Sleepovers

[TripletDaddy]

Fear the Boogeyman! Child abuse is the excuse that's given by some of my LDS acquaintances about the no-sleepover policy. It's as if they suspect all other parents (including LDS in their ward) as capable of child abuse. The best protection against child abuse is educating your child about it and getting to know the families of your child's friends. I worry more about unlocked guns in a friend's house then I do about them getting molested.

I realize child abuse is a serious matter. But I fear LDS parents are getting so over protective that they are viewed as "weird" by others and their children do not develop socially. IMO, one strategy to protect a child against bullying and perhaps child abuse is to nuture a child who is heathly socially and that usually requires kids to do things outside of the watchful eyes of their parents.

Getting to know people is the best defense against abuse? How do you reconcile that claim with all the abuse that takes place by immediate family members, relatives, etc? Also, how exactly do you get to know someone well enough that such a relationship would diminish the likelihood of abuse?

I'm not saying it is likely. I'm just saying I understand it as a concern.

[Sullyute]

I didn't know anyone who had a no sleep-over rule growing up. Thre are some negatives to sleep-overs but I think they are centered around a kid staying up too late. If a kid is going to get in trouble, he/she will do it in the daytime as well as at night. I can't recall a single sleep-over that resulted in inappropriate action. I can think of a few scout trips and a lot of "going outside to play" that resulted in inappropriate action. I think the belief that sleep-overs are the problem result from the lack of control a parent experiences when his kid goes to someone else's house and the fear of what that lack of control will cause.

I have to admit that the only time I have been arrested was during a sleepover party as a teenager. It would not have happened during the day. I am not against sleepovers but I will be more restrictive than my parents were.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Fear the Boogeyman! Child abuse is the excuse that's given by some of my LDS acquaintances about the no-sleepover policy. It's as if they suspect all other parents (including LDS in their ward) as capable of child abuse. The best protection against child abuse is educating your child about it and getting to know the families of your child's friends. I worry more about unlocked guns in a friend's house then I do about them getting molested.

I realize child abuse is a serious matter. But I fear LDS parents are getting so over protective that they are viewed as "weird" by others and their children do not develop socially. IMO, one strategy to protect a child against bullying and perhaps child abuse is to nuture a child who is heathly socially and that usually requires kids to do things outside of the watchful eyes of their parents.

Here's what is interesting about your post...many on this site have used similar logic about potential abuse when deciding to send their child in alone for an interview with a leader. So where does one draw the line? Do we assume all our preditors? Or do we try to educate our children to know the "warning signs" as it were.

Parents are right to have concern. The majority of abusers are know by their victims. Many are family members. The best you can do with your children is have them be secure enough in you that they are willing to tell if something happened that make them uncomfortable. The abusers depend on the silence of the children to keep the gig going.

[Paperback Writer]

Getting to know people is the best defense against abuse? How do you reconcile that claim with all the abuse that takes place by immediate family members, relatives, etc? Also, how exactly do you get to know someone well enough that such a relationship would diminish the likelihood of abuse?

I'm not saying it is likely. I'm just saying I understand it as a concern.

Children typically do not choose to freely associate with immediate family members who turn out to be child abusers; that choice is made for them by the parents. And the troubling thing about abusers who are immediate family is that both the parent's and child's guard is down because the abuser is "trusted".

So education is the best tactic to protect a child against abuse and that includes the hard truth that children are most vulnerable to abuse by immediate family. I don't think adults give children enough recognition that they (the child) also possess protective instincts that will help keep them safe. If a child (or parent) does not feel comfortable at a friends or relatives house then that's definitely a sign.

The getting to know the family of a child's friend part is understanding the rules under which the family operates. What activities will occur on the sleepover? What rooms in the house will the children sleep in? What level of adult supervision will take place? Will children be using the "buddy system"? And I let them know that my kid will be checking in with us via cell phone. My understanding is that child abusers are like preditors and select their prey based on perceived vulnerability. A child who has involved parents, who have an active and open communication with his/her parents, who is educated about child abuse, and learns to trust his/her instincts with personal safety; probably will not be viewed as vulnerable. But there are no guarantees. It's seems to me to be a sound approach to parenting and one that has worked for my family.

[SoCalCoug]

I can't recall a single sleep-over that resulted in inappropriate action.

You were doing it wrong.

[KillerDog]

You were doing it wrong.

I guess. Maybe I was just tired from all the daytime trouble.

[EdmondDantes]

Sleepovers were normal in the SLC neighborhood I lived in.

Late night video games, popcorn, running around TP'ing, doorbell ditch, spraying fart spray in left opened windows of neighbors....you know....the usual stuff.

[BrutusBuckeye]

I went to the wrong sleepovers. I didn't have sex, drink, do drugs, or watch adult movies. We did TP houses, though. And played video games. And went swimming.

Also, not sure if it is relevant to the concept of peer pressure, but I don't remember going to group sleepovers. The majority of the time, I would spend the night at a friend's house or vice versa. There were no groups of 4 or 5 or however many boys camping out all night. I wonder if that reduces the likelihood of shenanigans?

My memories of sleepovers were all fun....go eat pizza, grab a frozen yogurt, rent a video, stuff like that. The best part about them was that we generally were allowed to stay up as late as we wanted playing video games. That was a treat.

All of the sleepovers I attended/hosted with more than one friend were more likely to include shenanigans. I think it had more to do with the fact that with more kids, there was more brain storming about what to go and do and the ideas flowed much more freely. With only one other person there, the ideas just didn't seem to flow.

I had a lot of fun sleeping over at friends' houses growing up and will probably afford my kids the same opportunity (but watched over more closely than my parents did with me).

[Surfah]

All of the sleepovers I attended/hosted with more than one friend were more likely to include shenanigans. I think it had more to do with the fact that with more kids, there was more brain storming about what to go and do and the ideas flowed much more freely. With only one other person there, the ideas just didn't seem to flow.

I had a lot of fun sleeping over at friends' houses growing up and will probably afford my kids the same opportunity (but watched over more closely than my parents did with me).

My experience as well. If it was me spending the night at a buddy's house it usually meant we stayed up all night trying to beat Castlevania or building the raddest Excitebike track in the world. If it was a group sleepover things usually got more wild than that. Especially as a teenager.

[Borg]

Oh...I see. I'm bummed. I thought you were inviting us all over for a sleepover...nevermind.

[wally]

...Just got banned in our stake!! I am excited as this is the first time that I have experienced a heavy handed approach to church membership governance first hand! I will keep you posted as the fallout continues, but as for how the first day under the new rule went, it made excellent fodder for jokes about sleepovers in all our lessons.

[smokymountainrain]

...Just got banned in our stake!! I am excited as this is the first time that I have experienced a heavy handed approach to church membership governance first hand! I will keep you posted as the fallout continues, but as for how the first day under the new rule went, it made excellent fodder for jokes about sleepovers in all our lessons.

Wtf? How do they ban sleepovers? laughable. And why can't this kind of stuff happen in my stake/ward?! It's always sooner, now you. So jealous.

[FMCoug]

...Just got banned in our stake!! I am excited as this is the first time that I have experienced a heavy handed approach to church membership governance first hand! I will keep you posted as the fallout continues, but as for how the first day under the new rule went, it made excellent fodder for jokes about sleepovers in all our lessons.

Wtf? How do they ban sleepovers? laughable. And why can't this kind of stuff happen in my stake/ward?! It's always sooner, now you. So jealous.

LOL. The very thought that there is someone who thinks they can "ban" what members decide to do in their own homes makes me laugh, cry, cringe, etc. all at the same time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

...Just got banned in our stake!! I am excited as this is the first time that I have experienced a heavy handed approach to church membership governance first hand! I will keep you posted as the fallout continues, but as for how the first day under the new rule went, it made excellent fodder for jokes about sleepovers in all our lessons.

Interesting. What is the enforcement mechanism? Loss of recommend? Disfellowshipment? Stake moving committee?

[YOhio]

...Just got banned in our stake!! I am excited as this is the first time that I have experienced a heavy handed approach to church membership governance first hand! I will keep you posted as the fallout continues, but as for how the first day under the new rule went, it made excellent fodder for jokes about sleepovers in all our lessons.

About time someone put their foot down.