AIBU to allow my DD17s boyfriend stay the night in her room

[budgiegirl]

My DD is 17 and has a boyfriend aged 18 who she's been seeing for nearly a year.

She has asked if her boyfriend can stay the night, but my DH said no. I'd be ok with it, as I know they are taking precautions, and she's a sensible girl.

I do understand why my DH is unhappy about it, but I reckon he's just trying to pretend they don't have sex, even though he knows they do.

Is he BU or am I?

Strat, what will you do if he and your dd split ? Or do you expect them to marry and have your grandchildren ?

Now your dd's might have been model teenagers but mine are moody, lazy, work-generating, responsibility-generating and privacy-sapping. I didn't think it was that unusual for for 16/17 yo's be be thus. The teenagers board reassures me I am not alone

Flo, in honesty I expect that her next serious partner will be staying over (if he presents himself well, of course)

Now DS is gay, so we shall see how that one goes. They have to be treated the same, natch.

I can't speak for Strat, AF, but when I spilt up with my boyfriend of three years (15-18), he and my mum remained in (naturally less and less frequent) contact for years. She's passed away now - had she not I'm sure they'd still be in touch.

I remain in (Facebook) contact with him myself. Met up last year for the first time in almost two and a half decades.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to meet the boyfriend/girlfriend first and for it to be a committed relationship rather than a hook up.

Other than that, there are some loonies on here whose 17 year olds apparently have not matured at all since they were five, and who expect teenagers to gain adult perspectives on relationships while not being allowed to have one.

Also a lot of people who, in nearly 2016, like to pretend that young women don't have a sex drive. Doubtless they're the ones who can't understand why female sexuality is so often dictated for the benefit of other people. That's kind of what happens when they're taught from home that it's something to be ashamed of and even in their private space they don't have any right to take any ownership of it.

Of all the terrible, harmful, destructive things that can happen in a household, consensual, legal, committed sex has to rank pretty low down on the list.

My brother used to have his GF sleep at that age and I hated it.

I often heard them have sex and it was uncomfortable.

I don't think I would let my children have their partners sleep over at that age in my house. My reasons are the same as AF's and those who agree with her.

I have no hang ups. I don't care if my teens have sex in a respectful relationships, but I don't want their partners sleeping over.

If you know your teens are having sex but not at home, have you all actually asked them where they're having sex though?

Thanks for the reply cleansheets

Sheba, the goady language you are using is not remotely necessary

Calm down, fgs

I know that when my dd was with her bf she was having sex at his house, at our house when we were not there or otherwise occupied

No big secret

I have spent the last 16 years sneaking round my house pretending that i don't have sex

The least my children can do is the same

(A bit tongue in cheek...but only a little bit)

Good one Rufus
Even if I'm at present thinking of being more open about things here
We shall see how it pans out over the next few years ...

Thank you, AF. Unlike some on this thread, I have not accused anyone of longing for sex in public lavatories or claimed, apparently without irony, that there is no difference between a 17 year old and a five year old. "Loony" is about the mildest term I can think of for someone like that. And judging by your username, I'm going to guess you're not precious over colourful language when you do come across it.

Nor have I been online obsessing over this thread all day. If you want to tell someone off for goady language and needing to calm down, may I suggest you sight a different target.

I haven't seen a single good argument on here for denying people over 16 a safe space foe consensual, committed sex with a partner their parents know. The people losing their rag over this are inevitably those who just need to get over the fact that their pretty little adoring princess has changed a bit in the last 17 years.

Swear away. Looney is not a swear word but it is pejorative and not really acceptable in a civilised discussion.

You are the one using the most inflammatory terms and tone on this thread and have been all the way through. Everyone else seems able to keep it civil.

Not together. I'd put a bf or gf in a spare r

sheba

I have two little princes (and a princess)

one rule for all

Sheesh fat fingers.
I'd put the visitor in a spare room (not that we have one, but there's usually another child away and they can swap around.) or in the living room.
If they they want to creep around in the night, I'll turn a blind eye, but I've heard too many stories of girls having no bolt hole if their boyfriends are welcomed with open arms.

To be fair, some of the posts about "facilitating" sex and taking breakfast with the spotty youth who "had shagged their daughter in their home the night before" are a bit

Inflammatory tone attracts inflammatory responses.

They are not direct name calling though, are they ?

Calling people "loonies" is BTP. (beyond the pale)

I haven't seen a single good argument on here for denying people over 16 a safe space foe consensual, committed sex with a partner their parents know

My argument is that it is my house. Yes it is theirs too, but I pay the bills, it is my choice. If I am not comfortable with it then I don't have to allow it to happen.

I'm sorry if that is not a good enough argument for you.

I haven't seen a single good argument on here for denying people over 16 a safe space foe consensual, committed sex with a partner their parents know
I'd rather my under 'insert random age, it hasn't come up yet' dcs had a bolt hole.

A single good argument takes many forms - it may or not be one you agree with but that doesn't make it any less good.

Not feeling comfortable with BFS or GFS sleeping over at that point in time is reason enough to say no.

TBH, I'm surprised that almost everyone on here is assuming that sex is inevitable. When I was a teenager I was allowed boyfriends over, but not a chance would we have sex with my DM in the next room. I would have been utterly mortified if I thought she'd heard us going at it.

rufus at your point about sneaking about! T'is true

AF I would like to think that if they split it would be civilised, I hope they won't, but if not, well they've given it a good go, and for a first serious relationship for both of them I think they've done remarkably well.

I think there's a difference between a casual relationship and a serious one. If they are in a serious relationship, then I think it's only right to treat someone as family. Has the added advantage that I get to see exactly how they treat each other, you can't keep a front up all the time, and if there's any hint of abuse of any kind, it will out itself eventually.