AllenS said...

Also, Chick, it's I am Woman, Hear Me Roar.

phunktor said...

In the evolutionary environment violently dominant individuals were winners. "Decency" is nothing more or less than a conspiracy to overturn this by weight of numbers.

But the tingle circuitry evolved a long long time ago, and many women never got the upgrade.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

Are we to punish only the leaders and empathize with the followers? Followers do a lot of damage. They are human beings and should be given that level of respect. There's no "I'm just a weak-willed follower" excuse.

If my theory is right that sodomy is addictive, abuse tends to feel more right to abused girls than it naturally would. If a nasty guy beats a girl up, naturally he will use the excuse that it is justified because the girl in some sense deserved the violence because a part of her "naturally" wants his nasty control, and the addictive chemicals of sodomy will tend to make his false justification feel plausible. Abused females who go along excessively are behaving shamefully, but it is to play into the hands of the abuser to make out like some non-confused part of an abused female wanted the relationship, and so one must be careful not to encourage the latter delusion. Girls are naturally innocent and snow-like. Shaming girls for screwed-up unnatural depraved idiocy is more appropriate than typically believed, but putting them in prison for it or blaming their natural morals, less so. And of course, much of society is to blame for being naive about sodomy turning people into zombie slaves, and more generally for having confused unexamined moral ideas concerning dominance, etc.

Nomennovum said...

It doesn't explain the present circumstances or the Stanley I'm thinking there was just a healthy dose of "fuck you daddy I hate you and will get you back" going on in their heads. Juvenile males do the same thing but express it differently.Dunham circumstances -- where was the marauding tribe?

You're over-thinking it again. I'm a believer in Occam's Razor. We have a hard time going against our natures, chikelit. Attraction is visceral, not intellectual. Most men are attracted to slender women with wide hips and an overall feminine look and disposition. Most women are primarily attracted to confident and charismatic men who also have such masculine traits as tallness, broad shoulders, and narrow waists.

Æthelflæd said...

"Plus, once we go down this route we get all the men going 'why don't women like nice guys' and then we have to get into the why do men love bitches thing and it's just a big circle that's been done. Ugh."

This. Also, why do some men only date women 40 IQ points below them. And then the men will be all like, "Duh. You know why. Plus big boobs." Tiresome. There is no accounting for some people's tastes. Generally, though, ladies, avoid the guys who want you to wear a hijab while they hit you.

furious_a said...

Garage: I'm not saying Timothy McVeigh was a rightist, I'm just saying he and rightists share a common anti-government worldview.

Same with the KKK and neo-nazis. They and rightists both hate our black president!


The Eee-Zee Equivalence Game!

I'm not saying Barack Obama is an Islamist sympathizer, I'm just saying he and Islamist terror groups share a common Israel-behind-narrower-borders worldview.

Same with Jimmy Carter and A.N.S.W.E.R, they and Islamist terror groups both [sic] hate our ally Israel!


Anybody can play!

Nomennovum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nomennovum said...

Also, why do some men only date women 40 IQ points below them?

Because, you don't screw an SAT score.

(Plus, I assume your exaggeration is a rhetorical device.)

Æthelflæd said...

Yes, it is called hyperbole.

Æthelflæd said...

The point being that neither sex has a monopoly on irrational mate selection.

Meade said...

furious_a said...
"Anna Karenina and Count Vronsky? Tina and Ike Turner?
Nicole and OJ?"

Hey, don't forget Althouse and Meade.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It fascinates me that so far no women will answer the question I posed. Yet men are eager to do so.

Ladies, blame yourselves for letting men speak for you.


Well....I've been busy, mowing the acreage, cutting back frozen rose bushes, spraying the cherry trees for ants and using round up on everything that is growing where I don't want it to..

But, I will answer. Initial attractions: My first husband was one of the 'bad boys' and like Novem said, a man's man, hyper masculine, athletic, pretty smart and as I discovered later manic depressive, manipulative and likely a borderline sociopath.

I never thought I was going to change him or adopt him like a puppy. A lot of women are suffering under that delusion, however. That they can be the one to 'tame the beast', change the man. They are stupid. The relationship, in the beginning (I was in my early 20'a) was exciting and with just enough danger to be titillating but not so much as to be scary. Then there is the genetic component of pure animal attraction. When you are young, full of hormones, women are not thinking clearly and the new, dangerous, exciting relationship pushes rational thought aside. And as Shanna says, an abusive relationship doesn't start out that way. It is something that gradually creeps up and escalates.

Why do women STAY with such men and don't leave? Lots of reasons. I probably stayed much longer than I would have, should have, but only because we had a child together and being the good Catholic daughter, felt that I should keep the family together. He was a good father. A terrible husband. My daughter still thinks highly of him as a Dad and I'm not about to give her a laundry list of his failings. She knows already. We've discussed it in general.

Despite wanting to keep the "family" together there does come a breaking point. This abuse was not physical but rather mental and since he couldn't manipulate me as he would like, it became ever more abusive because I wouldn't bend. Why do women stay....I don't know. Maybe everyone has a different level of breaking point or feel that there IS no escape. My tolerance level is pretty low so I was lucky to be able to turn away from a sick relationship.

Why are men attracted to brainless bimbos or gold diggers?

Nomennovum said...

Yes, it is called hyperbole.


Thanks!


The point being that neither sex has a monopoly on irrational mate selection.

Absolutely true, so there is no need to be annoyed by it, which you seemed to be a bit. Women like strong confident men. Men like beautiful women. Women don't care how nice and supplicating you are to them (within reason) and men don't care how smart a woman is (again, within reason). Done and done.

Æthelflæd said...

Yep, just answering why women haven't jumped to explain "why". We all know why.

AllenS said...

There'll come a time when the daughter will say to the mother, "Tell me, Mom, what was Daddy like? Kids at school are saying some bad things."

Stephen A. Meigs said...

chickelit: During our long history in hunter-gatherer groups, tribes were constantly raiding each other. Males would be killed or enslaved, women and children would be assimilated. In those circumstances being able to submit and bond to an alpha male was a handy key to survival.

Or not, depending on what "alpha" means. Females who make their reproductive decisions as a result of being zombie slaves are at such an evolutionary disadvantage, it is probably why the cloaca disappeared early in mammalian evolution (before then, all sex presumably was significantly addictive as sodomy is today). But I do think girls are impressed by a male who often cleanly forces the girls wanting him to be themselves (i.e., to use their own faculties of judgement to judge him rather than copying standard opinions); the right way for a male to do this is by just not having loving feelings else. Sometimes girls will sense they want males who are dominant (alpha?) in this latter way, and will get confused and think they want depraved males who dominate with nasty violence, etc. I think the natural tendencies of females and girls in particular to submit to violent or nasty controlling males tends to be overestimated.

Nomennovum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shanna said...

And with abusive relationships, I think a lot of the really bad guys tend to be overly appreciative, nice, etc. in the beginning stages. Many times it's the person not in the relationship who can see the problems best, because they don't have that charm directed at them.

The point being that neither sex has a monopoly on irrational mate selection.

I remember having a conversation with this guy and he was lamenting how immature his wife was...turns out she was like 19 and he was in his mid thirties. I was like, and this is surprising how?

Nomennovum said...

And with abusive relationships, I think a lot of the really bad guys tend to be overly appreciative, nice, etc. in the beginning stages.

Paging Doktor Freud!

Stephen A. Meigs said...

I think most men, and more particularly most good men, do like smart females. But most men also like youth (more than girls like youth in males). Rational thought tends to take a long time before it gives its rewards. If a female is thinking of having sex at a young age, it doesn't make as much sense to spend a great deal of time using an approach that involves lengthy deductive processes that won't do much towards making her wise until she is old, after such wisdom is most needed. Cool girls may well be more into being guided more by feelings (even though feelings are more susceptible to being warped by abuse) than rational thought just from time constraints. Another way girls are artsy is from careful observation like a painter, which observation they can refer back to when older, at which time they can more afford to unleash their rational side to make sense of their observations and feelings from youth.

Cedarford said...

Dhimmi bitch. I spit on her and her Muslim convert garb.

No victim there, just a woman that rejected her culture and civilization for a "sexier" option.

Reminds me of those white ho's that fall for a black athlete of no brains or potential if they don't make the pros (and 99.8% don't)....getting herself a couple adorable little mulatto parasites..and whining about "society's duty" to support her once black daddy is long gone. And many of these ho's go full wigger.
Aping black dress, dialect, inner city culture.....and blaming "whitey" for every bad thing in their miserable life once "Custis / Rasheed" failed to get in the pros or hang around...

Cedarford said...

Dhimmi bitch. I spit on her and her Muslim convert garb.

No victim there, just a woman that rejected her culture and civilization for a "sexier" option.

Reminds me of those white ho's that fall for a black athlete of no brains or potential if they don't make the pros (and 99.8% don't)....getting herself a couple adorable little mulatto parasites..and whining about "society's duty" to support her once black daddy is long gone. And many of these ho's go full wigger.
Aping black dress, dialect, inner city culture.....and blaming "whitey" for every bad thing in their miserable life once "Custis / Rasheed" failed to get in the pros or hang around...

Michael said...

Cedarford. Whoa, dude. Though you dont mention it, part of the appeal has to be the new wardrobe. Leopardskin indeed. Maybe a TA for the Columbia bomber professor.

Cedarford said...

I'd add that one sure way for women to make themselves far less employable or desirable to marry in the general US population is to have a mixed race kid out of wedlock 1st. You cut the pool of friends, people that would recommend you for work, and rge pool of people in society that respect you as moral - waay down.

Another sure way is to join an odious religion , or cult like the Moonies, that few can abide.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

The rumor is that on Dzhokar's twitter feed this cat was mentioned as a fur ball that was"part of the fam". A remarkably cute cat, and so I'm glad if someone is rescuing her.

Nomennovum said...

Well, that didn't take long.

Speaking of women loving bad boys. Yes, it includes terrorists.
Girls love bad boys

Just in case Dzhohkar's older bro didn't convince you.

suestew said...

"The far, far ends of both left and right meet up in a big ball of crazy that can't be labeled."

Amen sister.

Æthelflæd said...

" Speaking of women loving bad boys. Yes, it includes terrorists. Girls love bad boys."

Is that for real? Oh, hell. She'll be a guest on The Today Show and NPR next.

suestew said...

"Ladies, blame yourselves for letting men speak for you."

@chikelit

Your comment reminds me of Cooley's looking-glass self, which is the idea that our self-image is determined by our interaction with society and our perception of others. Without the "other," we have no "self." The self is a product of living and interacting with others in society.

I think there is a lot of truth to this. We are, to a certain degree, what others(society/our community) want/expect us to be. In your example, women expect/want men to speak for them (for reasons known/unknown) so they do.

suestew said...

"Speaking of women loving bad boys. Yes, it includes terrorists. Girls love bad boys."

Too bad dead men don't kiss.

Nomennovum said...

Dzhohkar's not dead yet, Susan, but there's hope.

suestew said...

@ nomennovum

Hmmm . . . too bad you can't kiss a man through five layers of plexi-glass.

Joe Schmoe said...

Chicks who apparently dig guys that bomb kids.

Anonymous said...

It's true that guys can get strung out on bitchy women, but it's nothing like the severity or frequency of woman picking guys who abuse them -- their lives may even be endgangered -- yet these women keep hanging in there to the point their girlfriends give up on them.

I think we've all seen it.

Guys are plenty stupid in relationships but they don't do that.

At least 20% of the women I know have been there, done that, and mostly escaped but for one who now has a permanent back problem from a rat bastard who went on to beat another girlfriend to death.

Amartel said...

She joined a cult.* She drank the koolaid. She's lucky to be alive.

Amartel said...

On the plus side, I'm sure she can get a job teaching sociology somewhere. In her leopard print hijab. Senior Seminar. Life After Death: Stalled In The Intersection of White Privilege Drive and White Privilege Way.

Æthelflæd said...

Chicks dig men who beat them up. Guys dig women who take all their money. This could be the basis of a new reality show: "Your Money or Your Life?"

Rusty said...


Why are men attracted to brainless bimbos or gold diggers?

I just want to rent them from time to time.

MarkD said...

The good students who always follow the rules and learn what they are taught are rewarded. The only surprise is that some do end up thinking for themselves despite a public education.

Then again, I may be insufficiently cynical.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

women expect/want men to speak for them (for reasons known/unknown) so they do.

Maybe it's just that females judge males so much by how accurately the males judge them--by how sensitive they are to their particular female selves--that it is just one of those things that happens or seems to happen. A male's sensitivity toward a female's character is harder to fake than what his own character be, because people have more direct knowledge of themselves than of others. Since sensitivity and good character tend to go together, a test of sensitivity may be a more effective test of another's character than any direct test, and thus a test that is more often employed. Since appearing sensitive is so rewarding, so can be the reward of convincing a girl that she is what one claims her to be, which for some males may involve lying or indifference to the truth.

It's remarkable how cynical people here are about others' sexual preferences. Whether one should be liberal or conservative largely depends on how effective sexual selection as opposed to salary be when it comes to rewarding justly and beautifully, and so I suppose the particular type of cynicism here explains much of the conservatism.

Amartel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amartel said...

"I started to google that but I just got a bunch of weird stuff about muslim's discovering america before columbus."

Actually, it's a fascinating theory. I think the book is called "1421". It's about a Chinese voyage of discovery and empire that made it at least to Ethiopia, maybe round Africa, maybe maaaaybe all the way to America. The person in charge of the fleet was a Muslim.

Amartel said...

"By the way, we're also going to see the surviving brother presented as someone whose will and personality were overcome by the domineering older brother.

Asking us to respond this way to the woman is softening us up for that. You know it's coming."

Some idiot has written a song, ostensibly about l'il jokhar and some other idiots have started a fan klub. Free Jokhar. And the photos everywhere of the brothers, in better times, smiling or looking into the camera in a smoldering way. Just good Amurkin kids. Titsy is already in love with rough trade fatso older bro.
Gross.

rcocean said...

Garage and NAMBLA seem to have similar dislikes. Guess we know what that means

rcocean said...

I'm not suggesting Garage is a child molester, but it is funny that some of his views are similar to NAMBLA members -in many ways.

Just sayin'

Kirk Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Parker said...

EMD,

"I'd like know if Islam has a Martin Luther, and if so, when he's busting out his hammer and nail. "

Yes indeed, though the correct verb is "had", as the Muslim Reformer has already come and gone.

Not sure you'll like his handiwork, though.

FullMoon said...

Why is she being discussed? She was married to an asshole who possibly seemed like a good guy at first.
Any reason at all to think she had any idea what he was up to?

How easy is it to leave a husband who threatens to murder her friends and family if she goes?

Maybe she could have got a restraining order and then left.

MayBee said...

He left the country for six months. She was hardly being held hostage by him.

Also, his abuse arrest was dor a different girlfriend.

MayBee said...

Why do women who convert to Islam and start wearing the hijab think things will work out? The guy was obviously attracted to the girl who didn't cover herself. He was attracted to the free girl. Doesn't she know he is going to grow to despise what he's made her become? He is going to continue to be attracted to the freely dressed women.

Fernandinande said...

"girl who was brainwashed by her [super-religious] husband."

Minus the "super-religious", that's what They typically say about female criminals.

Lisaocean86 said...

Katie took ballet with my daughter for years. She was a nice, normal kid until she went off to college and met this POS at a nightclub. She got pregnant and married him. He was verbally and physically abusive to her but she refused to report him. Probably afraid she'd get more of a beating. He left for Chechnya and wanted her to go with him. She didn't go because she was afraid he'd take her passport and she wouldn't be able to leave Chechnya. My daughter said he had isolated her from all her friends and they hadn't been able to see her since she married. I think she is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

kcom said...

"Some people like to be dominated. So gravitate towards relationships where they are in fact dominated. He may have been the ying to her yang."

Is her name Katie Russell or Katie Holmes?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 279 of 279   Newer› Newest»