When To Involve Cops With Family

Your family member might be, or is, breaking the law, or is out of control with a mental breakdown or rage.

Do you call the the police?

That depends.

Some things to keep in mind:

• Your call will be recorded. Your location, name, voice, and what you say will be in the possession of a government agency and might be subject to release to the public.
• If police respond, they will be armed.
• If police respond, they might search you, your vehicle, your residence, etc.
• They might arrest someone, including you.
• They might end up using force, including deadly force.
• Assume everything will be audio and video recorded, but you won’t have access to the recordings, or they might be made public. 
• If the person cited or arrested is your spouse or dependent, that is going to have negative consequences and repercussions for you, including financial. 

Involving law enforcement should be a last resort, if any resort at all.

I thought about this when Dr. Laura told a caller to call the police on her husband, to get him stopped for potentially driving under the influence.

Nobody should drive impaired. The caller didn’t know for sure her husband was impaired. Dr. Laura certainly didn’t know. And it’s no skin off her nose if some caller ends up in a terrible situation. Her net worth is in the millions. She has no dependents. She can afford legal fees, fines, etc. Many of her callers can’t.

If someone is a danger to you, your children, or other dependents, it’s best to be financially and legally separated from them as well as physically. Involving the police when you’re still going to be legally connected is usually a very bad idea.

Of course, if you or someone else is facing imminent, serious harm or deadly violence, and you can’t get away or get the others away and can’t neutralize the aggressors yourself, an emergency call might be in order. But it has to be very serious.

I grew up with a respect for police and an optimistic view of police. But let’s think logically here. It’s a job. For any job, you’re beholden to your boss more than anyone else. You may think police work for you, but their boss is their chain of command. Law enforcement personnel are primarily there for the bidding of government; to enforce laws, not to be of service to you. It’s great if police have provided a service to you, but that’s not their primary goal.

People are flawed. Some are corrupt. Most people are looking out for their own interests. This includes cops.

Bullies, power trippers, sadists, sociopaths, and psychopaths exist. Nothing stops them from becoming cops.

You don’t know all laws. You can easily be breaking a law without even knowing it. Even if you aren’t, a cop has the ability to arrest you if they can fill out the paperwork. 

In general, cops, like any other job, are there for themselves, maybe for their family, too. For most jobs, someone being there for themselves isn’t a problem. But cops are armed, can take you to jail, and can initiate actions leading to your criminal prosecution, which can result in fines and prison sentences. They’re backed by unions, laws, policies, and courts. Some became cops because of family tradition. Some just needed a job. Some want power over others.

I imagine some originally got into law enforcement to help people. And sometimes cops perform heroic deeds. That doesn’t mean you should be quick to involve cops in a family matter.

You shouldn’t participate in crime nor enable it (assuming we’re not talking about unjust laws). You shouldn’t allow anyone to steal from you, threaten you, or assault you or innocent people, especially those for whom you have responsibility. Proactive protection and reactive defense are important. There are things you can do, such as getting away from the aggressor, or taking someone in for a psych hold, without being quick to involve cops.

Once cops are involved, there can be serious consequences, including for you. Involving cops should be the last resort.

Like so many other things, this is less of a problem for free men; men who live alone and aren’t responsible for others. 

Waiting For Marriage is Good But Not Risk Free

[This post is from December 12, 2012. I'm bumping it up because it is still relevant.]

When I last updated here, I wrote this. I'll probably explain things more later, but for now, things are OK. I'm alive, she's alive, the kids are alive.

On yesterday's Dr. Laura Schlessinger program (which I listen to every minute of, because she's great), she opened by talking about the risks of fornication (without using that word) and why, statistically, saving sex for marriage (marrying as a virgin) is good. On her Facebook page, a question was asked of readers (even though she regularly says people should not have personal Facebook pages... they have to be on Facebook to respond on Facebook... but I digress.) Her opening commentary said sexual bonding short-circuits decision-making. But if that's true before marriage, it has to be true after marriage, too.

Then, appealing to data, she said

Compared to the early sex group* those who waited for marriage:
Rated relationship stability higher
Rated relationship satisfaction higher
Rated sexual quality higher
Rated communication higher

*A month of less after meeting/dating. There is a sizable gap between those couples and couples who waited for marriage. I wonder how couples who waited, say, three months or six months would compare?


How was this data collected? How were the questions asked? Were they asked as a couple, face to face with the person collecting the data? Was the "less than a month" or "married" question asked before the others? I suspect couples who waited for marriage, especially if they realize what is being studied, and even more so if done face-to-face and in front of each other, will overstate positives because they are financially, legally, socially, and often religiously invested and don't want to admit to others and especially themselves if they are unhappy with their marriages or something in their marriages. Some of these people may be of the mindset that "speaking it makes it so" and if they believe, as Dennis Prager does, that happiness is a choice and a moral obligation, they have even more incentive to claim things are great. Wouldn't they sound selfish and ungrateful to their spouse and God if they said things weren't going well?

What does it mean when people who've never had sex with anyone else rate the sexual quality of their relationship higher? They have nothing with which to compare it! Now, ignorance may be bliss if they want to stay married for life, but that's hardly an effective statistic to cite to any rational unmarried person about why saving sex for marriage is better: "If your married sex life ends up dull, you'll have no idea how much better it could be!!! Isn't that great?!?"

As with all sociology, correlation does not prove causation, nor the direction of causation, and we can't compare the same people to both circumstances, because they are only in one. For all we know, these same "saved it for marriage" couples would say the same things about their relationships if they had, instead, started having sex with each other right away and got married the same time along in the relationship, especially if they did not buy into a belief that sex is for marriage.

Dr. Laura ended the commentary by saying  "there are a lot of benefits, and no downs".

Really?

I wrote the letter below to her, and I doubt it is going to show up on her website, so here goes...
*****

I now believe sex is for marriage and that the world would be a better place if everyone reserved sex for their one and only spouse, and if widowed, again reserved sex for their next spouse.

But we who believe this should NOT:

1. Overpromise. Just about anyone who believes what we do is very religious or at least socially conservative, and the message we send is that if someone just saves sex for marriage and marries within the same faith, things will generally be great and the sex life will be great. The statistics often cited (including by you) are usually based on self-reporting, which I find dubious. The married-as-virgin people have nothing to compare their relationship to and no idea how things would be for them if they hadn’t married, or married as virgins. Even if accurate, as you recognize, statistics are generalizations. There are many unmarried people having lot of sex and are happy with their sex lives and lives in general, and many married people who are getting little or no sex and are unhappy.

2. Deny there are tradeoffs. Yes, there are. Every day we save sex for marriage is another day we don't enjoy sex, for example, and plenty of people, including women, do find sex outside of marriage enjoyable and it has many of the same benefits married sex does. It is very easy for those of us who are married and having sex to tell those who aren't "You should wait." Many of them see it like we're enjoying a nice meal while they are standing around with growling stomachs and we're telling them "Don't eat that junk food! Wait and MAYBE you'll be seated at that gourmet restaurant." They're hungry NOW, and while they might sit alone listening to good reasons to save sex for marriage, things look very different while sharing a passionate moment with someone they love.

3. Deny or ignore the risks. a) Almost anyone who believes sex is only for marriage also believes divorce is only permissible (and even then, still to be avoided if possible) if there is abandonment or abuse (including adultery and addictions). They may think they are marrying a virtuous, strong person because they are marrying a virgin, only to find they've married someone who has a low sex drive or other physiological problem, a psychological aversion to sex, or is homosexual. b) While people often stay in bad or mismatched relationships too long because they are having sex, there are also people who marry too young, too quickly, or the wrong person because they have a natural yearning for sex and want to be able to say they saved sex for marriage. [After I wrote this and sent this, I got to the 40-minute mark in the 2nd hour of the podcast and she got a call from a woman whose son was marrying too quickly/young/to the wrong person precisely because they were saving sex for marriage, illustrating my point.] c) Sexual incompatibility, especially when these incompatibilities can't be reconciled[1] or one spouse refuses to try to reconcile them. Although YOU wouldn't tell them to, they then think they are compelled by the same religious community and beliefs (including that divorce is shameful) to suffer and struggle through such a marriage.

4. Ignore that we've created a culture in which it takes longer to become established, independent adults and for men to earn enough to provide for a family, while at the same time making it easier to have unmarried sex without unwanted physical or social consequences. In Jewish culture 2,000 years ago, people married a lot younger, usually to someone they'd known all their lives and were pledged to marry, and unmarried sex, casual or otherwise, wasn't so easy to have and keep private as it is now.

Personal disclosure: I married a virgin, even though I did not require that in a wife. I now believe she was able to maintain her commitment to save sex for marriage due to the many medications she takes, as I discovered after we'd married, despite (or perhaps because of) making it clear I didn't want to marry someone who was chronically ill or constantly treating illness. After marrying, there was one situation after another that could be cited as interfering with our love life, and by the time I realized this was the way things were always going to be, we had children. I have crunched the numbers and even with rounding off to the benefit of marriage, I am one of those people who had a more active sex life (as wrong as it was) when I was unmarried, with no pregnancies that I'm aware of, and no STDs, confident I do not have any children from those relationships. If I hadn't had those relationships, I would be more anxious/bitter in my marriage because I would have to live with knowing that I'd never know what it is like to have an enthusiastic lover who wants sex enough to initiate and what it was like to do some rather common things my wife won't do with me. Thanks to you, I at least get some "mercy action" between the times she is willing to actually get naked , let me make love to HER, and have intercourse, but it emotionally feels like me masturbating, only while adding a chore to her day, which makes it less enjoyable to me than masturbation.

I appreciate all you do to encourage everyone to lead better lives. If we're honest about saving sex for marriage, we'll maintain credibility and avoid prompting general disillusionment with people who do not share so many of the positive results of saving sex for marriage.

***** [End of letter]
[1]Off the top of my head, some basic sexual incompatibilities married couples may experience include: 1) Who "may" initiate and how. 2) Who takes the lead 3) Positions for intercourse 4) Whether or not sexy talk is allowed, and just how explicit/which words to use. 5) Use of sex toys or common items household items (whipped cream?) 6) Lights on vs lights off. 7) Role playing
8) Who climaxes when
9) General limitations (examples: Once something has her natural lubrication on it, her mouth will not touch it, or he will refuse to kiss her on the lips if she has gone down on him.)
10) Cunnilingus? Fellatio?
11) Very soft and gentle and slow, or rougher?
12) Frequency
13) Morning, afternoon, or night?
Now, I know there are people reading this who are saying to themselves "They should just talk it over." That only works with someone who is willing to try, or willing to do it to please their spouse (without indicating to their spouse they find it a chore, thereby ruining it for their spouse). I've made it clear on this blog that I love cunnilingus. But what if a woman who more or less needed either that or a vibrator to orgasm married a man who said both of those things were "of the devil"? How likely is he to be talked into providing those things to her?   In my case, my wife has never ever suggested something I've turned down, while she has turned down several things, or has volunteered after the fact, even though she should have been able to tell I enjoyed it, that it, at best, does nothing for her.

Good Intentions

I have this friend I'll call Charlie who has been a friend since something like the second grade. Actually, it wasn't until sixth grade that we got to be good friends, and after we were graduated from high school we've stayed in contact more through e-mail and social networking than anything else, but every few years we've had dinner or whatever.

Recently, he sent me a message that made me think of this:


My wife had a very good idea the last time we saw Charlie in person. She wanted to set him up with a friend of hers. Charlie and this friend have compatible careers and faith. My wife's friend is attractive and has never been married. (My wife can't figure out why, I point out that my wife has never dated her friend.)

Charlie, however, isn't open to dating. He told me he really thinks he's supposed to be with a certain woman I'll call Chrissy. Many years back, Charlie, who thinks of himself as a good Christian man, "married" Chrissy and moved her and her kids into his place. I wrote "married" because Chrissy was still legally married to the father of her children, supposedly just for benefit purposes.

Wouldn't you know it? After a few years, Chrissy ended up taking her kids and reuniting with their father, who was still her legal husband. Charlie refused to move on. Mind you, Charlie had been legally married before in a marriage that didn't last long because his wife, who was about ten years older than we are, was a control freak who couldn't handle the fact that Charlie threw her a surprise birthday party. That ended that marriage.

But back to the situation with Chrissy

So Chrissy and the kids left because Charlie was tired of divided loyalties, and Chrissy later moved out on her husband again without coming back to Charlie, but that hasn't stopped Charlie from referring to her kids, who have a father, as his kids, travelling to see them, having them come for visits, etc... and for keeping his heart fixated on Chrissy (who is NOT some beautiful prize, mind you).

But wait... it gets better.

One of Chrissy's daughter had a friend I'll call Allison who a bad home life, so Chrissy took her in. When Charlie was returning one of Chrissy's kids to her, he met Allison. Since he treated Chrissy's kids like his own, he agreed to treat Allison like one of his own (he has no biological or adopted kids of his own). Allison has referred to him as dad ever since.

Allison went back to her parents, and Charlie and Allison kept in contact. Charlie went to visit and Allison and her parents. They later sent Allison to visit Charlie. Allison didn't want to go back home, but she did after she and Charlie talked about the possibilities, and Charlie sent a letter to her parents asking if he could take care of Charlie. Her parents sent her back to Charlie.

Charlie wrote to me and told me that he has "assumed custody" of Allison.

I wrote back a blunt reponse, part of which is below:

What do you think the average (not YOU, the average) social worker, police officer, prosecutor, judge, jury member, or TV news viewer would think if they heard that a single heterosexual man... “assumed custody” of an unrelated, troubled 16-year-old girl whose family lives halfway across the country?

And...

What does “assumed custody” mean? Is there a legal contract? Official sanction from state/local governments? Approval from a licensed social worker?

There's a reason people legally marry and build a nest before raising children or foster parenting. As you noted, it is hard being a single parent. (It is hard enough being a married parent.) You can’t provide Allison with enough supervision, especially given her background, and she’s at high risk to end up pregnant within the next couple of years.

Charlie has not responded, and it has been a while. The age of consent in our state is 18, by the way. I'm pretty sure Charlie was a virgin until well after high school, and he may just not have a grasp on the reality of the situation.

I do not believe his intentions are for ill, but as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I would not be the least surprised if Allison has or develops a crush on Charlie, or if her parents were to screw him over. Charlie wants to stay connected to Chrissy and play the hero, and that is what he's doing here. For whatever reason, he doesn't want healthy, available women. He wants projects. The problem is, this a very risky situation and I can't think of any professional advice-giver saying this is a good idea. Dr. Laura would name which chapters in her book Ten Stupid Things Men Do to Mess Up Their Lives Charlie is doing. He has given no idication that his parents or sister, or anyone else, has told him this is a bad idea.

I pray this doesn't end up a train wreck.

A Hard One to Swallow

The headline reads "Oral Sex Linked to Rise in Men's Throat Cancer". Mainsteam news stories, especially the headlines, are often sensationalized or misleading when it comes to science news, medical news included. So you can search for the research if you want to get the facts. But I was stuck by just the idea presented by the headline.

I do not take cancer lightly, especially since it has killed loved ones and heroes of mine (who can't say that?). But hey, if I get cancer because I have enjoyed cunnlingus (a lot), then so be it. Some guys get cancer from smoking cigarettes. In this scenario, at least I would have gotten it from something that tastes much better. Susan Donadson James reports for ABC News.

But now, growing research in Europe and the United States is implicating HPV in a rising number of cases of head and neck cancers in men, and many doctors are recommending that all boys be vaccinated as well.

So the suspected problem is HPV, not cunnlingus per se.

HPV can also cause cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis and anus, and there is some evidence it is associated with esophageal and lung cancers.

Hey, but fornication is no big deal, right?

I do imagine this will be one more reason for the guys who have sworn off women entirely (and I'm not talking about gay guys) to stick to their guns... uh, so to speak.

The article becomes sort of an ad for Gardasil, which meant that it attracted all kind of comments from people concerned about vaccines and that one especially.

Misplaced Resentment

Who are these guys who get resentful towards a woman they impregnate?

I’m not excusing women who poke holes in condoms, or retrieve the contents of a condom, or who obtain sperm through oral sex with the intent to insert it into their vagina. Using subterfuge to get pregnant is inexcusable, and women who do such things are selfish and intentionally trying to conceive a child with a man who doesn't want one.

I’m talking about guys who voluntarily take a risk and then lash out at their partner-in-risk when the consequences they hoped against come about.

Unless your sperm count is zero, guys, there’s a chance she’s going to get pregnant if you are fornicating. Condoms aren’t always effective. If you are really so concerned, and yet still decide to fornicate, get a vasectomy.

Some guys complain that women voluntary “take” their sperm, allow it to combine with their egg, and grow a baby without their permission. Permission? Huh? Okay I get that women have contraceptive and abortive options, but conception (once the sperm is inside her) and pregnancy is a natural and passive - not a willful and active – process. The woman isn't intentionally doing anything once you have deposited your sperm, either condom or no condom.

When you fornicate with a woman, you are willingly taking that risk.

There are many obligations that come with being a party to a pregnancy. A man really should think that through before taking that risk.

I’m sure there are guys who don’t want to get a vasectomy in case they want to get married and have kids someday. Such men should consider that if they want to do that, fornicating is counterproductive to doing those things well and being happy in those roles. Especially if they are doing it with a woman they don’t really know or care about.