If there is such a thing as a war of the sexes, the winners are the women — at least in court, now, in this country.
The case of Luther Crawford supports this conclusion. Crawford is fond of women. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he is fond of sex, because he has, according to prosecutors, fathered twelve children by eleven women, and, consequently, owes 74,000 in child support. He’s spent some time in jail as a result.
Recently, however, a judge with an innovative streak, or perhaps just a quirky sense of humor, offered Crawford a choice: a year in jail, or no more sex. Crawford, who is 50, claiming that he was too sick to go to jail because of glaucoma, a heart condition, and injured tendons in his wrist, chose the no-sex option. How the court’s ruling was to be enforced was not explained.
It’s moot, however, because there’s been another hearing, and the no-sex option was taken off the board. It’s jail, period.
Modern government might be understood as an enforcer for special interest groups. In this case, it’s the various women that Crawford has impregnated.
What’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t a man support the children he’s sired? Nothing is wrong with it. A father should support his children. So should a mother.
Doesn’t it take two to tango? Are Crawford’s sexual partners claiming rape? No such claim was reported. Were they using drugs or devices to render them, at least temporarily, sterile? Then let them sue the manufacturers of those drugs or devices. But if they were neither raped nor rendered unfertile by one means or another, were they so astonished, perplexed, bemused, and surprised at their subsequent pregnancies? The resulting children were as much a result of their actions as Crawford’s, but the financial responsibility seems to be solely his.
There is, as well, the likelihood that these women receive some sort of government benefits as single mothers. Crawford receives no benefits whatever as a single father — of twelve! Moreover, the 74,000 that he owes in child support cannot be earned while he is in prison. (One might reasonably presume that Crawford will be lucky to earn 74,000 in the next decade). And when, after a year in jail, he is released, will he resort to his old ways: impregnating woman after woman? If the no-sex "punishment" was deemed inadequate, it was because it is unrealistic to expect this man to control himself. After a year in jail, will he have achieved that mastery? If not, he’ll be in at least as bad a situation as presently obtains, and the 74,000 — and growing — will still be owed.
What’s the solution? Castration? OK, but why place the entire burden upon poor pathetic Crawford? Why not sterilize his girlfriends, as a condition of their copulating with him?
How about no solution at all? If there is no problem, no solution is needed. Crawford’s problem is actually his lovers’ problem. Let them come up with a solution. The involvement of the state in this private matter guarantees injustice. If women contemplating sex with this man were aware that there would be no aid from the state for any children they bore, and no child support payments exacted and enforced by the state should they conceive, they might not need to go to court and use the power of government to compensate them for the problems they brought upon themselves.
Of course — and I reveal my antiquity here — they could abstain from adultery, as recommended for reducing human misery thousands of years ago. Is that any less realistic than the present system? Government uses its power, indirectly, to encourage, or at least not discourage, random coupling on the part of women who know that they will get financial compensation. When dad cannot pay, the state can imprison him, or seize his wages, if any. Has this legalistic approach resulted in a happy, serene society of loving parents, and loved children? In a court appearance, Crawford could not remember the name of his oldest daughter; in a second appearance, he gave a name, but it wasn’t hers.
We might also question the justice of forcing the public to support a generation — or more — of bastards, while simultaneously providing funds for sex education, to encourage, we’re told, responsible sexual behavior!
Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery still makes a lot of sense for the public, just as Thou Shalt Not Steal makes sense for governments. Of course, the only way to rid ourselves of thieving governments is to rid ourselves of government. Now THAT’S a solution to the problem of the thieves aiding and abetting the adulterers!
Dr. Hein [send him mail] is a retired ophthalmologist in St. Louis, and the author of All Work & No Pay.
