Brace Yourself For This One Folks

There is only so much you can do to dig into the back story of Genarlow Wilson, but, dare I say it, it seems that Senator Douglas was right when he suggested there might have been an absence of fathers in the picture? Based on a Lexis-Nexis search for the old articles about the case and talking with people familiar with the case, it seems at least one of the girls was in a fatherless family.

And again, please feel free to use this thread to beat Senator Douglas and me up, but I think he was substantive right — girls and boys are both more likely to act out irresponsibly, and in typically sexually immature ways, when they are without male role models.

The failure of our society to deal honestly with the problems created by single parent households is going to come back to haunt us. And that everyone wants to pile on Senator Douglas when he makes a statement that could, for many of us, be logically concluded based on the facts presented and, in fact, appears to be a fact, is an inherent problem in this conversation. You all can be angry with us and accuse of racism or whatever you want, but the fact remains that children who are raised by moms and dads together, while not perfect and frequently with problems, are more typically better off and less prone to such activities.

As an aside, a friend of mine is a higher up at the CDC and was recently telling me about a study they recently released that got very little notice. The study focused on the health of children by household type, i.e. kids raised by two parent heterosexual families, two parents gay families, two parent grandparent families, two parent relative families, single parent female families, single parent male families, etc.

The study concluded what common sense should tell us — children raised in a two parent heterosexual household have the best mental and physical health of any group, except one — and this is where the real surprise came in. Know which type of family had a child with the overall best physical and mental health?

Single parent families where the single parent is the father. That surprised all the researchers.

39 comments

  1. Bill Simon says:

    “but I think he was substantive right — girls and boys are both more likely to act out irresponsibly, and in typically sexually immature ways, when they are without male role models.”

    Mr. Erickson,

    Do you have any proof to substantiate your assertions, or, are these just a “gut feel” based upon your vast knowledge and experience in studying the lives of teenage girls?

  2. Erick says:

    Oh, I dunno Bill. Let’s see, there an APA study, an NHS study, an U.S. Dept of Education Study, and several others out there.

    Take your pick.

  3. Erick says:

    Are you sure Bill? Did you read that right? Someone might have gone in and changed it. It is, after all, a grand conspiracy.

  4. Bill Simon says:

    I didn’t see John Douglas get on the blog and address the issue with Andre were it inaccurate.

    On a related point, who else besides you has administrative rights to Peach Pundit?

  5. Rick Day says:

    Lets throw the abscent father in jail. OBVIOUSLY, this is all his fault.

    Your attempt to link to the study with the facts of the case are subjective, at best. This is a straw man argument.

    If Sen Douglas cited said study as a basis for opinion, that is one thing. But experience shows speculative, stereotyped cracker crap spews from cracker mouths. Its a Deep South Fact ™. And yes, that too is a stereotype. See how easy it is?

    This proves nothing, repeat, nothing causational connecting a girls willingness to go down on a boy, to the orientation sex and marital status of their parents. Its not gender. It is dedication and love that defines the best parent. Who loves the child more? There is your answer.

    Rare these days, my parents are still married to each other. What does that say about the study, when I look back on the stuff I used to do as a teen?

    Better yet, let us use this study to allow judges the necessary ammunition so more fathers are awarded sole custody of their children.

    Now we learn women are not really the best suited, according to, ahem, our gummit.

    /eyeroll

  6. Nicki says:

    Senator Douglas was correct, but that doesn’t mean he was justified in making such a speculative comment based on what he knew of the girls, which was their behavior and their color. The assumption was racist and beyond that he used the situation to take a swipe at the victims. That’s ^%$#ed.

  7. jm says:

    So…..my mothers is to blame…. I knew it!

    We should insist that every family break up and that fathers get custody of the kids…yes, that’s the answer!

    OK….seriously now, this is research, and while he have data, its not easy to interpret.

    #1) Heterosexual couples – usually biological. Was there any data betwen adopted vs biological children? Was the study only done on adopted children?

    #2) Homosexual couples – often adopt, and children who have been through the foster system are not always going to be as well adjusted as children who have had one set of parental role models all their lives.

    #3) If the father has the sole custody, then more than likely he is a very strong role model in the first place, as courts tend to give custody to the mother. so that would skew the results.

    #4) When families split it, it is often for the best. Yes, that sucks. But there are some fathers out there who should never have had children, but we can’t stop them. I know of a young man who was an absolute mess in ninth grade – gangs, drugs, fights, etc. He dropped out that year (he was 17). By 20 we has dead, gunshot during a drug deal. He left behind two young children. I’m not going to speculate, but are his children better off without him? I just don’t know.

    So again, the data lies where it lies…the interpretation must be carefully performed after more studies., I’m sure.
    The Wilson case involves several families, each with their own complex histories, and one should never speculate about an individual’s situation without careful analysis.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    jm,

    Darn good questions…lots of opportunities for intervening variables to throw any of the studies’ conclusions into the Potomic (sp?) River.

  9. Rogue109 says:

    Interesting that even the slightest suggestion that parental responsibility is needed or that the classic “nuclear family” model should be a goal sends many here into fits…

  10. Bill Simon says:

    Rogue,

    Interesting that a lawyer would choose someone else/something else to blame for acts committed by individuals WHO are only defined by a randomly-set law as to whether or not they are of the “age of consent.”

  11. Rogue109 says:

    Bill and Nicki: Okay, you don’t want us to hold Wilson accountable and you don’t want us to hold his parents accountable. Oh, and you don’t like the law. Got it. Well, when a 16-year-old has sex with a 10-year-old and its “consenual” and there is public outrage…I’ll keep all this in mind.

  12. Rogue109 says:

    Nah, VictoratGaImproper, we don’t need anyone’s help. Nicki and Bill have this all locked up: we need to eliminate all laws of this ilk and permit children of any age to have sex with other children of any age as long as they “consent.” A 15-year-old finds that seven year old hot? Go for it! And bring your weed and some bourbon…it’ll be a hoot! Who are YOU to judge them???

    Bill and Nicki believe that a society is improved by encouraging sex/booze/drug parties among large groups of minors and that parents should have no responsibility to raise their children.

    And why stop there? We shouldn’t have a sex offender registry at all! If a 14-year-old consents to have sex with a man who is 50, who are we to judge? It’s love, baby! They aren’t a predator as long as its “consensual”! They aren’t ultimately forever hurting these children’s fragile psychological development…they are finding soul mates!

    We need to quit building walls and start building bridges…into our children’s bedrooms. Thanks Bill! Thanks Nicki!

  13. Rick Day says:

    and Thanks, Rogue, for putting words in others peoples mouths. Years difference? Yeah you got a point? Weeks or months? C’mon….not apples to apples. the case at hand….

  14. Nicki says:

    Rogue, with all due respect, please STFU. Or at a minimum, please stop making %$#@ up.

    To clarify:
    1. I have always been opposed to laws criminalizing consensual relationships among peers, like the law under which Wilson was charged.
    2. I dislike laws that are excessive, unfeasible, and counterproductive. This would include the same law, as well as the recent sex offender registry law. (I don’t necessarily oppose registries. I oppose stupid registry requirements which increase the likelihood of recidivism. I am a victim of someone who is on our state registry and I’d like him to stay out of jail and on the registry.)
    3. I like personal responsibility. I also am a prude by most people’s standards. And I have zero respect for people who have children without raising them properly.
    4. I also have zero respect for people who make up straw men to support counterarguments against arguments that were never made.

  15. Rogue109 says:

    Rick: I’m doing nothing of the sort. They do not believe that there should be arbitrary laws about sex between minors as long as it is consenual. And in a debate where people like John Konop think it acceptable to put attribute racist and bigoted tendencies to Erick and myself, I don’t see why I should remain mute.

    Donkey Kong: Bill and Nicki do not want to hold anyone accountable with this situation and they don’t want the law enforced. Bill keeps asking everyone when they first had sex and thinks that crimes like this shouldn’t be punished. If he thinks that, then how can he be against old men having sex with 10-year-olds if there is “consent”?

  16. Rogue109 says:

    Nicki:

    “I have always been opposed to laws criminalizing consensual relationships among peers, like the law under which Wilson was charged.”

    Okay, so what’s wrong with what I said?

    “I dislike laws that are excessive, unfeasible, and counterproductive. This would include the same law, as well as the recent sex offender registry law. ”

    Soooo, you also think the registry should be eliminated, too. Again, why should I STFU? Because I properly outlined your beliefs?

  17. Nicki says:

    No, because you improperly outlined my beliefs. And while we’re at it, you keep combining me with Bill when we don’t work together or share identical beliefs.

    And because you need to learn to read. Example: Soooo, you also think the registry should be eliminated, too.

  18. Rogue109 says:

    Nicki: I apologize for comparing you to Bill Simon…..clearly I don’t understand the difference between you both:

    Nicki – Wants Wilson set free and law ignored.
    Bill – Wants Wilson set free and law ignored.

    Sorry you disagree with my interpretation of your words…so you think that the sex offender registry should be kept around even though it is “excessive, unfeasible, and counterproductive”?

  19. Bill Simon says:

    Rogue,

    Perhaps you missed a post I made on another thread where I changed my viewpoint on what to do about Wilson.

    However, that change has NOTHING to do with your psycho-social examinations and subsequent “conclusions” on who is to blame when a sexual act is performed by and between someone’s kids under the age of consent.

  20. Rogue109 says:

    Bill: The fact is that if someone even suggests that parents might bear some small measure of responsibility in situations like this makes you break out in hives! Okay, so you don’t think it fair to hold parents responsible! Don’t shy away…embrace your position! And you don’t see anything wrong with kids having sex with kids! Again…embrace your position! Because God knows that society is improved by prosecutors not taking on cases where there are videotapes of teens at sex/booze/drug parties and serious questions about consent!

  21. redsouther says:

    It’s always interesting to see how people respond when someone points out how the decline of the traditional family has influenced our society. By the way, I wish I had the time to sit around and wait for Erick to post something I disagree with so I can respond with a witty analysis of his obvious ignorance…then wait around in my pajamas, refreshing my browser every 30 seconds, to see if he’ll keep responding to my ridiculousness. Bill Simon.

    Unfortunately I have a job, and can only spend limited time on these sites, so I’ll add my defence of Erick’s comments to the ever growing pile of nonsense and be on my way.

    I know some of you don’t get out a lot, but anyone who’s dated at all has had some experience with girls who have “father issues.” It’s no secret that a girl’s relationship with her father, or lack thereof, has a profound impact on how she views and responds to men. It’s also no secret that a lot of girls who have poor or no relationships with their father end up sexually active at a much earlier age.

    As a father, of a girl, I know from experience that the father-daughter relationship has a profound effect on a young girl’s view of the world. It’s frightening when I think about it, that my daughter’s behaviour later in life depends a great deal on how I treat her right now.

    All Erick and the Senator are trying to say is that we are now paying for the distain with which we have treated the family unit in this country. It doesn’t only apply to absent fathers either – poor fathers can do much more damage than no father at all. What we’re trying to say is that we need to start recognizing that there is a reason it takes both sexes to make a child…

  22. Bill Simon says:

    Rogue,

    The Bible has many demonstrations of married relationships between females of age 13, 14, etc. and males….SO to your invocation of God’s Name in THIS conversation demonstrates several things:

    1) God apparently did not think that the age of consent was 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18.

    2) If your argument is that it is not a good thing that kids have sex with other kids in today’s times, I am in agreement.

    BUT, to CRIMINALIZE such NATURAL, BIOLOGICAL-BASED actions between individuals who are 1) peers amongst themselves, and 2) are beyond the age of puberty, is a witch-hunt type of mentality that marginalizes REAL criminal behavior.

  23. Nicki says:

    More accurately: Wants Wilson release and law reworked so that “aggravated child molestation” does not apply to consensual behavior among peers.

    And again, with the reading: you think that the sex offender registry should be kept around even though it is “excessive, unfeasible, and counterproductive”? I said the most recent law pertaining to the registry is as described. But I was imprecise. I’m opposed to the laws which mandated the inclusion of the above, and I’m opposed to the law that limits people on the list from living within 1,000 feet of pretty much anything. Registries themselves — eh. They’re a useful tool for victims and potential victims. I use Georgia’s to look up the guy who attacked me every once in a while so I know where he lives.

  24. jm says:

    Bill

    No, I think the studies are good, the data I believe, and the conclusions they made are probably valid. But note, the scientists didn’t say “Single men are better fathers because…” because they did not research that question…its the next step. The same as for why intact familes are better than “broken” ones, in general…no reasons given.

    Once we understand the reasons, we can provide support and education to single mothers, to give them some advice. And I’m sure there are plenty of single mothers who got it right, there are lessons to be learned, for sure.

    I’m backing off, because I don’t know if Erick intentionally meant to tie the Wilson case to this research; he called it “an aside.” Well, I don’t like it when people stretch research conclusions to fit their political ends. The data doesn’t lie, but the interpretations of that data, thats where you’ll find the controversy every time.

  25. Rogue109 says:

    Bill:

    “God apparently did not think that the age of consent was 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18.”

    Why don’t you write an amicus curie brief to the Court of Appeals and hit them with that stunning legal argument, then? That would have to be your main argument because you can’t reference any actual caselaw to support your position.

    I’m outa here…ya’ll have a good weekend (yes, even you Nikki).

  26. Bill Simon says:

    Rogue,

    Ohhhh…I see now. This statement by you “Because God knows that society is improved by prosecutors not taking on cases where there are videotapes of teens at sex/booze/drug parties and serious questions about consent!” was really a case of using the Lord’s Name in Vain, and not implying that God Himself would like for the prosecutors to hunt down these teens.

    Got it now. I swear. 🙂

  27. Rogue109 says:

    Bill: HA! Okay, smarty (grin). Anyway, do you think society is improved by prosecutors not taking on cases where there are videotapes of teens at sex/booze/drug parties and there are serious questions about consent?

    What does District Attorney Bill Simon do to ensure that the laws are enforced to protect his Judicial Circuit? Does he have his ADAs make the final decisions in all cases and never leave it up to a jury of the defendant’s peers to decide what should happen? Does he Nolle Prosequi all cases involving sex between people of the same age bracket?

    More importantly, what if a Judge tells DA Bill Simon he isn’t going to let anyone convicted of, for instance, armed robbery, get more than five days in jail even though the OCGA requires a minimum of 10 years in custody? Does DA Bill Simon sit back and just relax because the Judge is using his self-invented “judicial power” to ignore the law? Or does DA Bill Simon realize that to have Judges willy nilly IGNORE the law sets a dangerous example which must be fought every time?

    Listen, there was a case I prosecuted once where the Judge DID NOT follow the statutory guidelines for sentencing. Did I sit back and allow it to occur? No…you can’t have a Judge ignore the law because ALL of us operate under it, even though I liked this particular Judge. I moved the case to the Court of Appeals and won. I say this not because I was super prosecutor but because McDade and Baker are in the right here. They are doing what they have to do.

    District Attorney’s and Solicitors-General represent ALL the people and must take positions that are as uniform as possible and cannot shirk their duty. You moan and you cry (not literally) for Wilson and your position is understandable. But the day a District Attorney or Solicitor-General stops being the benchmark for following the law then that is when the system grows ever more out of control. Does it happen from time to time that a DA or SG makes the wrong call? Of course. But every effort must be made every day to follow the law as it is written and not as the mob wants it enforced. There is a method for changing the law…when it occurs, then prosecutors change their position. That’s how this all works.

    If Wilson’s attorney would ever realize that being in front of a camera is not the best way to represent her client, she might re-evaluate the deal that has been offered. But, no…and Wilson sits in his cell for another weekend. Well played, B.J. Bernstein…your appearance fee has increased, I’m sure.

  28. RJL says:

    Comes now Erik in furtherance of argument by the indistinguishable Senator, to wit: justice is less likely to be miscarried if the victims and/or associates of same enjoyed the benefit of fathers in their homes.

    Ingenious.

  29. dingleberry says:

    For starters, who the f*ck is Senator John Douglas. Secondly, why the f*ck should anyone care what he says?

Comments are closed.