Saturday, November 17, 2007

The Boyfriend Problem

Even the mainstream media is starting to connect the dots between cohabiting boyfriends and child abuse. This AP story reported on yahoo.com includes horrific incidents, as well as interviews with experts like my friend Prof. Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia sociology department.
The bottom line: the most dangerous person in a child's life, the person most likely to abuse a child, is his mother's cohabiting boyfriend. Not the biological father. The feminists and their political allies have driven biological married fathers out of the home. Feminists have convinced women that marriage is dangerous to them. The opponents of marriage never seem to take responsibility for the fact that the main alternative to marriage, cohabitation, is much more dangerous to women and their children.
Notice this paragraph from the very bottom of the AP story:
Oscar Jimenez Jr., the San Jose, Calif., boy found buried under cement and fertilizer, did have a biological father who was devoted to him. But the father, Oscar Sr., separated from Oscar Jr.'s mother in 2002 and was prevented from seeing his son in the weeks before the boy's death in February, allegedly from a beating by live-in boyfriend and ex-convict Samuel Corona.

I'd be interested to know who prevented the father from seeing his child, and how they prevented him.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

And round and round we go....

How about this... Women (ok, read feminists) pushed for no fault divorce, and oppressive levels of "child" support/alimony, and carte blanche when it comes to reproduction, and insisted we automatically believe any woman that cries "rape".

The result:

Marriage has about as much "commitment" in it (especially for women, who initiate better than 70% of divorces) as the Stoy of O. The potential risks of getting married (for men) include loss of home, and majority of assets, indentured servitude to his ex-wife for up to 21 years, the loss of any offspring, no right to reproductive self-determination, and an ever present spectre that rape accusations are a quite possible means of "revenge" employed by ...well, any female really.

This is no joke, this is how I and a good portion of men view relations with women, and as a result I have NO intention of ever putting myself in that vulnerable of a position again. Thankfully, a lot of men are smarter than me, and they avoid matrimony like the plaugue. This is one area where I concede victory to the feminists...they wanted to destroy marriage, and they succeeded. Frankly, I care a WHOLE lot less than the whiny 40-something never married columnists that just can't seem to shut up about being childless and duped by feminism into believing men actually like accomplished women. Here's the cold hard facts....a man will find the youngest, hottest thing he can attract...and young hot things LIKE older rich guys....

If my relationship is a power struggle, I'm out. So are most men. Deal with it or start cat shopping early.

So what does this have to do with the "boyfriend problem"? Well, for starters what the hell is she doing with a kid and a BOYFRIEND? Hey, I'm no prude, but that really only happens 2 ways - divorce or promiscuity.

I support promiscuity, in fact I love that women are promiscuous in general. Perfect for me. I had a vasectomy though.

But not for the kids. See, that guy has no attachment to the kid, or if it exists it's nowhere NEAR the same thing as a father/child bond (I have 2 kids, I know). Add to this fact that the probability of the "boyfriend" actually being a bad boy that makes her all gooey, rather than a "nice guy" (she already divorced him, remember?), well...that's just a recipe for disaster.

The blame...ALL of it, lies squarely on the moms. You're responsible for your kids....grow the hell up already.

Either that, or give the kids to your ex (your opinion of him is NOT universally shared, no matter what your ego tells you).

Factory

RScott said...

The previous poster is correct, but even he fails to understand how bad the situation is or how it took the alliance of more than just radical feminists to create this situation. Like him, I'm divorced, but I have no children. The 2001 Colorado legislature added a bounty on marriage, in addition to unilateral, no-fault divorce, with an automatic presumption formula. This formula is applied upon separation and provides 40% of the gross pay of the working spouse to the non-working spouse immediately. The 40% is based on NO children, and a gross income of $75,000 or less (wouldn't want to harm the income of divorce attorneys). There is NO minimum for the length of the marriage or the length of the recipients unemployment. Bottom line - marriage is the precise opposite of commitment. No person is eligible for marriage if they make less than $75K annually and a have a "no quit" professional commitment? It is so bad that the ONLY way to have a committed marriage is to avoid state involvement completely - marry in the eyes of the church ONLY, no license or state permission. Let the gays have state marriage since it is nothing more than the capability to destroy the other person. The shocking part? This bill received support of most of the Republicans in the state legislature and was signed by a Republican governor. Only two were wise enough to vote against it. It literally ended my very active volunteer support of the Republican party.
Like the previous poster, the only women I even consider dating are those who are so overwhelmingly attractive I just cannot say no. In addition, they also must be as professional as I to even be considered for a serious relationship. It is a pattern we see across the nation - only professional equals are marrying now. As long as state marriage includes signing a document that immeidately VOIDS your marriage vows, most of us will not participate. As long as Republicans view men the same as the radical feminists, I'll be avoiding the political process.

Anonymous said...

Neither of the two previous posters really gets it. Poster #1 ("Factory") shows that he cares more about hoarding assets than anything else. And poster #2 ("rscott") says that unless a woman is drop-dead gorgous or has loads of money, she's not good enough to marry. To state the obvious: Having focused more on worldly goods (rather than sharing) and a woman's body shape (rather than obeying Prov. 31:30), these two posters cease to be quality marriage material anyway.

The bottom line here is the fact that no-fault divorce puts children at risk, and women are hardly the only ones to blame. Remember, no-fault divorce allows a man to work his way up to the top in his career while a wife stays home to raise their children, only to have him walk out on the marriage whenever he wants to, exchanging his "40" for a pair of "20s" on a whim. In doing so, he puts his children at risk by forcing his wife to look for a new spouse. (And before anyone rebuts this, saying she should remain single forever, just look at the stats for how financially feasible it is a single mother to raise children by herself in this day and age. The numbers speak for themselves.)

Either way, whether the man walks out of the marriage or the woman does, children suffer. Men and women must both have a heart for total committment toward one another for the sake of the family.

RScott said...

Anonymous at 0830 really missed the point. Those positions were not mine, but the position of the Colorado legislature when they passed the law. Complying with that law is the issue - if you choose to involve the state in your marriage than you are complying with a law that favors ignoring marital vows, children in daycare, and minimal income levels for each parent. I actively opposed this law, including contacting the governor's office directly and making a clear case for it's veto. He signed it instead. My point is simple: any man with the knowledge of the law must have one heck of an incentive to become involved in a relationship leading to marriage. Also note that both myself and the previous poster have been victims of divorce - a divorce we did not choose. Divorce is unilateral now, we had it imposed upon us, it was NOT our choice. To blame men is to blame the victim. My wife was adulterous with a man more than 20 years her senior - the gorgeous 20 something cheating with the older and wealthier man is probably cheating on her like aged husband. Statistically, men and women cheat in equal numbers because no other case is possible. Men and women are married in equal numbers and the only way one group could cheat in greater numbers would be with a tremendous amount of homosexuality -simply not the case. I may marry again, but if under the states laws it WILL comply with those laws having already suffered the agony and financial loss of thinking my marital vows stood a ghost of a chance under our "justice" system.

Anonymous said...

8:30 a.m. Anonymous has got it right. Grow up, everybody. Once you have a child, that child must receive your best care and love. Commit yourselves to your marriage BEFORE you marry, so that you understand its intent. Realize that a father AND a mother are of equal importance to the healthy growth of a child. Quit blaming everybody else for your lack of responsibility. All children deserve better! My husband walked out on me for another woman, but luckily I had a great job. Years later, I am still having to pay the piper for having tried to maintain our life style for the kids without their father, and having helped provide college education for our two children. I don't blame all men for this. Just one man. And I've practiced to forgive him, as it's better for my sanity and peace of mind. Get rid of the grudges and the hate.

RScott said...

9:50 AM Anonymous: Nothing in your statement I disagree with. Like you, I must live with my experience and apply that experience to the future. I did not have children, even though I love children and even volunteered for two years in a medical foster home. As a male, I have no choice in producing children beyond the sex act, which has been legally separated from marriage. In other words, I have no choice in parenthood even if married to the mother: she may become pregnant by any man she chooses and I'm likely to be forced by government to pay the resulting bills even if I am not the father. DNA testing is starting to get some recognition by government, but often as not in an effort to prevent such testing. Unilateral, no-fault, zero responsibility divorce is a disaster for both men and women: quite literally a reward system for irresponsibility and fraud while handing the bill to the person doing the right thing. I don't advocate it, actively fight it every chance I get. Unfortunately, the current method of fighting this fraud involves non-participation. I'm 48 and unlikely to ever have children. I'm not capable of identifying women with enough future character to tell our government they can keep their divorce incentives away from her marriage. Thus, we must avoid involving the government marriage destruction engine at the very beginning. Not my choice; like you I'm a victim of marital abandonment and a further victim of a legal system who held ME responsible for my own victimization. No thanks! A women who understands this is the only type that can expect a serious relationship with me or any thinking man. Acceptance of the radical agenda is the driver of this situation, not men who have learned the hard way to simply avoid it.

Peter S. Chamberlain said...

Dr. Morse is so right! Here in Texas, and elsewhere, the "live=in" boyfriend [and the stepfather] have no legally recognized and enforced duties toward the children in the home. The results are disastrous.

In one case, a jury verdict against the live-in for burning "I cry" into a very small child with cigarettes was reversed because he had no duties toward the child, too young to identify her vicious assailant.

In my law practice, these "live-in" cases accounted for a large percentage of the sexual and other child abuse. Too many of the mothers would align themselves with the live-in rather than their own child, largely out of fear that this person, having no commitments or legal obligations, would leave. Some moved in with a man, or let a man move in, including known or convicted abusers, without knowing anything about him, I dealt with one where the mother told the molested daughter that she would no longer love her nor permit her to return home unless she recanted. Others repeatedly abused both the mother and children, and the mother would not stick to her guns and prosecute the offender. After several patently false recantations of abuse charges--one police report read "too terrorized to testify", one let the live-in get her to help him rape her 10 year old daughter. He never did any time even after this came out.

Of course, I also found myself representing the incestuously molested biological "legitimate" daughters, sisters, and nieces of a lot of married people, some of whom held powerful positions in the public and private sectors.

Also, let's not forget the married mothers who abuse children terribly, though less commonly.

I happen to agree with the posters of some comments here that the unintended or largely unanticipated consequences of "no fault" divorce, etc., have created or exacerbated grave social problems and problems for real individual children, but, if you sire a child, you should be held accountable. If you are the male figure in a home, you should also be expected to protect the children there, and treated accordingly by the law if you fail to do so.

RScott said...

From Dr. Morse' comments: "The feminists and their political allies have driven biological married fathers out of the home. Feminists have convinced women that marriage is dangerous to them. The opponents of marriage never seem to take responsibility for the fact that the main alternative to marriage, cohabitation, is much more dangerous to women and their children."

Like the attorney who posted some horrendous acts of two men, I too am aware of two such horrible men: the man who abandoned his wife and children to run off with my now ex-wife and the ex-husband of a girlfriend of mine who placed himself on a slow path to suicide with alcohol, leaving her to raise two young children. The problem I have with focus on the evil and irresponsible men among us is the laws that are passed as a result and that make ALL men their target. We should celebrate the good men who CHOOSE to be a positive influence in a child’s life, even when they are not the parent of that child. Instead, like marriage itself, we make the good men who like children and want to help them into suspected criminals. I had to go through criminal background checks, including fingerprinting, in order to volunteer in a medical foster home. I jumped through the hoops of proving my innocence in order to volunteer because I truly appreciate and enjoy children just as most men do. FYI, these children were all in this situation because of failures of BOTH their parents. Given the increasingly negative laws targeted at men, I would not repeat that volunteer experience today.
The first anonymous female poster chose to personally attack me and the first poster instead of the laws we face as men. Having been involved actively in politics for years, I'm rather used to the "shoot the messenger" mentality of many people. It is rare to have biblical references used in the attack, but I agree that the bible certainly would be a better source of guidance for relationships than the feminist controlled laws surrounding marriage. Choosing to invoke the laws or marriage/divorce through accepting the states marriage license means you have chosen the legal system over other guidance. The result being that laws such as Colorado Senate Bill 01-158 direct the rules you will live under if you choose legal marriage. The specifics being as follows:

1) An Enhanced-911 hang-up call brings police to the home with a presumption of a "DV" or domestic violence event requiring the immediate arrest of one the adults living in the home. Guess who is most likely to be arrested?

2) The person not arrested takes out a no facts required Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the basis of their spouse being arrested on a "DV".

3) The above events invoke the full effects of SB 01-158 mandating 40% of the gross pay (if the annual income is below $75K) of the very next paycheck must go to the "unrestrained" spouse even as the previously arrested person must find new living arrangements and pay for legal defense for the often unjustified "DV" charge. Note, the 40% rate assumes the couple has NO children, it goes up to provide for child support.

4) The formula in the law cancels out the payment if the couple have equal incomes - the maximum penalty is if one person does not work at all - yet there is no minimum time for length of the marriage nor the length of unemployment. If the couple does have children, what are the odds of one person providing full-time care if there is the slightest friction in the marriage? That's right, put them in child care since there are no legal penalties for doing that (the state has a clearly expressed preference in the law for two income parents using child care) - and the state also receives maximum taxes through their express bias.

Consider this situation in light of the statement from Dr. Morse as well as the statistics showing dramatic reductions in the marriage rates, statistics showing 75 - 80% of divorces are initiated by women, and the already existing family court biases against men. Try to even find statistics on the number of men committing suicide following destruction through the family court system.

These laws are hitting the men trying to do the right thing right in the teeth. Yet, we blame the men for trying to comply with both the law and societal expectations?

Anonymous said...

Need your help. I am researching info regarding the negative affects of biological father cohabitating with girlfriend who has daughter and son living with them (daughter is convicted felon and son is currently in juvenille hall for probation violation). My kids visitation is fri thru sun at their home. My daughter has already been sexually violated and my son has been exposed to online pornography, twice. The Child protective services agency has not investigated even though they were informed twice, once by a Dr. James Dobson counselor and an MFT that we are currently seeing because of my 5-yr old daughters behavioral issues.
I am going to court soon to fight for full custody otherwise I don't feel I am being a decent mom
What do you recommend?

Jennifer Roback Morse said...

Dear Anon:
I'm sorry, but I am not in a position to give advice in this kind of situation. You need a good attorney, as well as a counselor.
God bless and Hang in there!
Dr J