How do you handle boyfriends/girlfriends staying the night at your house?

[Scarlett]

Well obviously she wasn't invited by the parents, since it was a parent who said she could not stay.

 

Sure, the boy was wrong to invite her without clearing it with his parents. But it seems a reasonable assumption that they would let her stay if it's true that they "have people stay over all the time." That was still not Goldberry's daughter's fault and she surely did not invite herself to stay (as others have said). And she would probably assume that the boyfriend knew his own family's policies on having people stay over.

Right. I don't think anyone in this entire situation did anything wrong.

[regentrude]

2.  She and the BF were at a 7-11 buying an energy drink when he said she should just stay at his house, because his parents said they had an "open house" and friends crashed there all the time.

 

In the light of this, I find the behavior of the mom even more appallilng. Friends, and siblings' friends, get to crash there all the time, so apparently it is not even about the inconvenience of having an unexpected overnight guest, but she is singled out because she is a girlfriend???

 

ETA: If I had an issue with my kids bringing home overnight guests unannounced, I would take it up with my child in private afterwards, but not turn away his guest. That seems ill mannered.

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by regentrude

[Guest]

So, while you are right that none of us knows exactly what happened or what was said in that family's home that evening, there are a couple of things I think are relevant:

 

First, Goldberry said in her initial description that the girlfriend was not "hanging around." She had been out with the BF near his home and, when she realized she was too tired to feel safe driving, the BF invited her to stay.

 

"BF says, oh, I'm sure you can stay at our house, we have people stay over all the time. (There was, of course, no insinuation of room-sharing or anything else, DD was expecting to crash on the couch.) " (From Goldberry's original post)

 

The girlfriend wasn't presuming; she was invited.

 

Second, Zoobie's sarcastic summation was in response to Unsinkable's contention that the BF's mother might somehow have thought her actions were "hospitable." While I agree that it's unlikely she phrased her decision exactly the way Zoobie worded it, I do wonder how the actions, on their face, meet anyone's conception of the idea of hospitality.

Okay, but if they're driving around, rather than hanging around, the outcome is no different to me. Suppose they are driving around, come back to the house at 10:30, and BF's mother looks suprised and says, "I'm surprised you are getting back so late, when GF still has that long drive home." And BF said, "Oh, I thought she could just crash here, since it's late and she is tired."

 

If the BF "invited" her to stay, either he didn't understand what the family rules would be (it's possible) or he figured/hoped this would be a good enough excuse and she would get to stay. So, I still don't see why the BF's *Mom* is catching all the flack for not letting her stay. I have a child who is over 18, in a relationship with a very nice guy who is 21. But this scenario has still not happened. My kids would know I would not be okay with it, full stop.

 

Also, Zoobie may have been responding to Unsinkable, but she is using my words in a mocking way, as if the mother of the BF is some kind of nutjob who threw the GF out into the night.

 

I confess I'm really amazed that so many posters are ganging up on the BF's mother for keeping a standard that makes sense with and matches what the young adults say is their goal: keeping a chaste relationship. If the goal is a chaste relationship, it makes sense that the BF's parent would start with GF does not spend the night.

[regentrude]

I confess I'm really amazed that so many posters are ganging up on the BF's mother for keeping a standard that makes sense with and matches what the young adults say is their goal: keeping a chaste relationship. If the goal is a chaste relationship, it makes sense that the BF's parent would start with GF does not spend the night.

 

Well, obviously the standard makes no sense to quite a number of the posters here. A girlfriend sleeping on a parent's sofa or in a sister's room has nothing to do with keeping, or not keeping, a chaste relationship.

 

ETA: I find the entire idea of equating not staying overnight with being chaste bizarre. Sexual relations can happen at any time of day. Likewise, sharing a roof or even a room does not have to mean sex either. 

Edited July 4, 2017 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

I am a little surprised by all the emphasis on bring hospitable. What about the responsibilities of being a guest? If I go to your home, your rules apply. You want me to take off my shoes? You only drink water with dinner? Your internet turns off at 10? And, I don't invite myself over or to stay. Tired? Call home for a ride. If in invited to stay, I might, but u

I've been taught never to ask. As a guest I should graciously comply with your rules and not impose myself.

 

No, being hospitable isn't just whatever the family thinks is hospitable.  If they eat steak and make their guest eat hotdogs, that is not hospitable, even if it is their family policy.

 

Lots of societies have pretty strict social rules around hospitality, that have nothing to do with what individual families might like or not like.  For instance, a guest may have, according to custom, a "right" to a meal, or three nights as a guest.

 

Local custom varies in North America, but this idea of not having a gf or bf stay on the couch when circumstances make driving tricky sounds like something from some kind of patriarchal religious sect. 

[Frances]

I am a little surprised by all the emphasis on bring hospitable. What about the responsibilities of being a guest? If I go to your home, your rules apply. You want me to take off my shoes? You only drink water with dinner? Your internet turns off at 10? And, I don't invite myself over or to stay. Tired? Call home for a ride. If in invited to stay, I might, but u

I've been taught never to ask. As a guest I should graciously comply with your rules and not impose myself.

She did not invite herself to stay over. The boyfriend invited her when she realized she was too tired to drive safely. Obviously neither she nor the boyfriend had ever been told the family rule, if there even is one, about a bf/gf spending the night. And it was potentially a matter of life and death, not something remotely equivalent to taking off shoes or only drinking water.

[Guest]

To Quill regarding DD.. Wow. But thank you for helping so show that I was probably right about the mom's thought process here.

 

To Quill regarding driving while you feel might fall asleep, there have been some good responses here and I hope you will read the facts and reconsider how seriously you take this. I know one person killed and one person almost killed. The stats and science support how serious it is. I was so glad DD had the presence of mind to realize it. And yes, on the way home she was crying she was so embarrassed and apologetic about everything. I assured her that I was not mad in the least and that I was glad she recognized that she was compromised.

 

To the others who commented, thank you for your support.

Alright, well I said that would be misinterpreted and I find that I was right about that. All I'm saying is, I don't think being tired is a crisis that can only be remedied by staying at his house. It also still does not make sense to me that she would be sort of unintentionally or accidentally out late and then suddenly be overcome with extraordinary fatigue. Doesn't an 18yo have a reasonable grasp of her body signals? To me, that is a reasonable part of being able to drive - understanding that you will have to drive back. We do not live "in town," either. My kids returning home will drive on very dark roads where they must be alert to the ubiquitous deer in the roads.

 

If she felt unable to drive, I also think that's great that she could recognize that. But what's so horrible in that the parents asked you to come get her? They have a standard about a GF staying over and it is a standard that does not surprise me if he is coming from a family that idealizes chastity. I would bet they were shocked you were ready to allow her to stay and might have been thinking, "Geez! I thought they were also supportive of chastity and wouldn't want their DD staying over here."

[Bluegoat]

If people could predict fatique perfectly reliably, I think there would be a lot fewer accidents that it causes.

[marbel]

Alright, well I said that would be misinterpreted and I find that I was right about that. All I'm saying is, I don't think being tired is a crisis that can only be remedied by staying at his house. It also still does not make sense to me that she would be sort of unintentionally or accidentally out late and then suddenly be overcome with extraordinary fatigue. Doesn't an 18yo have a reasonable grasp of her body signals? To me, that is a reasonable part of being able to drive - understanding that you will have to drive back. We do not live "in town," either. My kids returning home will drive on very dark roads where they must be alert to the ubiquitous deer in the roads.

 

If she felt unable to drive, I also think that's great that she could recognize that. But what's so horrible in that the parents asked you to come get her? They have a standard about a GF staying over and it is a standard that does not surprise me if he is coming from a family that idealizes chastity. I would bet they were shocked you were ready to allow her to stay and might have been thinking, "Geez! I thought they were also supportive of chastity and wouldn't want their DD staying over here."

 

I don't know.  I could imagine, if I was in the same situation, calling Goldberry and saying something like "It is fine for Goldberry Jr to spend the night here. I want to assure you that she is welcome.  She'll be sleeping in our younger daughter's room. BF's room is on the other side of the house so they will be completely separate. Does that all work for you?"   They all know each other, after all.

 

I'd rather this happen with a family that I knew shared my position on pre-marital teen/young adult sex.  I would prefer that (for my own kids) to a situation where the parents said "ok, no problem, figure out the sleeping arrangements, we're going to bed now."   (ETA: And please don't anyone think that is a slam against parents with a philosophy that is different from mine.  I get that there is a wide range of difference in attitudes on the topic.)

 

Now, this seems easy to me because I live in a small house and all the floors creak, so there is no sneaking here.  Also every time anyone sleeps over I am on very high alert, so I wake up a lot.  With a BF or GF in the house, I might not sleep at all.  But, you know, my kids have kept me up all night before, right?  :-)

 

ETA: Quill, I am sorry to be constantly disagreeing with you.  Usually I read your posts and nod in agreement, even if I don't chime in.  I should keep my mouth shut but this topic fascinates me, because it may be timely - my daughter has a boyfriend who lives 50 miles away, and while neither of them drive and they don't spend time alone together, the time may be coming where a similar occurrence may happen in my house.  

Edited July 4, 2017 by marbel

[Frances]

Well, obviously the standard makes no sense to quite a number of the posters here. A girlfriend sleeping on a parent's sofa or in a sister's room has nothing to do with keeping, or not keeping, a chaste relationship.

 

ETA: I find the entire idea of equating not staying overnight with being chaste bizarre. Sexual relations can happen at any time of day. Likewise, sharing a roof or even a room does not have to mean sex either.

I completely agree. Whenever I read threads like this I feel like I must be some kind of bizarre freak because I slept many, many times with both my college boyfriend and my current husband without ever having sex. And I don't mean we just didn't feel like it that night. We were in agreement on waiting until marriage, but we were still able to sleep together when we visited each other's dorm or apartment.

 

So I find it completely strange that in a situation like goldberry's that some posters would have such an extreme problem with the gf even being in the same house. I completely understand not letting your unmarried children share a room due to your religious beliefs, but not even sleep in the same house because of the very, very slim possibility that something might happen or because it might look bad? And it gets even stranger when it is allowed on vacation. I can't remotely wrap my head around that one except maybe there are more people there to chaperone or you're sure the gf wasn't sneakily plotting to spend the night?

[Bluegoat]

Really, if they are going to sneak, they are being stupid.  They clearly have plenty of opportunity to have sex if that is what they want, in more appealing circumstances.

 

The house rule isn't going to change that, it can only be about respect for the family position on this.

 

If they did sneak around to have sex, I'd be annoyed about them breaking the rule - I'd assume they were going to have sex in any case - any feelings I had about that would be seperate.

 

 

It doesn't sound like the young man would say boo to a goose of his mom told him not to, so that doesn't seem to be a real worry.

[Guest]

Well, obviously the standard makes no sense to quite a number of the posters here. A girlfriend sleeping on a parent's sofa or in a sister's room has nothing to do with keeping, or not keeping, a chaste relationship.

 

ETA: I find the entire idea of equating not staying overnight with being chaste bizarre. Sexual relations can happen at any time of day. Likewise, sharing a roof or even a room does not have to mean sex either.

Well, right, regentrude, but correct me if I'm wrong, you're not a believer in chastity before marriage. The two young adults, according to goldberry, do have this standard for themselves: no s€x before marriage. Among people who run in conservative (mabye ultra-conservative) circles, if they are ouspoken proponents of no premarital s3x, they also are very likely to have other standards that go along with that, such as no opposite genders in the bedroom, and no opposite genders spending the night. My own parents were very outspoken against pre-marital s3x, AND they would never have allowed a BF/GF in our rooms AND they didn't allow sleepovers (except that my sister got around that sometimes by having a BF who lived 45 minutes away and he stayed too late a few times!) Of course, we very well know that those rules do not keep h@rny teens and young adults from finding a way; many times they have the unplanned pregnancies to prove it.

 

I'm sure you are aware that there are Christian college campuses that gender-segregate ALL students (except married students) into gender-specific dorm rooms. At Regent, the boy's dorm key cards do not work to gain entry to the girl's dorm, though it is possible for a girl to use her card to enter the boy's dorms. It's a laughable notion; DD thought it was actually hilarious when we visited: "What, they think that, so long as no boys can enter the girl's dorms, nobody will ever hook up?" I think the idea is that this is the standard of propriety, not that this is some guarantee of keeping everybody pure, KWIM?

 

I am not pro-chastity, but I have a very close familiarity with how people who are think. Not having BF/GF sleeping over is seen as sort of an obvious given.

[Bluegoat]

I completely agree. Whenever I read threads like this I feel like I must be some kind of bizarre freak because I slept many, many times with both my college boyfriend and my current husband without ever having sex. And I don't mean we just didn't feel like it that night. We were in agreement on waiting until marriage, but we were still able to sleep together when we visited each other's dorm or apartment.

 

So I find it completely strange that in a situation like goldberry's that some posters would have such an extreme problem with the gf even being in the same house. I completely understand not letting your unmarried children share a room due to your religious beliefs, but not even sleep in the same house because of the very, very slim possibility that something might happen or because it might look bad? And it gets even stranger when it is allowed on vacation. I can't remotely wrap my head around that one except maybe there are more people there to chaperone or you're sure the gf wasn't sneakily plotting to spend the night?

 

Yeah - I slep in tents with boys in hs - no sex.  Yuck. 

[Bluegoat]

Well, right, regentrude, but correct me if I'm wrong, you're not a believer in chastity before marriage. The two young adults, according to goldberry, do have this standard for themselves: no s€x before marriage. Among people who run in conservative (mabye ultra-conservative) circles, if they are ouspoken proponents of no premarital s3x, they also are very likely to have other standards that go along with that, such as no opposite genders in the bedroom, and no opposite genders spending the night. My own parents were very outspoken against pre-marital s3x, AND they would never have allowed a BF/GF in our rooms AND they didn't allow sleepovers (except that my sister got around that sometimes by having a BF who lived 45 minutes away and he stayed too late a few times!) Of course, we very well know that those rules do not keep [email protected]<script data-cfhash='f9e31' type="text/javascript">/* */</script> teens and young adults from finding a way; many times they have the unplanned pregnancies to prove it.

 

I'm sure you are aware that there are Christian college campuses that gender-segregate ALL students (except married students) into gender-specific dorm rooms. At Regent, the boy's dorm key cards do not work to gain entry to the girl's dorm, though it is possible for a girl to use her card to enter the boy's dorms. It's a laughable notion; DD thought it was actually hilarious when we visited: "What, they think that, so long as no boys can enter the girl's dorms, nobody will ever hook up?" I think the idea is that this is the standard of propriety, not that this is some guarantee of keeping everybody pure, KWIM?

 

I am not pro-chastity, but I have a very close familiarity with how people who are think. Not having BF/GF sleeping over is seen as sort of an obvious given.

 

There are lots of people here who don't approve of sex before marriage, at least for their kids, but think it is bizarre to disallow someone staying overnight on the couch.  It can't be that obvious.  How does that obviously prevent sex?  It doesn't.  They could more easily have sex when they were supposedly at the 7-11 together.

[regentrude]

Well, right, regentrude, but correct me if I'm wrong, you're not a believer in chastity before marriage. The two young adults, according to goldberry, do have this standard for themselves: no s€x before marriage. Among people who run in conservative (mabye ultra-conservative) circles, if they are ouspoken proponents of no premarital s3x, they also are very likely to have other standards that go along with that, such as no opposite genders in the bedroom, and no opposite genders spending the night. My own parents were very outspoken against pre-marital s3x, AND they would never have allowed a BF/GF in our rooms AND they didn't allow sleepovers (except that my sister got around that sometimes by having a BF who lived 45 minutes away and he stayed too late a few times!) Of course, we very well know that those rules do not keep  teens and young adults from finding a way; many times they have the unplanned pregnancies to prove it.

 

I understand that some people are pro-chastity. I have no problem with that (even though I do not share this sentiment as you point out.) What I do not understand is how spending a night under the same roof has any bearing on this - because, the bolded.

 

I shared an apartment for two years with a male (we each had our own bedroom) while my husband lived 1,000 miles away. It did not occur to either party that this living arrangement should be any problem, because it wasn't. 

Edited July 4, 2017 by regentrude

[Guest]

There are lots of people here who don't approve of sex before marriage, at least for their kids, but think it is bizarre to disallow someone staying overnight on the couch. It can't be that obvious. How does that obviously prevent sex? It doesn't. They could more easily have sex when they were supposedly at the 7-11 together.

It DOESN'T obviously prevent sex. It very obviously does not, judging from the many people I have known who were "committed to chastity" but got pregnant anyway. I'm saying the appearance of what is done or not done when that standard is present is often consistent. Many people with that standard DO CARE how it looks. I don't even *have* that standard and I still care how it looks, as I said regarding the party my DS wanted to sleep over with a platonic female friend.

 

It's a parallel with that topic we had on here a brief while ago about married people with opposite-gender work collegues or friends. Remember that? Similar situation. Some people say NBD, it's perfectly fine if my husband goes on a business trip with his secretary and they stay in adjoining hotel rooms, while others say NO WAY, when hell freezes over, not gonna happen in a million years. Some people say things could potentially happen, others say even if nothing happens, this does not look well. I'm in the later camp.

[Guest]

I understand that some people are pro-chastity. I have no problem with that (even though I do not share this sentiment as you point out.) What I do not understand is how spending a night under the same roof has any bearing on this - because, the bolded.

 

I shared an apartment for two years with a male (we each had our own bedroom) while my husband lived 1,000 miles away. It did not occur to either party that this living arrangement should be any problem, because it wasn't.

It's because of how it looks to the people who do have this standard. A person with this standard would probably also not accept college students living co-ed or as platonic roommates. My own mother would have blown a gasket if any of us roomed with a guy.

[Frances]

It DOESN'T obviously prevent sex. It very obviously does not, judging from the many people I have known who were "committed to chastity" but got pregnant anyway. I'm saying the appearance of what is done or not done when that standard is present is often consistent. Many people with that standard DO CARE how it looks. I don't even *have* that standard and I still care how it looks, as I said regarding the party my DS wanted to sleep over with a platonic female friend.

 

It's a parallel with that topic we had on here a brief while ago about married people with opposite-gender work collegues or friends. Remember that? Similar situation. Some people say NBD, it's perfectly fine if my husband goes on a business trip with his secretary and they stay in adjoining hotel rooms, while others say NO WAY, when hell freezes over, not gonna happen in a million years. Some people say things could potentially happen, others say even if nothing happens, this does not look well. I'm in the later camp.

But then why do you allow it on vacation? I'm still confused by that inconsistency. If I had such a rule, I could imagine breaking it for goldberry's situation or bad weather or other hazardous driving conditions where safety would trump appearances, but not vacation.

[regentrude]

It DOESN'T obviously prevent sex. It very obviously does not, judging from the many people I have known who were "committed to chastity" but got pregnant anyway. I'm saying the appearance of what is done or not done when that standard is present is often consistent. Many people with that standard DO CARE how it looks. I don't even *have* that standard and I still care how it looks, as I said regarding the party my DS wanted to sleep over with a platonic female friend.

 

 

 

 

It's because of how it looks to the people who do have this standard. A person with this standard would probably also not accept college students living co-ed or as platonic roommates. My own mother would have blown a gasket if any of us roomed with a guy. 

 

The bolded: why?

Who is even looking?

And why do you care?

Edited July 4, 2017 by regentrude

[Guest]

But then why do you allow it on vacation? I'm still confused by that inconsistency. If I had such a rule, I could imagine breaking it for goldberry's situation or bad weather or other hazardous driving conditions where safety would trump appearances, but not vacation.

First, I didn't until they were in college. When they were still minors, they didn't do vacations with each other's families. Once they were in college, it became stupid to say, No, we can't have each other on vacations, because the BF was already living in his own apartment, and they both do who-knows-what as they please for nine months out of the year; I am not there to say who sleeps where and I'm quite sure they have shared bagels some mornings. Ahem.

 

Second, on vacation, it is different; it is planned and I have a fair amount of control over how things are arranged. The beach house has a set-up that would make it really not worth it to be sneaking around at night, especially when there are plenty of other opportunities for sharing bagels the other nine months per year. It doesn't "look bad" even, because there are most often a whole bunch of cousins and friends sleeping there. The unspoken rule within the extended family seems to be: BF/GFs are separated, by floors most times. Nobody has ever allowed their unmarried young adults or teens to bunk up with their partner at the beach house (while others are there) even though I'm sure none were committed to chastity. It would not look right, especially in front of Grandma or other older generation folks.

 

To me, there is a very big difference just in being surprised by such a request late at night. I have said this before on here, and I know some people don't "get" it, especially the extroverts here, but I like my little peaceful orderly home and really hate surprise guests. I like my quiet house and my routine and not having to figure out if there are bagels 😉 and cream cheese. I don't even like overnight guests most of the time; I merely go along with it (when planned or necessary) because it is pro-social. In Goldberry's situation, as she described it, I would feel that I had something sprung upon me that didn't match my standards and that I hadn't expected from that family. I would wonder why GF was so inattentive she did not plan to go home when it was still feasible, or I might wonder why she went out at all, if she was getting over an illness. The whole problem just sounds highly preventable and not an emergency in the way something else might be (a sudden severe storm, say).

[38carrots]

It's because of how it looks to the people who do have this standard. A person with this standard would probably also not accept college students living co-ed or as platonic roommates. My own mother would have blown a gasket if any of us roomed with a guy.

 

Yes. It is all about how it looks. Plus the assumption that girls cause boys to be distracted and think naughty thoughts and immediately have sex. Therefore the idea that a male and a female can sleep in the same house and NOT have sex is not comprehensible. And of course everyone lies and sneaks around to have sex.

 

Such a wonderful, delightful view of human nature.

[Frances]

First, I didn't until they were in college. When they were still minors, they didn't do vacations with each other's families. Once they were in college, it became stupid to say, No, we can't have each other on vacations, because the BF was already living in his own apartment, and they both do who-knows-what as they please for nine months out of the year; I am not there to say who sleeps where and I'm quite sure they have shared bagels some mornings. Ahem.

 

Second, on vacation, it is different; it is planned and I have a fair amount of control over how things are arranged. The beach house has a set-up that would make it really not worth it to be sneaking around at night, especially when there are plenty of other opportunities for sharing bagels the other nine months per year. It doesn't "look bad" even, because there are most often a whole bunch of cousins and friends sleeping there. The unspoken rule within the extended family seems to be: BF/GFs are separated, by floors most times. Nobody has ever allowed their unmarried young adults or teens to bunk up with their partner at the beach house (while others are there) even though I'm sure none were committed to chastity. It would not look right, especially in front of Grandma or other older generation folks.

 

To me, there is a very big difference just in being surprised by such a request late at night. I have said this before on here, and I know some people don't "get" it, especially the extroverts here, but I like my little peaceful orderly home and really hate surprise guests. I like my quiet house and my routine and not having to figure out if there are bagels 😉 and cream cheese. I don't even like overnight guests most of the time; I merely go along with it (when planned or necessary) because it is pro-social. In Goldberry's situation, as she described it, I would feel that I had something sprung upon me that didn't match my standards and that I hadn't expected from that family. I would wonder why GF was so inattentive she did not plan to go home when it was still feasible, or I might wonder why she went out at all, if she was getting over an illness. The whole problem just sounds highly preventable and not an emergency in the way something else might be (a sudden severe storm, say).

Even though I don't understand your reasoning, I appreciate you taking the time to explain it so thoroughly.

[Guest]

The bolded: why?

Who is even looking?

And why do you care?

Well, I was talking specifically about other people caring, if they are pro-chastity, but I do also care about the proprity of certain things. That's not abnormal, you know. And as for who is looking, it could be younger siblings, as mentioned. Or Grandma. Or just the fact that if you set this precedent today, you're giving your stamp of approval and can look forward to a repeat. And if you have younger children, you can look forward to many repeats because they picked up on that being NBD.

[Twolittleboys]

It's because of how it looks to the people who do have this standard. A person with this standard would probably also not accept college students living co-ed or as platonic roommates. My own mother would have blown a gasket if any of us roomed with a guy.

Well, the way something looks should never in my opinion be more important than charity and common decency.

[Twolittleboys]

First, I didn't until they were in college. When they were still minors, they didn't do vacations with each other's families. Once they were in college, it became stupid to say, No, we can't have each other on vacations, because the BF was already living in his own apartment, and they both do who-knows-what as they please for nine months out of the year; I am not there to say who sleeps where and I'm quite sure they have shared bagels some mornings. Ahem.

 

Second, on vacation, it is different; it is planned and I have a fair amount of control over how things are arranged. The beach house has a set-up that would make it really not worth it to be sneaking around at night, especially when there are plenty of other opportunities for sharing bagels the other nine months per year. It doesn't "look bad" even, because there are most often a whole bunch of cousins and friends sleeping there. The unspoken rule within the extended family seems to be: BF/GFs are separated, by floors most times. Nobody has ever allowed their unmarried young adults or teens to bunk up with their partner at the beach house (while others are there) even though I'm sure none were committed to chastity. It would not look right, especially in front of Grandma or other older generation folks.

 

To me, there is a very big difference just in being surprised by such a request late at night. I have said this before on here, and I know some people don't "get" it, especially the extroverts here, but I like my little peaceful orderly home and really hate surprise guests. I like my quiet house and my routine and not having to figure out if there are bagels 😉 and cream cheese. I don't even like overnight guests most of the time; I merely go along with it (when planned or necessary) because it is pro-social. In Goldberry's situation, as she described it, I would feel that I had something sprung upon me that didn't match my standards and that I hadn't expected from that family. I would wonder why GF was so inattentive she did not plan to go home when it was still feasible, or I might wonder why she went out at all, if she was getting over an illness. The whole problem just sounds highly preventable and not an emergency in the way something else might be (a sudden severe storm, say).

I was just wondering (and this isn't mean to be snarky or anything but I am just wondering): Would you have felt different if the girl suddenly got a migraine or was sick in a different way? And for arguments sake let's assume it is quite obvious that she is really feeling unwell (shaky/pale/throwing up whatever)?

 

And what if the girl (and I am not talking about Goldberry's daughter but a hypothetical girl) had had too much to drink? Obviously, that would not be great but what about staying over in that case? And what if the girl's parents couldn't be reached so noone could come to pick her up?

 

Again, I am not trying to start an argument at all but I am just wondering exactly what the limits would be/how different scenarios would play out.

[Wheres Toto]

My younger kids are 11 and 13 years younger than my oldest.  People keep talking about not setting a precedent for younger kids.  In Goldberry's situation, would it really be that hard to say "Goldberrys dd isn't feeling well/is feeling tired and we don't want her to risk her safety driving home.  She is going to sleep in the girl's bedroom for the night.".   

 

Do you really think showing compassion to someone one time is going to undo everything else you teach your kids every day of their lives?  If so, I don't think much of the job your doing and good luck to you when they move out as adults.

 

Along the same lines, do you really want your kids to only ever look at the letter of the law, and never look at the circumstances or use common sense?  Even fairly young kids, IMO and IME, can tell the difference between a free-for-all of sleeping over and making an exception due to circumstances.

[AimeeM]

If she felt unable to drive, I also think that's great that she could recognize that. But what's so horrible in that the parents asked you to come get her? They have a standard about a GF staying over and it is a standard that does not surprise me if he is coming from a family that idealizes chastity. I would bet they were shocked you were ready to allow her to stay and might have been thinking, "Geez! I thought they were also supportive of chastity and wouldn't want their DD staying over here."

I idealize chastity. I "idealize" life (and charity) more, though. I suppose, if one idealizes chastity over all else, they would agree with your sentiment.

Edited July 4, 2017 by AimeeM

[Tangerine]

I grew up super (super) fundie.  The avoidance of the appearance of evil was hammered into us.  To the people around me, the evil appeared to be EVERYWHERE.  No culottes for bike riding (makes the boy stumble to see you in pants), need a ride home?  Sit in the back seat by yourself so people don't think things. Yes, technically your skin IS covered up, but the thing it is covered by draws my attention, and is therefore not acceptable. 

 

I eventually realized that none of it was evil.  Or appeared to be evil to any reasonable person.  And then I realized I got to choose for myself.  So I would rather demonstrate avoiding the appearance of the evil of unkindness and possibly danger by letting a young lady stay the night when she wasn't feeling well, than avoid the appearance of the evil  of condoning nearby sleeping of unmarried individuals by sending her home.  I experience amazing freedom in that ability now.

[zoobie]

No, being hospitable isn't just whatever the family thinks is hospitable. If they eat steak and make their guest eat hotdogs, that is not hospitable, even if it is their family policy.

 

Lots of societies have pretty strict social rules around hospitality, that have nothing to do with what individual families might like or not like. For instance, a guest may have, according to custom, a "right" to a meal, or three nights as a guest.

 

Local custom varies in North America, but this idea of not having a gf or bf stay on the couch when circumstances make driving tricky sounds like something from some kind of patriarchal religious sect.

The Duggars, who I think we all can agree idolize chastisty, let boyfriends and girlfriends sleep over in separate areas with the siblings. Their rules actually are consistent because they also chaperone the kids on dates, so they're never alone. If you're letting unmarried people be alone together, you're not helping them keep their goals of chastity.

[Jenny in Florida]

Some people say things could potentially happen, others say even if nothing happens, this does not look well. I'm in the later camp.

 

 

It's because of how it looks to the people who do have this standard. A person with this standard would probably also not accept college students living co-ed or as platonic roommates. My own mother would have blown a gasket if any of us roomed with a guy.

 

Ah, that makes more sense to me, that it's not actually about what happens or doesn't happen, but about what other people might think it happening. It's about appearances. 

 

I mean, it's not a concern I share, but at least it's consistent reasoning.

[EmseB]

Does it seem that far-fetched that a mom or parents in general would have many legitimate reasons for not wanting their DC to have a last-minute sleepover with a male or female guest? I know many people for whom this just wouldn't happen regardless of age or gender or dating status of those involved. Sleepovers just aren't spur of the moment things for a lot of people. Especially a sleepover of someone who was just ill and suddenly became so fatigued she couldn't drive?

 

Either way, if the friend had a migraine, an illness that made them so tired they couldn't safely drive all of a sudden, or was drunk, or otherwise ill...whatever scenario that someone could come up with to analyze this to death...I would be crazy not to call their parents and have them picked up and taken home to convalesce.  No, I'm not throwing them out on the street, but am I taking someone so ill that they cannot operate a motor vehicle and simply letting them spend the night without medical attention or notifying their parents? Heck no!  I'm getting them a bucket, a towel, a cold compress, and a comfortable place to lie down until they can be picked up by someone who is responsible for their well-being. As everyone has pointed out, sudden onset of fatigue can be a really serious thing.  If it is so bad the person cannot drive safely, how worried am I supposed to be about the person?

 

And I'm kind of LOLing at everyone talking about Quill of all people on this board being some how in line with the chastity/purity/Duggar culture because of what she's said here. Pretty sure that's not what she has said at all, unless you are cherry-picking quotes from her posts where she's explicitly stated multiple times that on principle she's not against pre-marital s&x.

Edited July 4, 2017 by EmseB

[Guest]

I was just wondering (and this isn't mean to be snarky or anything but I am just wondering): Would you have felt different if the girl suddenly got a migraine or was sick in a different way? And for arguments sake let's assume it is quite obvious that she is really feeling unwell (shaky/pale/throwing up whatever)?

 

And what if the girl (and I am not talking about Goldberry's daughter but a hypothetical girl) had had too much to drink? Obviously, that would not be great but what about staying over in that case? And what if the girl's parents couldn't be reached so noone could come to pick her up?

 

Again, I am not trying to start an argument at all but I am just wondering exactly what the limits would be/how different scenarios would play out.

The circumstances would have to happen, I assume, for me to know what I would do, but if the person was suddenly/obviously ill, I would most definitely be attempting to reach the parents. I wouldn't default to, "Well, just spend the night here," but if she is obviously sick, she needs her parents. If they can't be reached (although in my world, nearly everybody is reachable within a couple hours at most) I would let her stay until we worked out what to do, i.e., go to the ER, rest on the couch while I keep trying to locate the parents, etc.

 

If it was an underage child who was drunk, I'm definitely trying to reach the parents. I'm certainly not going to cover up the person's illegal drinking. If it was an overage drunk GF/BF, well, of course I'm not going to put them behind the wheel, but I don't know exactly what I would do. I'm sure it would depend on several factors. But I would be not at all pleased about drunkenness and it would definitely affect what I thought about that BF/gF as a potential mate for my kid.

[Bluegoat]

I guess I cannot see how being under the same roof, in a situation where having sex would be tricky and stupid, is the appearance of something bad happening. 

 

Letting them sleep in the same room, alone, with the door closed - sure, that is a temptation and the appearance is pretty suspicious.

 

On the couch - the only people I can picture thinking that is salacious are people I would really not care about pandering to.  From a "sin" perspective, they are the ones in the wrong.  Nor would I want to teach my younger kids to heed such people.

 

As far as just not wanting an overnight guess - well sure - I hate kids overnight guests.  Apparently, the parents in this case did not and made a point of having an open couch for friends.  And, in the case of someone too tired to drive, I would just suck it up. 

[Scarlett]

Yes. It is all about how it looks. Plus the assumption that girls cause boys to be distracted and think naughty thoughts and immediately have sex. Therefore the idea that a male and a female can sleep in the same house and NOT have sex is not comprehensible. And of course everyone lies and sneaks around to have sex.

 

Such a wonderful, delightful view of human nature.

No one said this.

[Guest]

My younger kids are 11 and 13 years younger than my oldest. People keep talking about not setting a precedent for younger kids. In Goldberry's situation, would it really be that hard to say "Goldberrys dd isn't feeling well/is feeling tired and we don't want her to risk her safety driving home. She is going to sleep in the girl's bedroom for the night.".

 

Do you really think showing compassion to someone one time is going to undo everything else you teach your kids every day of their lives? If so, I don't think much of the job your doing and good luck to you when they move out as adults.

 

Along the same lines, do you really want your kids to only ever look at the letter of the law, and never look at the circumstances or use common sense? Even fairly young kids, IMO and IME, can tell the difference between a free-for-all of sleeping over and making an exception due to circumstances.

I'm just going on what I actually remember thinking when I was a young gifl and my parents made an exception based on where the guy lived. Know what I thought? I thought, "Wow, my parents got conned." I also conned them myself later, with similar defenses. We were not having s3x - it really wasn't about that - but it was my smug little victory that I arranged things to suit myself by playing the sympathy card.

 

And yes, I definitely want my kids to use common sense, that's why I tell them and teach them to think through getting safely back home whatever the hour and whatever the conditions that might exist. Ironically enough, I was just discussing tonight's events with my 20yo, because she is going to see fireworks with BF's family and I know it will be late when she comes home.

[Frances]

Does it seem that far-fetched that a mom or parents in general would have many legitimate reasons for not wanting their DC to have a last-minute sleepover with a male or female guest? I know many people for whom this just wouldn't happen regardless of age or gender or dating status of those involved. Sleepovers just aren't spur of the moment things for a lot of people. Especially a sleepover of someone who was just ill and suddenly became so fatigued she couldn't drive?

 

Either way, if the friend had a migraine, an illness that made them so tired they couldn't safely drive all of a sudden, or was drunk, or otherwise ill...whatever scenario that someone could come up with to analyze this to death...I would be crazy not to call their parents and have them picked up and taken home to convalesce. No, I'm not throwing them out on the street, but am I taking someone so ill that they cannot operate a motor vehicle and simply letting them spend the night without medical attention or notifying their parents? Heck no! I'm getting them a bucket, a towel, a cold compress, and a comfortable place to lie down until they can be picked up by someone who is responsible for their well-being. As everyone has pointed out, sudden onset of fatigue can be a really serious thing. If it is so bad the person cannot drive safely, how worried am I supposed to be about the person?

 

And I'm kind of LOLing at everyone talking about Quill of all people on this board being some how in line with the chastity/purity/Duggar culture because of what she's said here. Pretty sure that's not what she has said at all, unless you are cherry-picking quotes from her posts where she's explicitly stated multiple times that on principle she's not against pre-marital s&x.

I actually think it's because she's not explicitly against it that her position on Goldberry's daughter's situation is so confusing. There are certainly many people on this board I would expect to have very black and white rules about a gf/bf sleeping over, even in separate rooms, and would not make an exception under any circumstances. People for whom even an appearance of potential impropriety trumps everything because chastity and no sex before marriage are paramount in their religion. But Quill obviously isn't one of them.

[Bluegoat]

I'm just going on what I actually remember thinking when I was a young gifl and my parents made an exception based on where the guy lived. Know what I thought? I thought, "Wow, my parents got conned." I also conned them myself later, with similar defenses. We were not having s3x - it really wasn't about that - but it was my smug little victory that I arranged things to suit myself by playing the sympathy card.

 

And yes, I definitely want my kids to use common sense, that's why I tell them and teach them to think through getting safely back home whatever the hour and whatever the conditions that might exist. Ironically enough, I was just discussing tonight's events with my 20yo, because she is going to see fireworks with BF's family and I know it will be late when she comes home.

 

Why is it a problem that it suited you?  Because you thought your parents didn't realize that?  Did they care?

[Tangerine]

I once ripped off a wiper blade trying to scrape ice off my window when leaving my boyfriend's house. It was a Chicago snowstorm and everyone arranged for me to stay. I'm glad nobody on either side thought I was (please forgive me) pulling a snow job.

[Frances]

The Duggars, who I think we all can agree idolize chastisty, let boyfriends and girlfriends sleep over in separate areas with the siblings. Their rules actually are consistent because they also chaperone the kids on dates, so they're never alone. If you're letting unmarried people be alone together, you're not helping them keep their goals of chastity.

Yes, I have to say I don't get the absolute rule on gf/bf never sleeping over, even in the case of potential unsafe driving conditions, but allowing your child to be alone with a bf/gf, especially in a car. But then again the whole focus on appearances rather than reality is just baffling to me.

[Pen]

I guess I cannot see how being under the same roof, in a situation where having sex would be tricky and stupid, is the appearance of something bad happening. 

 

1. Letting them sleep in the same room, alone, with the door closed - sure, that is a temptation and the appearance is pretty suspicious.

 

2. On the couch - the only people I can picture thinking that is salacious are people I would really not care about pandering to.  From a "sin" perspective, they are the ones in the wrong.  Nor would I want to teach my younger kids to heed such people.

 

As far as just not wanting an overnight guess - well sure - I hate kids overnight guests.  Apparently, the parents in this case did not and made a point of having an open couch for friends.  And, in the case of someone too tired to drive, I would just suck it up. 

 

 

We are not at this stage yet, but I find this thread interesting because it could come soonish.

 

 

We live in an area where roads can be quite dangerous for a tired person or late (well that is true any where, but some more than others).

 

 

And we also live in area that has a lot of rural conservative values.

 

I guess that beyond our home people would not know if someone who had spent the night had spent it on couch or in same bed, so if problems in terms of reputation are an issue, most people would not know if having sex would be tricky or not. They would just know something like that soandso's car arrived and did not leave till next day.

 

Unless there were some means of announcing to neighborhood that visitor was on couch, while others were in own bedrooms.  How would you let people know that the situation was as marked 2, rather than 1?

[Bluegoat]

We are not at this stage yet, but I find this thread interesting because it could come soonish.

 

 

We live in an area where roads can be quite dangerous for a tired person or late (well that is true any where, but some more than others).

 

 

And we also live in area that has a lot of rural conservative values.

 

I guess that beyond our home people would not know if someone who had spent the night had spent it on couch or in same bed, so if problems in terms of reputation are an issue, most people would not know if having sex would be tricky or not. They would just know something like that soandso's car arrived and did not leave till next day.

 

Unless there were some means of announcing to neighborhood that visitor was on couch, while others were in own bedrooms.  How would you let people know that the situation was as marked 2, rather than 1?

 

Yes, I guess they wouldn't.  I was thinking particularly of younger kids in the house, which has been mentioned a few times.

 

However, as far as people outside the home speculating on this, I think things like gossiping, speculating for fun or thrills about the behavior of others, and thinking the worst, are actually pretty significant sins.

 

Myself, I wouldn't be encouraging bf or gf "sleepovers" for fun.  But I don't think practical reasons - a late night, driving somewhere early in the morning, weather - are the same thing.  I wouldn't even call that a sleep-over, myself. 

[regentrude]

I guess that beyond our home people would not know if someone who had spent the night had spent it on couch or in same bed, so if problems in terms of reputation are an issue, most people would not know if having sex would be tricky or not. They would just know something like that soandso's car arrived and did not leave till next day.

 

Unless there were some means of announcing to neighborhood that visitor was on couch, while others were in own bedrooms.  How would you let people know that the situation was as marked 2, rather than 1?

 

It is none of people's business what cars are parked in my driveway, and if they have nothing better to do than speculate about the sleeping arrangements in my house, they need to get a life.

I have no patience for busybodies.

Why would I need to announce to the neighborhood who sleeps where? The idea is bizarre.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by regentrude

[Frances]

We are not at this stage yet, but I find this thread interesting because it could come soonish.

 

 

We live in an area where roads can be quite dangerous for a tired person or late (well that is true any where, but some more than others).

 

 

And we also live in area that has a lot of rural conservative values.

 

I guess that beyond our home people would not know if someone who had spent the night had spent it on couch or in same bed, so if problems in terms of reputation are an issue, most people would not know if having sex would be tricky or not. They would just know something like that soandso's car arrived and did not leave till next day.

 

Unless there were some means of announcing to neighborhood that visitor was on couch, while others were in own bedrooms. How would you let people know that the situation was as marked 2, rather than 1?

But why would you care about letting people know? Isn't gossiping a sin? It certainly doesn't seem very Christian to be speculating about why someone spent the night at someone else's house. Why in the heck would it be any of their business or concern? You know what you believe and what you stand for and what you allow at your house.

[Twolittleboys]

As far as gossiping etc. is concerned: I can see the potential problem in a conservative area if let's say a car is parked in a single woman's driveway all night. Even if nothing happened, it might look iffy and if that is something one is concerned about (and for example with some professions it might be a legitimate concern)it could be a problem. We all know that people will gossip even though they are not supposed to.

 

But when it is the case of a car being parked overnight at a house that includes parents and several siblings of various ages I think it is carrying things too far. Presumably, busybodies will know the family's values and it shouldn't raise any eyebrows. And that I would consider more than just "normal" gossip.

[EmseB]

Except we're not talking about a snowstorm or car trouble where nobody could drive anywhere.

 

We're talking about, "Hey, mom, I told my girlfriend she could stay here because she's too tired to drive home."

 

"Uh, yeah, no. Good try, but no, she can't stay here tonight."

 

"No, it's just that she was really sick last week and is just getting over it and got super tired all of a sudden and doesn't think she'd be safe to drive so I told her she could stay here.

 

"Oh, man, that's different! Let me call her parents and have them come get her. Does she need to lie down? Put her on the couch until they get here. Does she need anything? Make sure the little kids give her some space so they don't get sick. Oh crap, we can't get sick this week, I have XYZ going on. Is she okay?"

 

All things I could imagine myself thinking or saying in the situation goldberry described. Then again, maybe the mom is Mrs. Duggar and is out to shame everyone into chastity and values her legalistic appearance over hospitality. On a message board I guess she could be anyone we want her to be to fit our view of how things should have happened.

Edited July 4, 2017 by EmseB

[Guest]

Why is it a problem that it suited you? Because you thought your parents didn't realize that? Did they care?

Because I thought, "Wow. They're so naive."

 

Not that it matters now, but they had a blind spot with that sibling. I think it's a shame. They often looked stupid because of her shenanigans that they never realized she got by them. And when that child is eldest, the youngers are watching what will happen.

 

Also, not all things were gotten away with long term. Sometimes the Piper showed up for payment.

[zoobie]

We are not at this stage yet, but I find this thread interesting because it could come soonish.

 

 

We live in an area where roads can be quite dangerous for a tired person or late (well that is true any where, but some more than others).

 

 

And we also live in area that has a lot of rural conservative values.

 

I guess that beyond our home people would not know if someone who had spent the night had spent it on couch or in same bed, so if problems in terms of reputation are an issue, most people would not know if having sex would be tricky or not. They would just know something like that soandso's car arrived and did not leave till next day.

 

Unless there were some means of announcing to neighborhood that visitor was on couch, while others were in own bedrooms. How would you let people know that the situation was as marked 2, rather than 1?

That's downright Puritanical if people are going to that extreme to observe your driveway and speculate and pronounce judgment. Is it really 2017?

[Bluegoat]

Because I thought, "Wow. They're so naive."

 

Not that it matters now, but they had a blind spot with that sibling. I think it's a shame. They often looked stupid because of her shenanigans that they never realized she got by them. And when that child is eldest, the youngers are watching what will happen.

 

Also, not all things were gotten away with long term. Sometimes the Piper showed up for payment.

 

I hope I'm not worrying if I occasionally look stupid to my kids.  They certainly aren't likely to grow up thinking I'm infalliable.  But I really don't want them to grow up thinking I'm an unreasonable jerk.

 

If having some person sleep over for some practical reason is ok with me, it doesn't really make a difference to me if the child is not telling the whole truth about the reasoning.  At a certain point, even as teens, even as children, they are responsible for their own conduct, and they have to live with it if they are being dishonest people.  It's folly to think you can totally control people's thoughts and motivations with rules. 

[Bluegoat]

That's downright Puritanical if people are going to that extreme to observe your driveway and speculate and pronounce judgment. Is it really 2017?

 

Well, the observing isn't always puritanical.

 

My cousin lives in a village.  If I were to drive there, and say stop at the bakery, I might well chat with another patron who would mention my aunt was visiting, she had just seen her car there.  Or, my cousin might mention the neighbour up the road must be gone to get her groceries, as he saw her drive by the house, and she always gets them at that time.

[regentrude]

If having some person sleep over for some practical reason is ok with me, it doesn't really make a difference to me if the child is not telling the whole truth about the reasoning.  At a certain point, even as teens, even as children, they are responsible for their own conduct, and they have to live with it if they are being dishonest people.  It's folly to think you can totally control people's thoughts and motivations with rules. 

 

I was pretty sure as a teen that I managed to snow my parents on some occasions. Looking back as an adult, however, I am not so sure that they didn't actually know what was going on and simply decided not to mention it. 

 

I know that I have not called out my children on everything they shouldn't have done. An experienced mom friend told me many years ago: "A mom does not need to have seen everything". Wise words indeed.