Paternity

[MJ85]

From the reviews:

 

I like Matt and Brad together, I think Matt told Brad if the situation ever arose Brad should take Wade up on it. Maybe this is a time one should becare what one wishes for.

 

Mark's response:

 

I really can't see Matt and Brad ever being an item, or hooking up.  Even if they were both single, that family connection is still there.  Maybe, but I think anything more than a drunken-and-regretted hookup is unlikely.

 

See...now wouldn't that just be such an idea now? Wade's hooking up with Brad now - just what is there to stop Matt from getting in on it?

 

Sorry, Mark, but unless you're going to tell us that you will flat out never write that happening...I don't see the reason for it to not happen. And nevermind just how awful Wade doing so is now...

[Westie]

But, how are we able to tell the difference between parents who will discipline their child with what could be considered "reasonable" physical means, and those who go over the line, until we hear about when those parents who do go over the line, do just that??

 

I can see where "reasonable" physical discipline won't cause deathly psychological problems. But I can also see the other side of it as well: How do we know which parents can utilize such discipline properly, and which parents cannot, until it is too late? Because even one instance of a parent going too far is too much.

 

This is the major problem with the Nanny state that exists and is getting worse in the western world....  people want to "monitor" everything to prevent bad things happening.  It's based on the flawed assumption that you cannot trust the majority because of the potential actions of a minority.  Its like me saying to you that we are banning decongestant for everyone because a minority use it to create crystal meth, so we can't trust any of you. If that same principle is applied everywhere, it's seen as absurd - except when it comes to a parent exercising due control with a child.

 

Yes, a single, solitary, ONE instance of a parent going too far is too much - but do you really think making spanking illegal is in any way going to stop an abusive parent?  In the same way that laws against domestic violence caused a collapse in domestic abuse??? Or wait... it didn't.  This is a gross overreaction of an increasingly liberal state that equates all forms of "hurt" with abuse.  

[PrivateTim]

You'd want to put an effeminate, 5'2", 100-pound guy who likely collects Louis Vuitton purses and Prada shoes like baseball cards in miltary school? Are you kidding me? He wouldn't last a week there.

 

Yes, it would do him a world of good.

 

He certainly would last a week.

 

I had a cousin who was headed to a life in the CA penal system if he contined on the path he was on (escalating troubles). Instead he went away to a military school, straightened out, got a college baseball scholarship and is now a police officer and solid citizen. Thank you Cbad.

[MJ85]

Laws don't stop criminal...I mean abusive, parents. But what about parents who go too far not because being abusive is just who they are, but because there's nothing keeping them from going over that edge, and even potentially staying over?

 

And, no one instance of anybody else being on a criminal slide before going through military school is automatic proof that JJ could have the same thing happen, and either be able to go through it or come out of it "reformed" as a result.

[sat8997]

You'd want to put an effeminate, 5'2", 100-pound guy who likely collects Louis Vuitton purses and Prada shoes like baseball cards in miltary school? Are you kidding me? He wouldn't last a week there.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying for the most part. I'm talking about New York City for when JJ's 18 and out of high school, not now. I think he could really grow up if he started over in a city where he doesn't have his brother being around to blame for why people ignore him.

 

Jeremy, I see your hypothetical characterizations are running fast and loose again.

 

From the reviews:

 

 

Mark's response:

 

 

See...now wouldn't that just be such an idea now? Wade's hooking up with Brad now - just what is there to stop Matt from getting in on it?

 

Sorry, Mark, but unless you're going to tell us that you will flat out never write that happening...I don't see the reason for it to not happen. And nevermind just how awful Wade doing so is now...

 

Yeah, no. Brad and Matt...just, no. I know all these characters walk a fine line sometimes, but that pairing is just too creepy. Rates right up there with any kink involving live things with fur.

[Mark Arbour]

 

 

 

I want to put my comments into the context of my life experience, because I don't want anyone to misunderstand where I am coming from with this.

 

My stepfather used to go overboard.  Yes, there were the canes, or tree branches (and remember, this is the mid 1990's).  But I also remember being kicked backwards down the hallway, and trying to get away as he kicked and kicked some more, before my back was at the top of the stairs - one more kick would have knocked me down.... he kicked me again.  I remember being punched in the face for forgetting to clean my teeth.  I remember my brother being hit harder and harder and harder because he wouldn't cry out. I understand better than most that some parents go too far.

 

But I reject totally and emphatically the argument that "who judges when it goes too far"...  There is a difference between disciplining a child, and maiming them, and it is clear cut.  Basically, anything that causes substantial harm is grievous bodily harm (I don't know what the US legal equivalent is).  But a few swift and sharp spanks is not going to harm.

 

Now I know there are all these studies that tell you that there is no positive to spanking and a lot of negatives.  There have been studies that show various scary consequences, and they are written by well respected bodies and such.  But I think they are so much BS.  And here is why...

 

For over a thousand years in the UK certainly, corporal punishment was the main recourse to instill discipline into both Children and Adults.  I see no evidence over that 1000 years that tells me that it did anything other than build character, and do its job.  The british armed forces were some of the most effective in the world.  British Public Schools (i.e. private schools) were exceptional.  The Royal Navy was second to none.  even George Granger orders a flogging or two to ensure discipline on his ship.

 

I know we have our modern methods and that this all seems barbaric, but I am of the mind that modern psychology has made the human race WEAK.  Nobody copes anymore.  With anything.  "Stress" is an increasingly common word.  Every action has an underlying motive, and at the end of every crisis everyone needs "closure".  There is a syndrome or a diagnosis for everything and a little happy pill to make it all go away, and all the time we don't notice that actually the thing we think is making us a stronger person is actually something we are Dependant on...

 

A rebuke by force with either a hand or a slipper, hard enough to be painful, but not to cause damage, used on the rarest of occasions is a good deterrent, and will not, in my view cause any problems.  Show me any "study" you like but if this is the same "psychology" that is singlehandedly weakening civilisation, I promise you I will disregard it.

 

Occasionally there are people that I really respect, that I completely disagree with, and this is one of those cases.  I think at a core level you're a traditionalist, and I respect that.  But at the same time, you're saying that science doesn't matter, and you're hanging your hat on anecdotal evidence and beliefs.  That's OK, but when you dismiss scientific evidence as BS and insinuate that your own beliefs are paramount, you're going to have an uphill battle convincing me.  Not that that's all that important.  I mean, who really gives a fuck what I think anyway.  I'll have to talk to my shrink about that.  

 

I like to think that man has evolved from the days of Granger, and I know that psychology/psychiatry has evolved.  One has to acknowledge the incredible advances made in medical science, from the artificial heart to the vaccine for Polio.  Mental health has evolved in a similarly rapid way.  Please don't dismiss what we can do to help and evaluate human mental illnesses. And please don't imply that people who have them are weak.  That grates on my own anecdotal evidence.  

 

As for corporal punishment, what the research is saying is that it's counter-productive.  Doesn't mean you have to believe it, it just means that science and facts aren't on your side.  But hey, don't let that bother you.  Millions of Christians go to church every week in this country, struggling against the same logic.  

 

Yes, it would do him a world of good.

 

He certainly would last a week.

 

I had a cousin who was headed to a life in the CA penal system if he contined on the path he was on (escalating troubles). Instead he went away to a military school, straightened out, got a college baseball scholarship and is now a police officer and solid citizen. Thank you Cbad.

 

This is one of those issues on which I haven't read any studies, but I have heard anecdotal evidence in both directions.   I had contemplated sending my son to a military school when he was having his own "Will" moments, and a few people cautioned me about it.  They claimed that their kids ended up with significant substance abuse issues, because of the environment (peer pressure) and availability.  At the same time, I've heard stories like you mention.  Personally, I decided that if he didn't get his shit together by the time he was 18, I'd send him off to the military proper.  It's  a lot cheaper, too.  

[Mark Arbour]

Changing topics here a bit, some of you may have received notifications about updates to chapters 86 and 87.  Two perceptive readers pointed out that I'd gotten Trevor's last name wrong (in 87) and the Spanish wrong in 86.  That spurred me off my dilatory ass, and reminded me that I needed to thank my team for the amazing job that they do.  

 

Why would I do that, when we clearly screwed up?  Well, because getting notes like that (which I appreciate) are pretty damn rare.   As of this moment, Paternity stands as the most read story on GA, with over 116,000 views.  It currently consists of almost 560,000 words.  I started posting it in November, 2011, over a year ago.  So for all of the crap that spews from my mind and fingers, and from all of your eyes that look at it, thats an amazingly low error rate.  I'm too lazy to run the math, but I'm thinking we're at six sigma. 

 

I could not do this without them.  They really are the best.      

[MJ85]

So Matt hooking up with Brad is "creepy", ostensibly because Brad is Matt's biological father's lover, but Matt's boyfriend hooking up with Matt's biological father's lover...lemme guess, that apparently would not be "creepy"? (Nevermind that Wade has no blood relation to either Brad or Robbie.)

 

Um...no. I don't buy that one. But even if that's "creepy" too, well...that didn't stop it from happening multiple times here, now did it?

[rjo]

One thing we must keep in mind this is the land of CAP. Not totally real; not completely fiction, somewhere in between. I am sorry about something. in a prevous comment I miss wrote myself. I don't see a relationship between Matt and Brad. In a past story, they thought about it and rejected it. However, I do see something happen between Wade and Brad in a continuing bases. Whether Brad becomes a lover, mentor and something else I am not sure. Brad and Wade compliment each other better than Matt and Brad do. Brad is 16 years older. But it needs to be pointed out JP is nine years older than Stef. The problems between Brad and Robbie are visable to anyone, Wade and Matt's troubles are more hidden but no less important. Just seeing the pain which Wade had was difficult. Would these two couples be better apart? Would Wade and Brad be better together? Only our beloved author knows for sure.

 

 

On another subject. Raising children is not an easy task, And Brad has his hands full. Now however he seems to have another child added to the mix, Robbie. Darius has left the nest and flow off to school. Will has done the same, however in a much more difficult and painful way. Now the middle child remains. JJ is a puzzle. When we see him in Bloodlines and even before  he is a happy child maybe looking for a focus, a sport something' Through Matt, he found skating. Now it would seem it has taken over everything. How has this happy kid who loved having tea with Stef become a diva and more important why? Jeanine has lost her grip and now it would seem Robbie has too. Why? Honestly, I never thought Jeanine was a really strong person. Having Maddy and losing Tiffany broke her spirit. Knowing that, why did Robbie get sucked in so deep? Darius left home. His child was gone. Jeanine was out of it. He stepped in. What is it about JJ that sucks people in and regresses them to grade school. It is no surprise, bt I agree with JP something has to be done before it is too late. If JJ fails in school and in skating he will have nothing. His mother gone or at least of no help and Robbie it this point no help to himself or anyone else. Honestly, I am glad I am not in Brad's shoes on his one.

Edited January 23, 2013 by rjo

[MJ85]

If Wade were to leave Matt for Brad...I would lose all interest in reading about Wade from a sexual perspective.

 

He was molested by his own father for six years...fights his way to break free of that, sexually and otherwise...only to then turn around and become this boy toy to Brad - mister always-sexually-in-control himself - just two years after that?

 

Really??

 

No. It makes me think way too much of going right back to that which he broke free from, only to a consensual version of it instead of being outright raped all over again.

[Westie]

Occasionally there are people that I really respect, that I completely disagree with, and this is one of those cases.  I think at a core level you're a traditionalist, and I respect that.  But at the same time, you're saying that science doesn't matter, and you're hanging your hat on anecdotal evidence and beliefs.  That's OK, but when you dismiss scientific evidence as BS and insinuate that your own beliefs are paramount, you're going to have an uphill battle convincing me.  Not that that's all that important.  I mean, who really gives a fuck what I think anyway.  I'll have to talk to my shrink about that.  

 

I like to think that man has evolved from the days of Granger, and I know that psychology/psychiatry has evolved.  One has to acknowledge the incredible advances made in medical science, from the artificial heart to the vaccine for Polio.  Mental health has evolved in a similarly rapid way.  Please don't dismiss what we can do to help and evaluate human mental illnesses. And please don't imply that people who have them are weak.  That grates on my own anecdotal evidence.  

 

As for corporal punishment, what the research is saying is that it's counter-productive.  Doesn't mean you have to believe it, it just means that science and facts aren't on your side.  But hey, don't let that bother you.  Millions of Christians go to church every week in this country, struggling against the same logic.  

 

 

This is one of those issues on which I haven't read any studies, but I have heard anecdotal evidence in both directions.   I had contemplated sending my son to a military school when he was having his own "Will" moments, and a few people cautioned me about it.  They claimed that their kids ended up with significant substance abuse issues, because of the environment (peer pressure) and availability.  At the same time, I've heard stories like you mention.  Personally, I decided that if he didn't get his shit together by the time he was 18, I'd send him off to the military proper.  It's  a lot cheaper, too.  

 

 

I just want to address two points and then I will drop this.  The first point is I want to make is because I really do not want to offend anyone, so I want to be clear.  I have a genuine respect and sympathy for those people who suffer mental disorders.  Personality disorders, clinical depression and other such illnesses deserve recognition as medical conditions and I did not intend to imply a weakness to people suffering those conditions.  My experience here is that those people are strong and brave.

 

That said, what I was referring to as a "weakness" is what I see as a trend towards pop- and self- psychology, whereby increasing numbers of the population use genuine illness name-tags to describe issues in their day to day life, and to excuse failings.  The biggest catch all here is "stress".  I recognise that "stress" can have a specific medical meaning, but it also seems to be increasingly used as something to hold on to - a validation that allows people to avoid personal responsibility.

 

This devalues the genuine condition to the point where the diagnosis is no longer socially accepted and indeed it becomes mocked.  People who use the label too easily do so at the expense of genuine sufferers of mental illness.   

 

The second point I wanted to make i that i do not reject science.  I have a huge respect for empirically valid study; but what I'm questioning is the quality of that science.  I do so from a common sense approach, essentially thus:

 

Our personalities are created through the entire sum of our human experience, both personal (largely) and collective (vicariously).  When a study comes along that says "When event(s) A occur, B personality trait becomes more likely", the question I ask myself is, how can that study have possibly taken into account every aspect and variable possible through the participants life experience?  Not only that, but as we know that genetics can play a part in how your mind is shaped, how can these studies accurately account for these variables without sample sizes into the millions?

 

I don't question science; I question the quality of that science.  We know too little to make valid assumptions.  Thats why I believe my anecdotal evidence is at least on par with the science.  Show me a vast improvement in our ability to make those assumptions and I assure you; I will change my opinion in a heartbeat.

[Mark Arbour]

I just want to address two points and then I will drop this.  The first point is I want to make is because I really do not want to offend anyone, so I want to be clear.  I have a genuine respect and sympathy for those people who suffer mental disorders.  Personality disorders, clinical depression and other such illnesses deserve recognition as medical conditions and I did not intend to imply a weakness to people suffering those conditions.  My experience here is that those people are strong and brave.

 

That said, what I was referring to as a "weakness" is what I see as a trend towards pop- and self- psychology, whereby increasing numbers of the population use genuine illness name-tags to describe issues in their day to day life, and to excuse failings.  The biggest catch all here is "stress".  I recognise that "stress" can have a specific medical meaning, but it also seems to be increasingly used as something to hold on to - a validation that allows people to avoid personal responsibility.

 

This devalues the genuine condition to the point where the diagnosis is no longer socially accepted and indeed it becomes mocked.  People who use the label too easily do so at the expense of genuine sufferers of mental illness.   

 

I understand where you're coming from now.  I suspect that you and I could spend an afternoon in a self-help section of the bookstore and laugh our asses off. 

 

 

The second point I wanted to make i that i do not reject science.  I have a huge respect for empirically valid study; but what I'm questioning is the quality of that science.  I do so from a common sense approach, essentially thus:

 

Our personalities are created through the entire sum of our human experience, both personal (largely) and collective (vicariously).  When a study comes along that says "When event(s) A occur, B personality trait becomes more likely", the question I ask myself is, how can that study have possibly taken into account every aspect and variable possible through the participants life experience?  Not only that, but as we know that genetics can play a part in how your mind is shaped, how can these studies accurately account for these variables without sample sizes into the millions?

 

I don't question science; I question the quality of that science.  We know too little to make valid assumptions.  Thats why I believe my anecdotal evidence is at least on par with the science.  Show me a vast improvement in our ability to make those assumptions and I assure you; I will change my opinion in a heartbeat.

 

 

That's very interesting.  Science is looking for generalizations, and while certainly everyone has their own perceptions, those that fall outside the norm are outliers: unreliable predictors.  That being said, I think that the issue you raise is one that I see quite often in economics, where a cause and effect relationship is hypothesized (and then usually grabbed on as true by the more dogmatic).  It's so hard to make those generalizations, because there are so many different variables out there.  Did the US economy recover from the recession because of the stimulus?  Proponents may argue that it did, and point to Europe, where austerity has kept them mired in recession.  But is that the only factor there?  What about the natural rhythm of economics: recovery, peak, decline, trough, etc.?  Or what about the Quantitative Easing measures?  The variables are too numerous to reach, IMHO, a definitive conclusion. 

 

In the topic of corporal punishment, one might ask if the child became an asshole bully because he was beaten.  Perhaps the child was also ignored.  Perhaps the child also drank BigGulp sodas.  Perhaps the child was bitten by the cat.  It's possible that there are many factors in play here.  But with enough studies, that are broad enough, yielding the same results, eventually one controls for those other factors.  I think that in the case of corporal punishment, that's happened, but I can understand if you don't. 

[sat8997]

So Matt hooking up with Brad is "creepy", ostensibly because Brad is Matt's biological father's lover...

 

 

 

"Correct."

 

... but Matt's boyfriend hooking up with Matt's biological father's lover...lemme guess, that apparently would not be "creepy"?

 

 "Also correct."

 

If Wade were to leave Matt for Brad...I would lose all interest in reading about Wade from a sexual perspective.

 

 

"You" "could" "always" "close" "your" "eyes" "during" "the" "sexy" "bits."  " "

[samjones1]

Sorry to not use the quote capabilities...I couldn't get my mobile device to allow me to quote. :-/

 

It's always good to keep on your toes, Westie, when dealing with research both scientific and "scientific". While I tend to agree with Mark's assessment of the literature on corporal punishment, that doesn't mean the research shouldn't be carefully and continually subjected to scrutiny for problems with validity and rigor. As with any social science, causality errors and spurious conclusions are something we have to guard against vigilantly. If people were certain of the answers, after all, there'd be no research.

[PrivateTim]

That's very interesting.  Science is looking for generalizations, and while certainly everyone has their own perceptions, those that fall outside the norm are outliers: unreliable predictors.

 

As Sheldon Cooper would tell you, psychology isn't a science.

 

Without being flippant, I think a lot of researchers find the answers they are looking for.

[Daddydavek]

As Sheldon Cooper would tell you, psychology isn't a science.

 

Without being flippant, I think a lot of researchers find the answers they are looking for.

 

There is a lot of good, dedicated, objective science in psychology with many advances in the past 100 years.  And no it isn't perfect and the exceptions often outnumber the rules.  I think many people share the above opinion Tim quoted and that's why so many go untreated and also why much treatment is not covered by insurance.  For the people who suffer from a mental disorder, it is an ongoing stigma and burden. 

 

As far as researches finding what they are looking for, that brush tars all science and that's why there is this thing called peer review and replication of results to weed out confounding factors. 

 

As far as JJ having a mental disorder, I haven't really seen enough to even consider it.  He may have exhibited some personality and character flaws but he is a teenager and that is an unsettled time even in the most well behaved adolescent.  Maturing is not a straight line process.   Being a spoiled rich kid has its own pitfalls or problems and is perhaps not such a good environment for producing well-rounded, well-adjusted teen-agers. 

[B1ue]

So Matt hooking up with Brad is "creepy", ostensibly because Brad is Matt's biological father's lover, but Matt's boyfriend hooking up with Matt's biological father's lover...lemme guess, that apparently would not be "creepy"? (Nevermind that Wade has no blood relation to either Brad or Robbie.)

 

Um...no. I don't buy that one. But even if that's "creepy" too, well...that didn't stop it from happening multiple times here, now did it?

I never saw the issue with Matt and Brad hooking up. Obviously, I saw why Robbie, and to a lesser extent JJ, would take exception, but otherwise no. If Brad had to any real extent acted as some sort of step-father to Matt, I might, but as it stands, he didn't, so I struggle.

 

However, last time around, I was pretty much the only poster with this opinion, so clearly I just see things differently.

 

If Wade were to leave Matt for Brad...I would lose all interest in reading about Wade from a sexual perspective.

 

He was molested by his own father for six years...fights his way to break free of that, sexually and otherwise...only to then turn around and become this boy toy to Brad - mister always-sexually-in-control himself - just two years after that?

 

Really??

 

No. It makes me think way too much of going right back to that which he broke free from, only to a consensual version of it instead of being outright raped all over again.

Speaking as someone that dealt with memories of being raped in a similar fasion to this, it can help. It might be odd from your perspective, but whatever gets us all through the day.

[PrivateTim]

There is a lot of good, dedicated, objective science in psychology with many advances in the past 100 years.  And no it isn't perfect and the exceptions often outnumber the rules.  I think many people share the above opinion Tim quoted and that's why so many go untreated and also why much treatment is not covered by insurance.  For the people who suffer from a mental disorder, it is an ongoing stigma and burden. 

 

As far as researches finding what they are looking for, that brush tars all science and that's why there is this thing called peer review and replication of results to weed out confounding factors. 

 

As far as JJ having a mental disorder, I haven't really seen enough to even consider it.  He may have exhibited some personality and character flaws but he is a teenager and that is an unsettled time even in the most well behaved adolescent.  Maturing is not a straight line process.   Being a spoiled rich kid has its own pitfalls or problems and is perhaps not such a good environment for producing well-rounded, well-adjusted teen-agers. 

 

Chemistry is a science, a real science. So is biology, so is physics.

 

Psychology likes to cloak itself in the respectability of "science" and pretend that they are finding "objective" truth, but there is no agreement on many, many subject. There are no laws of motion or thermodynamics in psychology.

 

Peer review is just another word for echo chamber or peer pressure. Those who attempt to stray off the reservation are swiftly beaten into submission. In controlling who gets to peer review a study the publisher controls the results.

 

In real sciences experiments are replicable without having to rely on interpretation.

 

As to Brad, Wade, Matt, Will et al screwing whom they want, it is their business and I don't look for unconcious motivation, attraction is based on a great many things.

[Westie]

I've "liked" two of Tim's posts in a row.... this is very disturbing for me ...

[MJ85]

I never saw the issue with Matt and Brad hooking up. Obviously, I saw why Robbie, and to a lesser extent JJ, would take exception, but otherwise no. If Brad had to any real extent acted as some sort of step-father to Matt, I might, but as it stands, he didn't, so I struggle.

 

However, last time around, I was pretty much the only poster with this opinion, so clearly I just see things differently.

 

Exactly. There's no direct blood-line...so what's the deal?

 

Speaking as someone that dealt with memories of being raped in a similar fasion to this, it can help. It might be odd from your perspective, but whatever gets us all through the day.

 

But see...one of the reasons I do find it so odd is because...it happened to me as well.

 

I cannot imagine ever wanting to hook up with anyone like the person who molested me. (That said, it was my then-babysitter, a girl no less, who did it, so...yeah.) I could imagine it, if it was a feeling that sort of lingered after his abuse finally ended...but where do we ever learn that it did? If anything, it's seemed to be the opposite. For such a feeling to suddenly flare up because suddenly two years later he got to fulfill a fantasy that in the process flipped this switch inside of him...that one's a head-scratcher.

 

In any case, though, for Wade to dump Matt for Brad would require not only Robbie to end up out of the picture, but also for Wade to decide that his and Matt's re-affirmation of how much they love each other would now be less desirable than what he could get with Brad. That's quite a bit of maneuvering that would have to fall in to place there...

[samjones1]

Perhaps this is because I'm a social scientist, but I really balk at the generalizations of psychologists as pseudo-scientists I am reading here. It may be true that there is subjectivity in social science work, and it may also be true that replications are not done with nearly enough frequency. This doesn't mean that our work does not have rigor and validity.

 

I think people forget about the days of ill humors and flat-earth, heliocentric geography and astronomy. They forget how many years the "hard" sciences have had to progress. They forget that measurement error and incorrrect theories have been an essential part of scientific progress for centuries. Psychology isn't even 150 years old yet, yet it's made extraordinary strides in our understanding of the workings of the mind and of human behavior. Dismissing the field out of hand because of its softness relative to physics and chemistry is a mistake IMHO.

[Mark Arbour]

Chemistry is a science, a real science. So is biology, so is physics.

 

Psychology likes to cloak itself in the respectability of "science" and pretend that they are finding "objective" truth, but there is no agreement on many, many subject. There are no laws of motion or thermodynamics in psychology.

 

Peer review is just another word for echo chamber or peer pressure. Those who attempt to stray off the reservation are swiftly beaten into submission. In controlling who gets to peer review a study the publisher controls the results.

 

In real sciences experiments are replicable without having to rely on interpretation.

 

As to Brad, Wade, Matt, Will et al screwing whom they want, it is their business and I don't look for unconcious motivation, attraction is based on a great many things.

 

You clearly haven't done much research in this area.  Echo chamber?  I wish. 

[PrivateTim]

You clearly haven't done much research in this area.  Echo chamber?  I wish. 

 

Oh more research than I ever wanted or ever dreamed possible.

 

I've never had to hire an expert witness to dispute gravity or argue against Avogadro's law.

 

I'll stick with "unpopular positions in psychology have a hard, if not impossible, time getting published".

[Westie]

I think mark may have given is a clue in the last chapter... I think JJ's new coach may be part of the problem??

 

So yea..... I'm awesome when I make predictions and they come true....

 

I'm turning into Paya

[centexhairysub]

Okay, first the newest chapter of Paternity is up and Mark was right, DRAMA, DRAMA, DRAMA....

 

I have been saying for months now that there was something behind JJ's actions and his complete change in behaviour.  There was so many little things that JJ did or said that indicated some type of abuse.  The fact that JJ was being abuse and even that it was his coach wasn't the shock to me in this chapter it was that Will was the one that found out.  Was this file on Will's computer the one that came to light when Michael took the pictures of Will in Oslo?  I am pretty sure that Will went through all of those pictures so was there another set that he did not see?  If so, why did no one go through all the pictures?  If it wasn't that file, then how did it get on Will's computer?  Did JJ place it there hoping that Will would find it and save him?  It seems that there are still several unanswered questions...

 

If I was the coach and even to a lesser extent the whole skating federation leadership, I would be afraid, very afraid...  Nothing unites a family, especially this family, in the same way as someone threatening or harming one of the kids.  JP, Brad, Stef, Claire, Robbie et al are going to be on the warpath.  This is a family that because of their wealth and position and influence over a variety of areas are going to be a nightmare for all those involved.  The one thing that everyone needs to remember is that JJ is going to try and blame himself when this all hits the fan.  Skating has become his life and he is going to do and say anything to protect it at least in the short term.  Robbie may also blame himself for not seeing the signs but he is no more to blame than JJ is in regards to this. 

 

Even with everything that has happened, Will is going to be so pissed and upset that someone is probably going to have to sit on him to keep him from killing the coach.  JJ maybe older than Will but Will has always tried to look out for and protect JJ and even with all the recent acrimony between Will and JJ; Will is going to be out for blood. 

 

I think that Robbie may have started to come to his senses.  It was a small moment but when he came back and apologized to Will and then did not let JJ goad him into blowing up again, that was huge...  I know it happened off scene but when Robbie left the house and obviously started for the airport and realized that Brad was secure enough in throwing him out of the house that had to make Robbie stop and think.  Robbie had to realize that Brad would never have taken that step if he did not think the rest of the family would back him up.  I don't think that Robbie is ready to give up the only family that is really important to him over this.  He is going to have to crawl over some broken glass and beg to repair some of the damages but this may have beent he moment he realized he was heading in the wrong direction. 

 

I thought the scene with Will and Tiffany with the babies was really important as well.  Will still doesn't get the fact that not everyone views family and life the way he does.  Will has been really dissapointed in how not only Cody but others have acted because he views family as something that is so important it cannot be ignored. Will has grown and matured greatly but is going to have to learn that not everyone is on the same wavelength that he is on...

 

Okay, I am going to step lightly into the discussion over soft versus hard science.  Most of the hard science has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years in some cases.  In the last fifty years much of the the so called hard sciences have been completely turned on their ears by new knowledge or finding out that long held beliefs were wrong.  Even now there are some that are finding that " truths " held just a few decades ago as absolutes may not be true at all.  The so called soft sciences have really only been around for the last one hundred and fifty years or so and while the advances in the last twenty years or so have been grand; we are still finding our footing and developing our level of competence.  But, I would argue that the learning curve for the so called soft sciences have been much shorter and without as many out right idiocies as some of the hard sciences have been.