AIBU - Men should not be allowed to adopt or foster children unless they're with a woman. Safeguarding first.

So why not ban adoption by all males then?

Adoption only by single women or lesbian couples?

It's inevitability more complicated than a view centred on one set of statistics might suggest.

For example, assuming that most Western mothers are not homophobic these days, one would expect that most women who raise boys who turn out to be gay would be supportive of their sons, if the latter decide they want to raise kids themselves.

Hard to imagine such women choosing to completely alienate their own sons by adopting the views of the heterosexists in this thread. And if they do, one would then perhaps have to question their suitability to be parents of gay boys (or perhaps even any boys) in the first place.

If statistics mean more to you than the real nature of your own children, such that you would deny your gay children parenthood even if you know they are good, responsible people, then it's certainly arguable that you are not a worthy parenthood candidate yourself.

I haven't looked it up but I'm quite certain males in general occupy positions of power, prestige, yielding a lucrative income disproportionately compared to women.
Children of homosexual men may enjoy more material resources.

Any comparison between homosexual male adoptee outcomes and heterosexual households (where, mind you, mums are notoriously under supported and there's a higher incidence of absent fathers especially in the lower stratas), must therefore be adjusted for income and background.

An overwhelming number of children grow up in households with a mother present, any comparison with homosexual males should be on a per capita basis. We also lack archival data going back decades showing child abuse rates in homosexual male households. What we do have is rates of male abuse. When adjusted for time spent in the vicinity of the child, males are more physically and of course sexually abusive than female carers.

Stepfathers (unrelated males) abuse children at a higher rate than bio dads.
Most CSA, especially familial or incestuous, will never be reported or surface.

Noone is claiming mothers' presence prevents CSA but it can surely act as a mitigating factor. Note that 96% of paedophiles are male. The odds of the mother colluding with the father to abuse the child are lower than those of two unrelated males colluding. Nearly all paedophile rings are headed by males and sustained by male demand. Women, where present, are seldom primary perpetrators but mostly aiding in the abuse or, in rare instances, renting out their children for drug money etc. Renting out to whom, you might ask? Male paedophiles.

Yes, some mums remain in denial or engage in blaming the child, prioritising their relationship with the abuser dad over the safety of the child, others may connive out of fear or resignation as a result of domestic violence.

All of that can happen in a homosexual male household, with one male heinously abusing the child too. In fact in baby Davey's case one of the dads was abusing him more actively, they were both callous and disconnected from the infant. The less abusive partner would spend inordinate amounts of time at work and was literally convicted of failing to act to protect the baby.

Yeah I agree with all of this. I think in more matriarchal minded groups, there is a greater sense of care for children and well everybody. Although the majority of instances where women have had a large amount of power or societal power have been within a patriarchal institution or culture and so we've seen large scale abuses carried out and covered up by women, but I don't think that's due to gender or sex differences I think it's just the culture we live in that overlooks parts of society that aren't worth overseeing or spending money to protect. I think the horrible cases we see like this are showing we need to spend more on proactively preventing abuse and much more supervision of all children within care, rather than making knee jerk reactions that just perpetuate benevolent sexism.

Men and women are actually more protective than not. It's just that we don't hear as much about the daily cases where someone steps in and nothing happens.

On a societal level it does seem that when wo men have more power/are more involved in society there tends to be greater priority given to the protection of children. Or to put it another way sexual exploitation is less accepted. Thinking about Afghanistan for example. In Victorian England the move to make having sex with children illegal was driven by women (sometimes by nagging their powerful husbands) who might not have had the vote but did have increasing societal power and permission to use it in a "feminine" (protecting morals/children) way.

But it doesn't follow that on an individual level women are more likely to protect than men. The data is going to be a bit skewed because predatory men will seek out abuse tolerant women to aid them since women are more likely to be seen as "safe" and more likely to have caring roles for children. Hence a lot of scandals happen in patriarchal societies where women don't have much power overall but do have power in e.g. children's homes.

All of which is a long winded way of saying that banning gay couples from adopting is not a good way to prevent child abuse.

@QuintadosMalvados your comments are increasingly strange about gay men tbh, you're drawing some very wild conclusions based on nothing. So because posters have asked you logically about data or reminded you that by staying in care they will encounter many more unrelated males means women are now "revering" gay men. As much as you keep trying to say it has nothing to do with prejudice towards gay people the tone is obvious.

Relationships between heterosexual people have broken down that all hopes and dreams are now pinned on relationships between two people with the same sex.

Like this is just ridiculous. If you genuinely think people have all their hopes and dreams pinned on this simply because people have disagreed with you or pointed out logical inconsistencies in your argument I think you need to go outside and touch some grass.

@Plimfoot
No but women are more likely to protect and report?

I don't agree this is true and would be vet interested in what stats you have to back this up? It's rare enough when the woman/mother actually does protect the children from her abusive partner that it's usually a news story.

And sadly, another mum who did not choose to safeguard her child. Accused of murder and allowing the death of her young child.

RIP Isabelle Rose

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qy7zp7qj3o?app-referrer=deep-link

Star Hobson was murdered by her mother's lesbian partner.

What's going on with those who refuse to acknowledge this?

The recognition that stepfathers can be a danger is there but two men who are in effect stepfathers as they have no biological link is most definitely not.

When in fact it's literally doubling the amount of non-related men who live in the household as parental figures.

That's puzzling.

I think that the clue lies in what I perceive to be the sneery tone about single mothers.

Note how single mums are not mentioned as having the sense to keep strange men out of the household but relationships that consist of two males oh well any extra marital (loose term of word 'marital' - doesn't matter if married as such, cohabiting applies) can't possibly be conducted at home.
They're saints you see. (sarcasm, obviously)

I think that this is down to several factors:
Men who experience attraction to other men are now revered amongst certain women.
'Gay best friend' and other bullshit.

Why not lesbians, well you see they're women. Who cares?

Relationships between heterosexual people have broken down that all hopes and dreams are now pinned on relationships between two people with the same sex.

Now with lesbians, that's great. Bring it on.

Two men, though? Downright risky.

No but women are more likely to protect and report? How many men knew that Gisele Peticot was being sexually abused by her husband but chose to join him in raping her rather than reporting? How long do you think it would have taken for it to be reported if every man involved told their wives? Pretty quickly.

Or the mob of hundreds of men who joined in mass assaulting Lara Logan in Cairo rather than helping her?

These 2 men were perverts. And they fostered a child as ...I can't even bring myself to say it, a way to gratify themselves.

In general men cannot be trusted around women and kids. Its just the fucking truth.

If 98% of sexual crimes are commited by men and men are more likely to offend against a child that is not biologically theirs then statistically placing a foster baby with 2 unrelated males must be substantially more risky?

Most will accept that one man can be abusive, but put two of them in a relationship and everything magically becomes good. That line of thinking makes no sense to me

But they don't magically become good when in a relationship with a women either. I've seen no evidence that men are less likely to abuse children if there is a woman in the house.

It is, and always has been, about men.

Most will accept that one man can be abusive, but put two of them in a relationship and everything magically becomes good. That line of thinking makes no sense to me.

Gay, straight, bi, pansexual, call them what you like they are still MEN.

How do you possibly know if people are telling the truth about monogamy?

What you do know, though, is that half of gay male couples are in non-monogamous relationships.

Are you one of those people who believe what people tell you instead of what you know?

There is something else I've read whereby for 2 men wishing to adopt any non-monogamy is accepted as part of their culture so disregarded as an issue. To be fair, I'm going to have to clarify this as I'm not completely sure.

I don't give a fig about whether lesbians are monogamous or not.

They're unlikely to be cheating with the class of people i.e. MEN that are statistically much more likely to harm others are they?

But why do you think that non-monogamous relationships mean that the sex takes place in the family/marital home? It usually doesn’t at all and those in open relationships don’t tend to introduce the other people to their kids.

It's not about homophobia, its about child sex offenses and the fact that MEN seem much happier to share their abuse with other men.
If a man suggested to his wife 'hey lets abuse a kid together 'I guarantee most would call the police but it seems that paedo minded men just seem to find each other!!

So firstly - the monogamy or otherwise of any relationship is explored fully as part of an adoption assessment. So while I know it is alien to you as a concept - we can actually assess individual applicants rather than deciding to plunge hundreds of kids into a lifetime of unstable foster care based on generalisations.

Second, you ignore that lesbian couples also have higher rates of consensual non-monogamy than straight couples.

Third, you present stats for gay couples generally but not specifically for gay adopters.

Fourth you assume without basis that consensual non-monogamy involves bringing partners to the family home. Of the consensual non-monogamy I’m aware of among friends - all of them have ground rules in place and this usually means keeping activity outside the home. This is among childless couples but I would expect that would be doubly the case for those with kids.

Nice try though to distract from your indifference to the hundreds of kids you want to stay in foster care.

I don't really know why I'm replying to you because it seems to me that you are not understanding my basic premise that this is not about gay vs straight people but men vs women. Which is odd as it's a very simple premise.

You're incapable of understanding that for some reason.

Which part of my saying that the Drewitt - Barlow case is not about 2 unrelated men looking after a child are you not understanding?
I actually think that them being the bio fathers is a positive thing in light of what is being discussed here.

The non-monogamous nature of the relationship between two men is usually agreed upon. It's not cheating.
You don't appear to have a clue that the dynamics between two men in a relationship and a man and woman in a relationship are often very different. Not a clue.

The bottom line here is that if it were the case that half of relationships between a man and a woman were openly non-monogamous I suspect that there's no way anybody here would be saying they should be allowed to adopt.
Note: this only applies to monogamy, nothing else.

That is an awful case and Drewitt-Barlow and his husband are despicable. But they have never adopted a child and all their kids are biologically related to one of them so I’m not sure what the point of posting this is apart from just spewing homophobia. While many gay men might have an open relationship, lots don’t and LOADS of heterosexual marriages also involve cheating (just that often one party doesn’t know about it). Being non-monogamous doesn’t mean that they have swingers parties or let other people be around their kids.

I note the 'safe, loving, home' posters have not commented on this.

You know the ones that don't realise that only HALF of relationships involving two men are monogamous.
Because they're men, not gay, just y'know, men.

So plenty of opportunity for unrelated men to be visiting half the relationships that involve 2 men's household @Glowingup

I'll comment, though:
As despicable as these crimes he's been accused of are, they do not appear to involve his own biological children.
Nor indeed the biological children of his former husband that he was a second parent to.

Briefly, there were no 2 unrelated males in sole care of their children.

Maybe but so what.
I'm just responding to the fact that if only half of these are monogamous relationships then that is a lot of opportunity for unrelated men visiting the household.

I think that you at least get that my issues with this stem from a male vs female issue not gay vs straight so thanks for that.

To be honest if only half of straight marriages were monogamous there's no way they'd be described here as 'stable', even if the openness of the marriage was decided upon by both husband and wife.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15919257/Britains-gay-dad-52-partner-32-charged-18-offences-including-paying-sexual-services-child-rape.html

Interestingly they have the lowest divorce rates though.

Only about half- HALF- of gay male relationships are monogamous.
Yet again I attribute this to the fact that they're men, not gay.

Could it not be argued though that in the case of 2 men unrelated to the child adopting it that they're both stepfathers?

As I said, while I may not generally agree with surrogacy for gay male couples, (it seems a bit vain but so what heterosexual people's reasons for having kids can be vain, too) one of them is usually at least the bio father.
I do understand that this has a protective effect.

There is also the fact that gay male couples do not tend to value monogamy as much.
Now yet again this may not be because they're gay but because they're men.
It's all about being men! I can't emphasise that enough.
So maybe as much men passing through the house as your single mother.

I've said before that this is not so much about what should be done but what is possible.
It's not really possible to stop who a woman has in her house.