when your house rules keep family away

[Catwoman]

For the most part, I agree...... but if a couple has been living together for years, as a couple, then as a hostess, I can't imagine suggesting that they sleep apart at my house. Regardless of my belief system. For me, our rules center more around things that would truly harm someone in the home, rather than imposing our values on them. If you smoke, here's an ashtray, go out on the deck to smoke. That kind of stuff.. But you are right, it's up to the host to determine the parameters for their guests. How they go about it reflects on who they are. How the guest reacts is on the guest.

I can't imagine doing that, either, but in a situation like the OP described, where it seems like people are inviting themselves to stay in a family member's home, I can't really fault the family member for setting her own house rules. It sounds like she didn't even invite these people; they asked her if they could stay at her house.

 

If they want free meals and lodging, they can deal with sleeping apart for a night or two; otherwise, they can stop inviting themselves to stay at someone's house and just get a hotel room.

 

For all we know, the family member might not particularly enjoy having overnight guests and is happy that her house rules will keep a few people away. ;)

[slackermom]

Are people with a strict no shoes policies aware of plantar faciitis issues?  There are plenty of people diagnosed with it whose doctors tell them to never, ever go without built in arch support when they walk because it's brutal pain. They're told not to even get up in the night and walk to the bathroom without arch support shoes on.  Yes, they do make slippers for that but they're very expensive, so you'll probably not have those on hand for guests. If they don't know about your policy and don't have theirs with them, you should understand you're expecting them to be in serious pain at your house if you want their shoes off.

 

And what about people with chronic, severe foot odor?  Do you have a towel and place for them to wash their feet when they get to your house?  It's really hot here.  Wearing shoes for any length of time makes people's feet sweaty.

 

My friend would probably whip out a set of shoe covers in that case! And she is an MD, so I am sure she herself is aware of that and other conditions. She really does try hard to accommodate guests as well as hold fast to her own house rules. 

 

She also has a fairly open invitation for friends to join them for dinner at a restaurant pretty much any Friday night. They go to a different restaurant every week. So then you can wear whatever the restaurant will allow.

[Bluegoat]

The dog rule bothered my in-laws. They would instead drive to see us and head back right away as to not leave the dog alone long. And technically there was someone that could check on the dog (their daughter or a friend). It was a bit of an issue. I said maybe the dog could stay in the mostly enclosed carport (there were holes in the brick design on one side but otherwise it had been closed off like a garage) but dh said that the dog always came indoors and that wouldn't work. They do not have a pet now (dog passed away) and I think it's ironic that dh got a cat for our home and expected his parents to let us bring our cat. I said that was not fair. His mom was very accommodating about it in the end (initially acting like what? you want to bring the cat?), but since then we've got a food and water dispenser and hope to never bring her with us again. It's a real hassle and the cat gets super agitated and refuses to cooperate to get in the carrier.

 

Personally I think that pet owners should not expect others to welcome their animals. Dh didn't understand that my parents wouldn't want the cat inside their home, even in the carrier. That's why I said I didn't like to make stops with the cat. I didn't' want to have to leave the car running long and I couldn't take her inside.

 

We have a no smoking rule here and guests smoke outside. Ideally further from the door so it doesn't waft in. This has been a prickly topic as well because the smoke clings to everything. Family doesn't visit often though. We recently ran into an issue where we wanted to visit family for the 4th but the only family member's home with room is a home where the whole house smells like smoke. I don't think they realize how strong the smoke smell is. They try to smoke outdoors, but the smoke has taken over the home. We didn't say anything, but I can barely breathe in there and have two young children, one with asthma so that was a deal breaker.

 

Your home, your rules.

 

My parents also tend to avoid functions at times because of their dogs.  I don't mind them bringing dog to our house, but my mom in particular is often reluctant to leave them for any length of time.  And, there is no reason for this - they are healthy, they can wait to go out, they don't chew, they have each other.  They aren't even crated so it isn't like they can't walk around or play.

 

One year for Christmas we had our family dinner at a church hall, and they wanted to bring the dogs there - but it's a commercially inspected kitchen, so it really wasn't possible.  I was afraid they'd only come for an hour , I was ready to be mad.  I think my step-dad managed to convince my mom it would be ok. (My dogs were home, crated.)

 

What drives my dh is that our well behaved dogs would not be welcome at their house.

[eternalsummer]

I have asthma and pet allergies, so it's not that I don't understand the issue. :) I also have a life-threatening allergy to poultry meat, so I'm totally understanding that some allergies are more severe than others. This is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote an entire paragraph noting the exception for health/safety issues. 

 

It so happens that the majority of discussions I've seen on this topic are not related to significant health/safety issues:

 

+ Bf/Gf sleeping over

+ pets visiting with no mention of health concerns

+ alcohol or pork consumption

+ no shoes in the house

+ etc.

 

Personally, I choose to have people in my life who are both loving and respectful of others. This means that folks visiting me wouldn't bring pork or alcohol if they knew I was opposed. It also means they'd understand if a health issue precluded their pet visiting. It also means no one would dream of smoking in my house, nor of flagrantly using illegal substances on my property -- as they wouldn't dream of stinking up my home (ALL smokers know that smoke stinks up a home) nor of exposing me to legal problems. 

 

Personally, I also choose to be respectful of those who I love or otherwise have as guests. This means that when folks visit me, I accept their gifts graciously. It also means I don't tell them what to eat, smoke, or drink, so long as it isn't significantly damaging my property or someone else's health. It also means I wouldn't dream of telling them who to sleep with. It also means I will tolerate their pet, so long as it isn't pooping or peeing in my house . . .

 

I make choices like investing in hard flooring throughout my house to minimize allergy issues. And having a HEPA filter in each guest space along with keeping the doors closed 24/7 when not in use to prevent my own pets from going in and filling the space with allergens . . . And keeping my fridge stocked with things I know my guests might like . . . etc. I can make choices that both make my guests comfortable and make my family comfortable . . .

 

My family generally removes shoes when we are indoors. This is a "family rule" for the most part. My house is pretty nice, and guests often think they should remove *their own* shoes when they see us in bare feet or socks. I always tell them, no, no, do whatever makes you comfortable. I'd much rather get some extra dirt/wear/tear in my house than make a guest uncomfortable. When I go to someone's no-shoes house, I take my shoes off . . . When I go to a Mormon household, I don't bring alcohol . . . I make efforts to be a good guest, as we all should, and I also make an effort to be a good host, as we all should. IMHO.

 

 

I wonder if there are any non-health/safety things that you would object to in your home, though.  They might be things that are so uncommon in this society that you can't conceive of having to object to them, because you are largely in line with common social morality.  

[StephanieZ]

I wonder if there are any non-health/safety things that you would object to in your home, though.  They might be things that are so uncommon in this society that you can't conceive of having to object to them, because you are largely in line with common social morality.  

 

Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of things that I'd object to. I'd work that out like I would if I were staying at my guest's home, or at a shared rental house, or whatever. I'd avoid the conflict, or I'd speak up and work out a solution, or I'd decide that I made a mistake by being so close to this person and make plans to minimize contact/conflict in the future, after this particular situation is over. 

 

I disagree with many things that others find acceptable or even preferable. That doesn't mean I can/should/would try to control other peoples' behaviors. Indeed, there are culturally normal/approved things that I find abhorrent. For instance, I believe that there is no god, religions are nonsensical, and that churches are a significant evil. Nonetheless, I generally keep my mouth shut when others are practicing or otherwise celebrating their religion. When companions (at their home, my home, or in some other setting) want to say a blessing over a meal, I hold hands and sit respectfully and quietly. I do my best to avoid using sacred words casually or disrespectfully. I avoid bringing up my opinions when I have reason to suspect they would be offensive. Obviously, I'm not agreeing with their practices or beliefs, but I have no need or desire to control others' actions or beliefs. Not my circus, not my monkeys . . . 

 

What I would definitely *not* do is play the "it's my house, so it's my rules" card unless I was *done* with that personal relationship. That's just not how I relate to other human beings. Who is in control should not be about who owns stuff (unless that owned stuff is in jeopardy). 

[eternalsummer]

I see.  Well, for us, that would unfortunately mean having no relationships at all, as we are as severely out of line with current beliefs about treatment of animals as abolitionists would have been in the heart of the South in 1830, I guess.  If everyone you know does something you find abhorrent, it is much harder to say, well, just stop having a relationship with people who are doing something you find unacceptable.  A reasonable compromise seems to be to ask them just to not do it in our house (the only place, btw, where our kids are not constantly disappointed by all the things they cannot eat).

[StephanieZ]

I see.  Well, for us, that would unfortunately mean having no relationships at all, as we are as severely out of line with current beliefs about treatment of animals as abolitionists would have been in the heart of the South in 1830, I guess.  If everyone you know does something you find abhorrent, it is much harder to say, well, just stop having a relationship with people who are doing something you find unacceptable.  A reasonable compromise seems to be to ask them just to not do it in our house (the only place, btw, where our kids are not constantly disappointed by all the things they cannot eat).

 

Well, perhaps in your situation, having your home as a "safe space" where you and your kids aren't stressed and distressed over animal welfare and/or over what the kids can and cannot eat . . . is more of a wellbeing/welfare/mental health issue. It sounds to me like that might be more the root of your "house rule" as opposed to you wanting to exert Queen of My Castle authority? 

 

Framed that way, it might be more palatable others?

[Alice]

Are people with a strict no shoes policies aware of plantar faciitis issues?  There are plenty of people diagnosed with it whose doctors tell them to never, ever go without built in arch support when they walk because it's brutal pain. They're told not to even get up in the night and walk to the bathroom without arch support shoes on.  Yes, they do make slippers for that but they're very expensive, so you'll probably not have those on hand for guests. If they don't know about your policy and don't have theirs with them, you should understand you're expecting them to be in serious pain at your house if you want their shoes off.

 

And what about people with chronic, severe foot odor?  Do you have a towel and place for them to wash their feet when they get to your house?  It's really hot here.  Wearing shoes for any length of time makes people's feet sweaty.

 

 

And the no-shoes in the house issue has returned! 

 

We remove shoes in the house. Most guests see that we do that and ask about it. I usually respond something like "We usually take off our shoes but you don't have to." And if someone comes in with shoes, we don't make a big thing of it. 

[eternalsummer]

That is indeed how we frame it (please don't bring things the kids can't eat) but it is an ongoing struggle anyway.  My MIL once informed me she would be hosting my niece's birthday party at our house; she said she'd bring everything, she just needed a place to hold it.  The niece is the same age as our kids; they live in town, so we see them weekly.  She brought a sheet cake from Walmart that the kids couldn't eat and a pizza they couldn't eat.  I guess when she said she'd bring everything, she meant she'd bring everything for everyone who didn't live here.

 

It was a bummer for the kids.  That kind of thing happened constantly ("Oh, I brought these chocolate puddings, L___ can't live without them for 2 days," "Oh, I brought over our leftover hamburgers from lunch to have later, I'll just leave them in the fridge," etc.)

[Seasider]

That is indeed how we frame it (please don't bring things the kids can't eat) but it is an ongoing struggle anyway. My MIL once informed me she would be hosting my niece's birthday party at our house; she said she'd bring everything, she just needed a place to hold it. The niece is the same age as our kids; they live in town, so we see them weekly. She brought a sheet cake from Walmart that the kids couldn't eat and a pizza they couldn't eat. I guess when she said she'd bring everything, she meant she'd bring everything for everyone who didn't live here.

 

It was a bummer for the kids. That kind of thing happened constantly ("Oh, I brought these chocolate puddings, L___ can't live without them for 2 days," "Oh, I brought over our leftover hamburgers from lunch to have later, I'll just leave them in the fridge," etc.)

Wow that's very unkind of her.

[marbel]

And the no-shoes in the house issue has returned! 

 

We remove shoes in the house. Most guests see that we do that and ask about it. I usually respond something like "We usually take off our shoes but you don't have to." And if someone comes in with shoes, we don't make a big thing of it. 

 

Funny how things can be perceived differently.

 

If I was a guest coming into your house, I would interpret that as "I want you to take your shoes off but I'm not going to come out and say that."  But then I am very awkward and am often unsure what people really mean.  

 

If a guest asks I usually say something like "shoes on, shoes off, doesn't matter, whatever makes you comfortable."

 

No doubt that is unhelpful to some too.  :-)

 

My mom was very uncomfortable without shoes on.  I don't know what specific problem she had.  Being told to take her shoes off to go into someone's house would have been very difficult for her.  But when I was growing up, shoes on or off on the house wasn't an issue.  I was in 6th grade and recently moved to California (from NY) the first time I was asked to remove my shoes to go into a friend's house.  I was stunned!  There was a basket of socks by the door. Now it is much more common.  

Edited July 7, 2017 by marbel

[Wheres Toto]

I most likely would not invite them to stay with us, but if I did, I would place them in separate rooms just like any other unmarried couple (regardless of their legal status under civil statutes).

 

 

So, do you only allow heterosexual couples who have been married in a church to share a room?

[Lady Florida.]

So, do you only allow heterosexual couples who have been married in a church to share a room?

 

Yes, and do you determine which church marriages are valid? Some churches (including some Christian denominations) will marry same sex couples. 

[mathnerd]

 or simply their desire to be king/queen of their castle (pride, pride, pride).

 

 

Would you call it pride if the issue was about food and the visiting violators have no knowledge about food intolerances nor were they ever going to educate themselves about it?

[Wheres Toto]

That is indeed how we frame it (please don't bring things the kids can't eat) but it is an ongoing struggle anyway.  My MIL once informed me she would be hosting my niece's birthday party at our house; she said she'd bring everything, she just needed a place to hold it.  The niece is the same age as our kids; they live in town, so we see them weekly.  She brought a sheet cake from Walmart that the kids couldn't eat and a pizza they couldn't eat.  I guess when she said she'd bring everything, she meant she'd bring everything for everyone who didn't live here.

 

It was a bummer for the kids.  That kind of thing happened constantly ("Oh, I brought these chocolate puddings, L___ can't live without them for 2 days," "Oh, I brought over our leftover hamburgers from lunch to have later, I'll just leave them in the fridge," etc.)

 

That's just mean.  I would stop letting her host things at your house.

 

We had a no shoes policy when the kids were really little.  We have carpeting (ugh) and with crawlers and toddlers and a gravel driveway/walkway that got muddy, we tried to keep it clean as possible.  I have a friend who wears a leg brace for support after a brain tumor left her one side weak.  I did not tell her the usual policy because it would have been uncomfortable and difficult for her.

 

ETA:  My standards are around heath issues.  No food or animals that anyone is allergic too.  No smoking of any kind because of asthma.  

Edited July 7, 2017 by Where's Toto?

[StephanieZ]

Would you call it pride if the issue was about food and the visiting violators have no knowledge about food intolerances nor were they ever going to educate themselves about it?

 

Wouldn't that fall under the health/safety category?

 

I know one kid with severe peanut allergies. He occasionally attends activities where my kids attend. For *all* of my kids' participation in the activities at that organization (hundreds of kid-hours per year), we send only peanut-free items. Just this week, we bought two huge boxes of random snack bars at Sam's because they were peanut free (and all of our old standbys are not peanut free). I would never dream of knowingly bringing peanuts into their presence, let alone their home.

 

On the other hand, I'm severely allergic to poultry. But, I don't react to airborne particles or hand-to-hand contact, so I am able to protect myself. I don't ask anyone else to accommodate my allergies. I just ask lots of detailed questioned when visiting other homes for meals, and I choose carefully. I wouldn't mind anyone bringing poultry into my home, and in fact, dh regularly cooks it (generally when I'm not home, lol). 

[Carol in Cal.]

I like to cook, so when my sister became vegan I took a vegan cooking class at the local organic store.  It was fun!  I learned a few vegan main dish recipes, and I felt like I was being more hospitable by doing so.  Because vegetarian wasn't hard, but vegan I just didn't have a feel for at all.

 

I buy hand cream for guests even though I never use it.

 

I make 'kosher lite' food for guests at times--not true kosher, but either dairy or meat in the meal--no combinations.

 

I accommodate food allergies entirely.

 

I try to make my guests welcome, comfortable, and happy, and I bend to do that.

 

But if someone had taken up smoking, or drugs, or had pets they wanted to bring along, none of that would be welcome inside the house, at all, period, although they would still be welcome personally.  I have never been around large animals much, and I find the assumption that you should be able to bring a dog into a dogfree house extremely presumptuous.  Ditto smoke of any kind.  That's just rude.  

Edited July 7, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes, and do you determine which church marriages are valid? Some churches (including some Christian denominations) will marry same sex couples. 

Everlasting snark.

[Bluegoat]

Everlasting snark.

 

I think actually this is a reasonable question, in terms of what seems reasonable or possible to determine about other people..

 

Some religions think only certain civil marriages are "real". For example, Catholics typically will think the marriage of a Catholic or , done civilly, is invalid.  Or some churches think no civil marriage is valid.  Some cultures don't do anything legal about marriage - its purely through social custom.  Where I live, couples who live together can be common-law, or they can have a registered agreement which gives the same rights as marriage but can be between people who are not a couple as well as couples.

 

So, I would be curious about how people define marriage - what is essential to it.

 

As a Christian in a sacramental church I think Christian marriage is a sacrament, but civil marriage according to all kinds of different customs is also real marriage.  I would argue that we have had a cultural change whereby some marriages are not legally registered, but have all of the essential elements of natural marriage - commitment of the couple, intent to live a life together, and recognition of the couple by society.

 

So - what counts as married, and why draw the line there?  Oftn, it seems a little arbitrary to me.

[Lady Florida.]

Everlasting snark.

 

No it isn't snark. It's a real question. Crimson said she wouldn't allow a same sex couple to sleep in the same room even if they had a civil ceremony marriage. Same sex marriage is legal now - it's been legal in every state for two years. They would be legally married and she would make them sleep apart. Some churches, including Christian churches do perform same sex marriages so I want to know how she'd handle that. No snark. Sincere question.

 

OTOH, I doubt, assuming she knows any same sex married couples, that they'd want to stay in her home knowing how she feels about them. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Everlasting snark.

No I don't think so.

 

Some Christian churches marry same sex couples, and same sex couples can legally marry.

[zoobie]

No it isn't snark. It's a real question. Crimson said she wouldn't allow a same sex couple to sleep in the same room even if they had a civil ceremony marriage. Same sex marriage is legal now - it's been legal in every state for two years. They would be legally married and she would make them sleep apart. Some churches, including Christian churches do perform same sex marriages so I want to know how she'd handle that. No snark. Sincere question.

 

OTOH, I doubt, assuming she knows any same sex married couples, that they'd want to stay in her home knowing how she feels about them.

And does it apply to anyone not in a Catholic-sacramental marriage? Plenty of heterosexuals only have a civil marriage. It's an interesting question.

[MercyA]

 I am greatly bothered by this new dog trend. The dogs are everywhere. last flight I was on had two.  Just have to claim emotional need, and have a doctor sign off.  http://emotionalsupportanimals.org/2010/10/07/how-do-i-get-my-dog-certified-as-an-emotional-support-dog/

 

Pets have been allowed on flights for many years. This is not a new thing. There are probably dogs and/or cats on most flights you're on and you're just not aware of it. My dog was small and quiet and even my seat mates didn't know he was under the seat in his carrier until I told them. Airlines limit the number of pets per flight; I think for United it used to be two in the main cabin and two in first class.

 

I flew with my last dog often and paid an extra $300 each time--and he counted as my carry-on! It probably costs more now. I think airlines will probably continue to offer the service as long as it remains profitable for them.

[MercyA]

I do.

 

I should have known there could only be one of you here.  ;) I admire your principled stance, as always.

[MercyA]

Ok, these relatives took their dog on a flight to L.A. and she had to poop.  So they put a pad on the ground for her, she pooped, and then they put the soiled pad into the garbage bin in the bathroom  :huh:  :scared:  :scared:

No. Just no.  

 

What should they have done? Allowed her to soil herself in her carrier? The smell would have been far worse, and of course it would have been terrible for the dog. They brought a pad--what else could do they do? Hopefully they took her to the bathroom to go and then wrapped the pad well in a plastic bag before throwing it out. There were probably dirty diapers in the same bin--and I find the smell of those much more offensive. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by MercyA

[MrsMommy]

Wouldn't that fall under the health/safety category?

 

I know one kid with severe peanut allergies. He occasionally attends activities where my kids attend. For *all* of my kids' participation in the activities at that organization (hundreds of kid-hours per year), we send only peanut-free items. Just this week, we bought two huge boxes of random snack bars at Sam's because they were peanut free (and all of our old standbys are not peanut free). I would never dream of knowingly bringing peanuts into their presence, let alone their home.

 

On the other hand, I'm severely allergic to poultry. But, I don't react to airborne particles or hand-to-hand contact, so I am able to protect myself. I don't ask anyone else to accommodate my allergies. I just ask lots of detailed questioned when visiting other homes for meals, and I choose carefully. I wouldn't mind anyone bringing poultry into my home, and in fact, dh regularly cooks it (generally when I'm not home, lol). 

 

So why don't you assume that most peoples' "rules" fall under the health/safety category? Why is the gut reaction that if people have rules, it must be a matter of pride? I haven't ever actually told visitors that we have "rules," but it has come up from time to time, and it has always been for health reasons, never because I have so much pride in my home.

[eternalsummer]

What should they have done? Allowed her to soil herself in her carrier? The smell would have been far worse, and of course it would have been terrible for the dog. They brought a pad--what else could do they do? Hopefully they took her to the bathroom to go and then wrapped the pad well in a plastic bag before throwing it out. There were probably dirty diapers in the same bin--and I find the smell of those much more offensive. 

 

I was also wondering what the other option was.  Not like you can tell a dog to just hold it, hah.  (even with a kid this is not particularly effective).  

[StephanieZ]

So why don't you assume that most peoples' "rules" fall under the health/safety category? Why is the gut reaction that if people have rules, it must be a matter of pride? I haven't ever actually told visitors that we have "rules," but it has come up from time to time, and it has always been for health reasons, never because I have so much pride in my home.

 

Uh, have you read this thread? 

 

 

I'll leave it to the individual to define their own rules, their own limits, and their own priorities in life. Do whatever you want. If you say your rules are based on health/safety/whatever, that's all good with me.  

[ktgrok]

I see.  Well, for us, that would unfortunately mean having no relationships at all, as we are as severely out of line with current beliefs about treatment of animals as abolitionists would have been in the heart of the South in 1830, I guess.  If everyone you know does something you find abhorrent, it is much harder to say, well, just stop having a relationship with people who are doing something you find unacceptable.  A reasonable compromise seems to be to ask them just to not do it in our house (the only place, btw, where our kids are not constantly disappointed by all the things they cannot eat).

 

And now we are back to the same thing idea of "you can do it, just not in the house". I think that's as sane a line to draw as any. A visitor can make a mcdonald's run if they want, a smoker can step outside, a dog lover can get a pet friendly hotel, whatever. 

 

But Like I said before, if I'm willing to be in a relationship with them, then they can be a guest and we will work something out. That might mean me saying, "I'm serving XYZ for dinner. i know you often prefer to eat ABC, so if what we are having won't work for you, feel free to run out for a bite to eat. Just let me know so I know how much to make."

[MrsMommy]

Uh, have you read this thread? 

 

 

I'll leave it to the individual to define their own rules, their own limits, and their own priorities in life. Do whatever you want. If you say your rules are based on health/safety/whatever, that's all good with me.  

 

Uh, yeah, actually, I read the whole thing.

 

Your hang up on pride rubbed me the wrong way. Like that's the only reason most people would have problems with visitors. And the other reasons are the exceptions. I don't think so.

[eternalsummer]

I think that for a lot of people, their home is the place where they feel safe - part of it is a sort of pride, or sense of territory, I guess, but I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily.  Especially when you have some moral requirements that are in opposition to large swaths of society (not in worldwide or historical terms, obviously, in the case of many things discussed in this thread, but certainly in contemporary Western society), it feels like the only place where you can live in harmony and *not* be opposed or in opposition is in your own home.  So there's a desire to sort of draw that boundary.

 

I mean, imagine you lived in a place where slavery was not only commonly accepted but commonly practiced.  Everyone had a slave, for whatever reason.  And you were morally opposed to it, but literally everywhere you went, everyone had their slave with them and would constantly be instructing them to do this or that.  You might very well say to yourself, Not In My House.  Don't bring the slave over. 

 

It would be hard to denounce all of your family because they had slaves, because if everyone is doing it, it's not like you can really realistically expect them to change (although you had really hoped they would, once you explained what slavery meant and why it was wrong).  And at some point, you accept that you might just have to leave the society (although in this scenario, assume that virtually every other country also has some degree of legalized slavery).  But for right now, you're doing a compromise to keep your extended family sort of in contact with you: just don't bring the slaves when you come for dinner.  And ideally don't talk about how wonderfully your most recently acquired slave is behaving, or how cheap she was.

[eternalsummer]

And for the love of god, if you do bring the slave for dinner, don't offer her services to us.

 

And if we come to your house for Scrabble night, it would be exceptionally kind to not offer to have your slave do our laundry while we're there, or whatever, since you know we don't approve of slavery.

[Artichoke]

In her defense, I think she would socialize with and allow a couple in her home that breaks her view of biblical rules, but not allow them to actively break them in her house.

 

Same with having a person over who eats pork when it is against your dietary rules. They can come over, but not eat bacon in your house. Unmarried couple can come over, but not have sex in your house. Pot smoker can come over, but not smoke pot in your house. It's not my line, but it's a logical one.

Thanks for saying this. We're another family who does not allow unmarried couples to sleep together in our home.

It's a stance that seems to get a lot of flak.

 

As a general response to the thread:

 

I've not ever had anyone complain to us that they couldn't share a room with a SO. We're mainly dealing with young adults, and they know at the time of invite what to expect when visiting us including no drinking and smoking outside.  

 

As for others questions about children, of course they're welcome! Children are children and are in no way accountable for their parents' actions.

 

Guests who are gay -- of course they are welcome. We'd treat them as any other guest.

 

People of all religions are welcome in our home. So far we've only had Atheists ( not a religion depending on your source) and Hindus.

 

As for the pp family who mentioned the mom and boyfriend, it seems they want to respect the relative's home by revealing the marital status of the couple. Not certain of another reason to reveal it.

 

As far as preaching our beliefs to someone-- Nope, not happening. We do have family prayer at night and guests are welcome to join or not. We also have a simple/short grace before meals when hosting guests who are not religious. We do not proselytize our guests and expect the same from them.

 

I don't think I'm the hostess with the mostest but no one's left in the middle of the night yet :-)

Edited July 9, 2017 by Artichoke

[Alicia64]

If it were one of my adult children and the only way to get them to visit was to "break" a rule, I'd let them come.  (I mean, assuming no danger to anyone.)

 

Keeping up relationships is more important than a rule.

 

I agree with this -- the relationships are the most important thing. I have a "rule" that we don't wear shoes in the house. My kids know to kick their shoes off and leave them in a basket.

 

But, unless a guests notices and takes their shoes off, I would never point it out and insist.

 

Smoking can happen in the backyard on the deck in a comfy chair etc.

 

I'd break a rule if it was necessary just twice a year to see someone I love.

 

Alley

[Frances]

What you wrote says it well. I may or may not have the same "rules" as Crimson Wife, but the inevitable grilling and pile-on that happens when someone says they don't want unmarried people sleeping together while under the homeowner's roof--especially when that reason has a religious basis--is getting pretty tiresome. People have the right to determine what standards apply in their own dwelling whether the "general you" approves of it or not. Non-residents have every right to say, "No thanks, that's not for me." I'm pretty sure that if CW were to stay with the cohabitating unmarried couple, she would not attempt to dictate their sleeping arrangements in their home. Mutual respect.

But the question to Crimson Wife wasn't about an unmarried couple, but a gay married couple. And she answered that she would not let them sleep together because they are not married in her eyes. And then others asked what marriages she would consider valid given that the Catholic Church does not have the same views on marriage as all other Christian churches.

[Carol in Cal.]

But the question to Crimson Wife wasn't about an unmarried couple, but a gay married couple. And she answered that she would not let them sleep together because they are not married in her eyes. And then others asked what marriages she would consider valid given that the Catholic Church does not have the same views on marriage as all other Christian churches.

It is impossible to imagine that anyone is really curious about this, as opposed to a) Snarking at CW or b) Going all Judgey McJudgey on CW.  Hence the 'pile on' question was anticipatory and accurate.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Lady Florida.]

What you wrote says it well. I may or may not have the same "rules" as Crimson Wife, but the inevitable grilling and pile-on that happens when someone says they don't want unmarried people sleeping together while under the homeowner's roof--especially when that reason has a religious basis--is getting pretty tiresome. People have the right to determine what standards apply in their own dwelling whether the "general you" approves of it or not. Non-residents have every right to say, "No thanks, that's not for me." I'm pretty sure that if CW were to stay with the cohabitating unmarried couple, she would not attempt to dictate their sleeping arrangements in their home. Mutual respect.

 

But Crimson Wife said she wouldn't allow a married same sex couple to sleep in the same room in her house. She is basically saying she will decide which marriages are valid and which ones aren't regardless of whether or not they are legally married. It's not piling on to ask her to clarify what other marriages she determines to be valid. Which, by the way, she hasn't answered.

[gstharr]

Pets have been allowed on flights for many years. This is not a new thing. There are probably dogs and/or cats on most flights you're on and you're just not aware of it. My dog was small and quiet and even my seat mates didn't know he was under the seat in his carrier until I told them. Airlines limit the number of pets per flight; I think for United it used to be two in the main cabin and two in first class.

 

I flew with my last dog often and paid an extra $300 each time--and he counted as my carry-on! It probably costs more now. I think airlines will probably continue to offer the service as long as it remains profitable for them.

 i am not referring to the carrier pets.  I've seen those forever. These were simply pampered pets on leashes..  They two dog owners weren't flying alone, and looking distressed. The owners were with human companions and looked  rather smug in their ability to take their dog with them.  I see this in the grocery daily. 

[eternalsummer]

To be fair, I don't think she is saying she would individually decide what marriage means, but that the secular government cannot decide (except in its own sphere, that is for civil/legal purposes).  I'm reasonably certain she believes that there is another authority (maybe the Bible, maybe her religious leaders, I have no idea as I'm not Christian) that defines marriage (de facto, instead of de jure, might be a way to say it).  Alternatively, she might think, as we do, that there is an intrinsic meaning to marriage, as a social contract that regulates the rights and responsibilities inherent to having and raising children, which doesn't apply to homosexual relationships either by definition, intended function, or historical/traditional function.

 

The issue with the other thread wasn't an unmarried couple sleeping together, but not sleeping in the same house in different rooms, or some such.  

 

 

[eternalsummer]

 i am not referring to the carrier pets.  I've seen those forever. These were simply pampered pets on leashes..  They two dog owners weren't flying alone, and looking distressed. The owners were with human companions and looked  rather smug in their ability to take their dog with them.  I see this in the grocery daily. 

 consider that they weren't looking distressed because the dogs provided emotional support (that being the point of the dog).

[Catwoman]

i am not referring to the carrier pets. I've seen those forever. These were simply pampered pets on leashes.. They two dog owners weren't flying alone, and looking distressed. The owners were with human companions and looked rather smug in their ability to take their dog with them. I see this in the grocery daily.

I thought it was a strict airline regulation that any animals must be secured in carriers throughout the flight.

[MercyA]

 i am not referring to the carrier pets.  I've seen those forever. These were simply pampered pets on leashes..  They two dog owners weren't flying alone, and looking distressed. The owners were with human companions and looked  rather smug in their ability to take their dog with them.  I see this in the grocery daily. 

 

Ah, I understand. I just wonder if those were pets who were supposed to be in carriers--because people do sometimes take them out and the crew turns a blind eye to it. Did they have service dog vests on? 

 

IDK. It's hard, because there are seizure alert and diabetic alert dogs, and neither of those conditions would be obvious to anyone.

 

I'm not denying that there are people who abuse the system, but I also suspect sometimes people get the stink eye when they don't deserve it.

[teachermom2834]

While I was one on the other thread saying that I thought it was wrong not to let the gf crash on the couch, I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to have rules in their own home about unmarried couples sharing a bed.

 

Here's the thing- I am having a hard time seeing people in my life forcing my hand like that. Even if my dc cohabitate I think when they visit they will either sleep apart or get a hotel. I honestly don't even anticipate a conflict. There is a level of respect even if they disagree with my position. I don't picture my dc showing up at my house and insisting I accept them sleeping together. Not sure about distant relatives or acquaintances but I honestly think anyone close enough to us to stay in our home would know our beliefs and either get a hotel or sleep separately for a night or two.

 

I just don't (so far) have people in my life who show up and force their own way. Humility goes both ways and is required of the host and the guest.

 

I don't know what I will do when the situation presents itself but I can't see my older kids putting me in that position.

[gstharr]

Ah, I understand. I just wonder if those were pets who were supposed to be in carriers--because people do sometimes take them out and the crew turns a blind eye to it. Did they have service dog vests on? 

 

IDK. It's hard, because there are seizure alert and diabetic alert dogs, and neither of those conditions would be obvious to anyone.

 

I'm not denying that there are people who abuse the system, but I also suspect sometimes people get the stink eye when they don't deserve it.

  After you see a few of these incidences, you will understand.  These are not working dogs--these are the fu-fu dogs.  The owners don't even pet or hug the dogs--  the dogs are decorations.  The owners are talking on the phone the whole time, and usually quite loudly. There are some men I see doing this.  But, mostly snooty looking ( in a fake pretentious way), 40ish women.  In my day, they would have been cat lovers.  I'll take the heat for the stereotyping.    

[rutamattatt]

I feel like we have a tricky situation with some family when it comes to staying at our house.  Our DD comes from a past of severe alcohol-fueled abuse, and she cannot tolerate even the smell of alcohol or seeing someone drinking it without having strong emotional responses (that can affect her for days).  Because of this, we don't have alcohol in our house ever.  If someone were to bring wine as a hostess gift, we would thank them but not open it.

 

However, we have relatives who have visited us in the past  - before DD joined our family - who brought their own alcohol or went out to buy some to drink during their visit.  I am nervous about inviting these relatives here now because it feels inhospitable to say, "We let you buy alcohol before, but you can't have it now" and yet there is just no way we would choose to subject out DD to more trauma.  Sadly, to some of the folks in our extended family we would like to have visit, this would be a real offense and a deal breaker.  

 

 

[eternalsummer]

  After you see a few of these incidences, you will understand.  These are not working dogs--these are the fu-fu dogs.  The owners don't even pet or hug the dogs--  the dogs are decorations.  The owners are talking on the phone the whole time, and usually quite loudly. There are some men I see doing this.  But, mostly snooty looking ( in a fake pretentious way), 40ish women.  In my day, they would have been cat lovers.  I'll take the heat for the stereotyping.    

 

I have seen this in stores, especially in some areas (we move around a lot).  Somehow I doubt 15% of the population needs an ill-mannered Chihuahua for emotional support while shopping at the neighborhood thrift store.

 

However, in a stressful situation (which flying is for me), I tend to give people a bit more grace  - I can see how if you were inclined towards emotional instability, flying would be a rough situation and might make a dog a more necessary companion, even if it doesn't look like it from the outside.

 

That said, there are always people who take advantage of anything they can, even if it means lying  - from passing their kid off as a few years younger to get the kid rate at the movies to pretending their dog is a form of therapy.

[Valley Girl]

But the question to Crimson Wife wasn't about an unmarried couple, but a gay married couple. And she answered that she would not let them sleep together because they are not married in her eyes. And then others asked what marriages she would consider valid given that the Catholic Church does not have the same views on marriage as all other Christian churches.

 

While that came up later, on page 3 of the thread she initially discussed not wanting unmarried people sleeping together in her home. It was that to which I was responding.

 

But my comments still hold. Nobody is being forced to stay in someone else's house when visiting. Don't like the standards? That's what hotels are for.

[Valley Girl]

But Crimson Wife said she wouldn't allow a married same sex couple to sleep in the same room in her house. She is basically saying she will decide which marriages are valid and which ones aren't regardless of whether or not they are legally married. It's not piling on to ask her to clarify what other marriages she determines to be valid. Which, by the way, she hasn't answered.

 

Whether anybody agrees with it or not, it's her house, her call. If somebody decided my marriage wasn't valid for whatever reason, I certainly wouldn't consider staying with them. Which would solve the problem. I'm not surprised she hasn't responded, honestly, because then we get back to the whole wedding cake issue.

 

ETA: I'm not going to argue whose marriage is valid vs. whose isn't in the context of this thread because I do believe that people have the final say about what happens in their own homes unless it's something illegal. Are there people whose standards I might find puzzling... weird... potentially offensive? Sure. But if I and they can't or won't work it out, then I also get to exercise that beautiful thing called free choice and stay someplace else when I do.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Reluctant Homeschooler

[MercyA]

Whether anybody agrees with it or not, it's her house, her call. If somebody decided my marriage wasn't valid for whatever reason, I certainly wouldn't consider staying with them. Which would solve the problem. I'm not surprised she hasn't responded, honestly, because then we get back to the whole wedding cake issue.

 

Oh, please, no. I'd rather discuss household shoe rules.

 

BTW, if you don't take off your shoes in the house, you are WRONG.  :smash:

Edited July 8, 2017 by MercyA

[MercyA]

  After you see a few of these incidences, you will understand.  These are not working dogs--these are the fu-fu dogs.  The owners don't even pet or hug the dogs--  the dogs are decorations.  The owners are talking on the phone the whole time, and usually quite loudly. There are some men I see doing this.  But, mostly snooty looking ( in a fake pretentious way), 40ish women.  In my day, they would have been cat lovers.  I'll take the heat for the stereotyping.    

 

Understood. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes it's hard.  ;)