I’d be suspicious of a family where everyone makes really horrible decisions when it comes to picking spouses. Think about it.
In general there seems to be a good deal of prejudice against single parents in certain suburbs.
Another issue is whether, as a single dad, you feel comfortable having an unrelated female child spending the night in your house without an adult witness present. If the child has some kind of mental problem and makes up a story about you, you will be in a world of hurt.
Leaving aside the various points made by other posters, this has to be measured against women/girls doing the vast majority of the childcaring. As a percentage of opportunity, men still molest/abuse at higher rates. So the risk is higher with a man.
[Which isn’t to say it’s particularly high, or that this stat has any actionable value at all. But worth considering, if someone is trying to make the opposite point.]
A determined child could do that no matter how many other adults were present.
Actually, there’s a theory (with some evidence) that gay uncles (who are presumably more likely to be single and have no children) are actually pretty good child caretakers. The theory goes that since gay men, on average, have fewer children than hetero men, they redirect their inborn fatherhood instinct toward their sisters’ children. Sis’s kids grow up especially healthy and well adjusted, and the girls go on to have lots of children that they raise together with their gay brothers who inherited the “makes you gay if you’re a guy, else doesn’t” genes from their common ancestors. This is a major hypothesis as to why we do not appear to be observing any actual evolutionary pressure against male homosexuality, which presumably one would expect to be extinguished genetically.
Some theories really aren’t worth pursuing.
Well it’s a matter of risk tolerance. Common sense says that having another adult present reduces the risk substantially. Perhaps there wasn’t much risk to begin with, but still.
I’m curious as to why you react this way.
Given that most of us currently accept that homosexuality is to a large degree innate rather than learned, and therefore genetically driven to at least some degree, the natural question is how whatever genes might contribute persist given what would be on first blush a strong negative selection bias.
A posive effect on kin survival (such as per above or merely by the gay family member leaving resources accumulated to neices and nephews) is one such hypothesis. Another is that the same genes that predispose to homosexuality also, in lesser doses, contribute to better reproductive success (as measured in number of children living to reproduce themselves) than those without those genes. Such could be true if moderate doses of the genes made people better parents or more attractive as mates than low to zero doses.
To me those seem like interesting questions. Others do as well. See for example this 2008 Economist article:
I don’t know what I think of the hypothesis, but I wonder why you think it is not worth thinking about. 
Yes, I did know that. I don’t know how else to read that sentence. A sleepover with just a child and multiple adults of any gender would be more dangerous than one with one adult and multiple children because of the likely (but not 100% certain) motivations of the adult(s) involved.
Again, it seems obvious when I state it like that but I’m sure there would be some parents who would be more likely to let their child stay alone with Sandusky because they felt safe because his wife was there, but would not let their child stay at a friends sleepover if their single dad’s gonna be there. Because the single dad’s motivation for the invitation is much much more likely to be “let my daughter have fun” rather than “molest the [Cracked] out of them”.
Paranoid and prejudiced, no, apropriately cautious, YES!
And the difference between paranoid or prejudiced and appropriately cautious is that key word, “appropriately” which singling out (no pun intended) a whole group of people simply based on something arbitrary such as not being married is the very definition of paranoid and prejudiced.
I grew up in a family where my married(!) father molested my sisters and a cousin who came on a sleepover. I’ve got a married(!) uncle who molested a cousin from another family on an outing that his wife was along.
I don’t want to hijack the thread with a lengthy consideration of this topic, so I will leave it at this: these types of generalizations and stereotypes are harmful to individuals. Thinking a gay person is probably a child molestor is worse than thinking they are likely to be a good babysitter, but both are akin to saying Asians are good at math, black people like watermelon, or Jewish people are greedy. Should we really research these topics?
Plus, the idea that there has to be some evolutionary point to genetic traits is simplistic. Few people with cystic fibrosis reproduce, so what is the “purpose” of it from an evolutionary standpoint?
Going full speed hijack ahead …
Some speculate “heterozygote resistance to cholera and to other dehydrating intestinal diseases” … or does that article offend you too? Mind you asking that question about CF and possibly answering it is part of then possibly learning more about treating cholera more effectively. Certainly the resistance of sickle cell disease carriers to malaria must bother you. How do you feel about the possible advantages to low doses of the genes that cause autism have in regards to certain sorts of cognitive processes?
Yes, scientifically the persistence of a gene or combinations of genes in moderately large numbers despite what would* seem* to be only negative reproductive selection resulting from it deserves some thought. Even if it involves behavior and states that are not diseases but normal variation. If something with a strong genetic component persists despite having an apparent negative impact on reproductive success then there is a reason that it does. And who knows where understanding that reason will lead? Sometimes no where more than curiosity sated, but sometimes to something more useful.
Is it offensive to discuss that on average Japanese and American kids from fairly early on have differences in cognitive processes, including the pattern of math learning and performance? Yes the difference is based on culture and how things are taught but it sounds like you’d be offended at even suggesting that such a difference exists, no matter that it does, because it might possibly play into, oh my, a stereotype. Was it offensive of me in another thread to point out that there actually are documented differences in how different sub-populations store fat that place them at different risks for the same BMI and even the same total body adiposity? Heaven forbid we even even ask let alone find out about the variety that is humanity and how that variety came to be! Let alone realize that Asians are at more risk for obesity related diseases at non-obese BMIs, for example.
I can’t say that I get that.
Suffice it to say that examining the agenda that prompts various “studies” in the social sciences is often revealing.
I’d discuss this further, but I’m sure a mod will be along shortly to slap down such a conversation, as such things are apparently unacceptable. Maybe you should start a thread about it.
Are you sure that only one perspective operates out an agenda here?
In my experience those who find these conversations “unacceptable” are not the mods (barring the conversations getting ugly, which they can do) but a large number of posters who think that discussions of how, statistically, different subpopulations may vary, and why, are automatically dangerous and/or hateful and/or ignorant and should just not be had. In multiple threads.
No, gays do not all make good babysitters. And being afraid of having your child sleep over at a friend’s house because the parent is a single father is very dumb (and deprives your child of something on the basis of an irrational fear). OTOH asking if single fathers do present an untoward risk is not hateful, so long as you are open to the answer when given that no, relatively people in your own household and of your extended family actually present more of a concern by an order of magnitude. It should not be forbidden to ask if certain stereotypes have any basis. Sometimes they do. Is it true that American Jews tend to be liberal or is asking that forbidden because it is a stereotype? Does asking that imply that all American Jews are liberal? The answers are that yes, statistically American Jews tend to be more liberal than the general population, no it should not be a forbidden question because it plays into a stereotype about American Jews, and no it says nothing about all or any indvidual Jewish Americans, who may be anything included Eric Cantor.
Look at it this way - if someone is ignorant would rather they ask or persist in their ignorance?
My position in these threads is that there sometimes are genetic contributions to the prevelance of certain features in different populations, but that most of the data supporting those claims are very sketchy and that in most of these conversations sociocultural contributors likely swamp any genetic impacts especially on an individual basis. But dang, you’d have it off-limits to ask if on average gay men are more in line with current fashion trends than straight males are because it raises a sterotype. It really is as much operating out of an agenda as you believe those unnamed people doing “studies” are doing.
I think there’s a typo in your first sentence, but I’m not certain what it is meant to say.
Most studies have some sort of agenda, but the agenda may be something basic and innocuous, like furthering medical research. A study to determine correlation between IQ and race, for example, may not have the best of intentions, and the results would not be interesting or useful.
I did not mean to imply that this type of conversation is unacceptable or unacceptable to the mods. The fact that whether gay people make great uncles is unrelated to the original topic is the part I’ve seen as cause for complaint. That’s why I suggested starting a different thread for it.
Suppose we crunch the numbers and determine that single fathers actually ARE much likelier to molest children than married fathers or single or married mothers. Let’s say they are twice as likely as any other type of adult guardian. Now what? Do we start treating single fathers as likely molestors? What course of action or policy change does this dictate? Shall we stomp on the sensibilities of the non-molesting single fathers in our zeal to protect the children? Or should we still treat people on the basis of their own qualities as we perceive them (probably poorly)?
Even mention of the obvious and seemingly undeniable fact that there are far more male child molestors than female sparks squawking about how women can molest too, plus they are unreliable in other ways, etc.
No one wants to be suspected of being a child molestor, not even child molestors.
I’ve been married 16 years and have experienced this twice. The father did exactly what this father did, he returned calls, my kids were allowed to spend the night, even went on vacation with them. He controlled his wife, she wasn’t allowed to talk to anyone male or female without him. He wouldn’t let his daughter or son stay at not just my house, but a few others. Because he was molesting both kids. This father could be doing the same. Keeps her close so she won’t say anything.
Are you suggesting the OP of this zombie thread is a molester b/c he returned a phone call to the mom?
Actually I believe he’s referring to the friend’s father, not the OP.