Newlywed lawyer killed after soliciting gay sx on Craigslist

[Kahaih]

Well, not quite incredibly. We can say something about his fake marriage not based on sexuality but by noting that he seems like a cheating piece of shit - which I gather from his widow being "left without answers." She might have said "This is an inexplicable loss; we had done this so many times. He like to make videos. I liked to watch. It was harmless fun," but she did not.

Noting that 'answers' is plural, what are the questions?

'So . . . . You're telling me he liked the cock?' is only one question.

What other questions might we assume she'd have? I think there'd be many – and not all of them exclusive to her husband's extramarital sexual escapades.

 

[bankside]

Noting that 'answers' is plural, what are the questions?

'So . . . . You're telling me he liked the cock?' is only one question.

What other questions might we assume she'd have? I think there'd be many – and not all of them exclusive to her husband's extramarital sexual escapades.

airspeed of an unladen swallow???

Dunno. Admittedly they might have had an unconventional relationship that she was unwilling to talk about during a press conference, but I don't buy that. First, people with unconventional relationships usually also have the courage to acknowledge them when it is relevant. Second, they're reporting his texts back to her the evening of the murder: he'd be home in an hour...and not "hehehe get ready for another video.."or something like that.

All of which leads me to think they had a conventional married monogamous relationship which he betrayed.

If I were her, I'd just think to myself "Is this what happens when a cheater sneaks around in a crazy furtive world of lies and expedient anonymous sex with complete, potentially psychotic, strangers, instead of even having the balls to tell me I was in an open relationship whether I wanted it or not?" and I would probably answer myself "Yes," and then think "Oh well then."

 

[IamNoah]

Adultery old fashioned, dirty, secretive adultery does not make a marriage fake. Modern man's subjectivity and emotionalism is most peculiar. Marriage fundamentally is an agreement to share room, board, and bed until someone dies. Cheating on my husband would make me a cad and an adulterer. It would not however mean that third parties would be justified in asserting that the marriage was somehow fake. People cheat it happens. I'd advise against reading too much into what men do with their cocks. He stood somewhere in front of his friends and family and decided to build a life with this woman. That's marriage.

 

[bankside]

Marriage is fundamentally an agreement to be faithful and decent to one another until someone dies. Pretending to uphold those things whilst plotting one's next random fuck makes one a cheating piece of shit and a matrimonial faker.

 

[bankside]

Anno Domini. It means in the year of Our Lord because the Christian religion more or less created Western Civilization.

Of course civilization was on its feet, and in the west too, long before christianity was ever dreamt up. That some of the ideas of civilisation are supposed to be christian in origin is no surprise; historically the catholics are worse than red china when it comes to acknowledging and protecting the intellectual property of others. There is no reason for anyone to hew to their conceit. Christianity is neither the foundation of (western) civilization nor indispensable to it, indeed, since the enlightenment we've mostly understood how entrenched it is as an impediment to it.

 

[IamNoah]

I'll grant the cheating piece of shit part. But not the fake part. Humans are capable of many strange behaviors. Louis XIV was practically an open polygamist with all his mistresses. But when one had the temerity to insult his wife (and double first cousin) he slapped her. Marriage is marriage is marriage. Concubinage, fucking, shacking up, or even being nice, kind, faithful, etc these are different things.

 

[IamNoah]

Of course civilization was on its feet, and in the west too, long before christianity was ever dreamt up. That some of the ideas of civilisation are supposed to be christian in origin is no surprise; historically the catholics are worse than red china when it comes to acknowledging and protecting the intellectual property of others. There is no reason for anyone to hew to their conceit. Christianity is neither the foundation of (western) civilization nor indispensable to it, indeed, since the enlightenment we've mostly understood how entrenched it is as an impediment to it.

I'm no fan of the enlightenment I should say--huge amounts of anti-Catholicism, racism, capitalism, etc loosed on the world by that particular project. As to the rest of your post I simply disagree with each and every point found therein--though I do not consider the reading of history in this way as utterly indefensible.

- - - Updated - - -

Usual caveat when my Papism starts to show: I'm an atheist.

 

[bankside]

The measure of a marriage is not how it stacks up against other failed marriages, but how closely people keep to what they decided together at the time this voluntary thing came upon them.

It's been a long time since the church had the authority to dictate what anyone's vows must be. And in that (post-enlightenment) freedom, people are free to skip the "forsaking all others" part. Or they are free to commit to it. They're not free to commit to it, then skip it.

Of course the church - alleged foundation of all this- even offers annulment in cases where it can be shown that the vows were faked. Fake vows, fake marriage. If we're ready to pass on the church and really enjoy some of that common law around contracts that has flourished since the enlightenment, then we can rest assured there are plenty of provisions around parties to a contract who never intend to perform their part of the bargain. Fake contract, fake marriage.

 

[IamNoah]

So many directions I could go in. May I choose the one that interests me most? Santa Iglesia. The Church (the The Church, not the various sects that predominate in the English speaking world) does not now claim and has never claimed the power to marry people. While marriage is a sacrament the ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the persons being married so formal vows, promises to do particular things, etc these are not essential to the way Santa Iglesia has understood marriage. Marriage is a Sacrament conferred by one baptized person on another and the base pre- and post-enlightenment intention that was required was merely the intention to be married. The Church can neither marry nor un-marry she can only recognize nullity. And the nullity that arises in an attempted marriage is the same as the nullity that arises in other Sacraments not some gobbledegook about feelings. Defect of form, defect of intent, defect of matter, invalid minister, invalid recipient.

 

[IamNoah]

But yes grave deceit is actually grounds for a decree of nullity. Something like hiding one's atheism, lunacy, homosexuality, poverty, disease, etc from one's attempted spouse.

 

[bankside]

I'm no fan of the enlightenment I should say--huge amounts of anti-Catholicism, racism, capitalism, etc loosed on the world by that particular project. As to the rest of your post I simply disagree with each and every point found therein--though I do not consider the reading of history in this way as utterly indefensible.

- - - Updated - - -

Usual caveat when my Papism starts to show: I'm an atheist.

The enlightenment was the beginning of the understanding that god did not pick a people by their blood to live or die in war. These are the seeds of anti racism. It was the beginning of the end for ius sanguini and the start of ius soli and a huge step in the transformation of people from vassals placed under a lord and master by god, to citizens and bearers of rights by common consent.
The capitalism would still serve us well today if we could get back to it in a form that Adam smith might recognise, instead of this neo-theo-feudalism practiced by American republican types.
And the anti catholicism has yet to go far enough. There is no amount of nostalgia to justify what my mother in law went through in Ireland for example. Shut the fucking thing down. The Italians nearly did in the latter half of the 19th century; a historic opportunity squandered.

 

[IamNoah]

The enlightenment was the beginning of the understanding that god did not pick a people by their blood to live or die in war. These are the seeds of anti racism. It was the beginning of the end for ius sanguini and the start of ius soli and a huge step in the transformation of people from vassals placed under a lord and master by god, to citizens and bearers of rights by common consent.
The capitalism would still serve us well today if we could get back to it in a form that Adam smith might recognise, instead of this neo-theo-feudalism practiced by American republican types.
And the anti catholicism has yet to go far enough. There is no amount of nostalgia to justify what my mother in law went through in Ireland for example. Shut the fucking thing down. The Italians nearly did in the latter half of the 19th century; a historic opportunity squandered.

I consider the rivers of Catholic blood shed in nearly every country of the world in the Twentieth Century to have been really quite enough anti-Catholicism. I do not know your mother-in-law, but I know myself. I know that three of my grandparents, both of my parents and nearly everyone I know, love, and admire has been enriched by Holy Church. To paraphrase Flannery O'Çonnor the Church is a whore, but she's my mother. Everything good or bad in me goes back to Her. God of course is fake, but the Church is real and I draw constant and ever-renewing meaning and wisdom from Her. I simply disagree with you, no bother. Pro Ecclesia Contra Mundum.

 

[bankside]

Ahh the church is a whore, to paraphrase you, with a tumour. It has been allowed to grow for some time. In Ireland they wanted to ignore the tumour and life is now ebbing away from the body.

Suits me. It is after all one kind of reform.

Or,

J'y is, actée Allah onde l'industrie of réforme. (As i originally put it without realising I'd accidentally tapped the keyboard language button on my phone. )

 

[IamNoah]

Ahh the church is a whore, to paraphrase you, with a tumour. It has been allowed to grow for some time. In Ireland they wanted to ignore the tumour and life is now ebbing away from the body.

Suits me. It is after all one kind of reform.

Or,

J'y is, actée Allah onde l'industrie of réforme. (As i originally put it without realising I'd accidentally tapped the keyboard language button on my phone. )

Nothing lasts forever and I am not like my grandmother who died saying "Dios te salve, María, llena eres de gracia, el Señor es contigo," or my living grandmother who is saying the same words somewhere right now. I do not believe the Church is bound to survive because of some supernatural destiny--Mass attendance, vocations to the priesthood, etc--these things do not speak of a particularly glorious future. But it'll last long enough for a priest to pour water over my children's heads, consecrate them to el Inmaculado Corazón de María, and lay me in consecrated ground after having said some fine words in Latin or Spanish over my unembalmed remains. After that the matter isn't really any of my business. Though I do not like the idea of a world without the engine that has driven my culture, I'm far more concerned with how to transmit Spanish language and Afro-Cuban identity to my as yet unbegotten offspring given that their other father will be so utterly Anglo and white (he's a fucking Mormon of sorts if you want to pick on someone's religion).

 

[Keeland]

Your psychology is Stockholm Syndrome writ large.

 

[IamNoah]

Sir, I assure I'm not someone to be trifled with. I disagree with you. Profoundly. There is nothing in any way wrong with any mental process of mine.

 

[Keeland]

Sir, I assure I'm not someone to be trifled with.

You and your trifling ways!

Seriously, why do you assume I'm trifling with you?

 

[mbamike]

If robbery was her motive, why did she target MSM?

 

[JohnnyAnger]

If robbery was her motive, why did she target MSM?

Probably targeting married men who would not report the crime out of fear of being outed.

 

[Kahaih]

If robbery was her motive, why did she target MSM?

What's 'MSM'?


As for her 'target', maybe she believes gay men are weak. And don't forget, she was an athlete, and she's at least somewhat military trained.

The 21-year-old attended the Forestville Military Academy in Maryland, . . .

And it seems to me that there is also something going on with her cross-dressing and acting like guy on line, too.



But, without much information to go on, I'm still leaning toward the extortion theory – find a closeted married man, get his home/wife/family info, and take him for all he's got.