There is no official place for them. The public officers of the Municipality sometimes gather homeless people to bathe them, give them clothes and some food and then let them go (there is no place for them to stay). I think it's different in the case of refugees, even though they are also strangers. In 1999 there was a huge flood in a poor city next to the see. A river up on the mountains overflowed because of excess of rain and a large wave with rocks and debris wiped out most of the town. Millions were relocated into empty public spaces like government buildings and parking lots, but no established families allowed them into their homes. There was a very controversial case about a hotel owner who refused to located the refugees into the empty rooms of his hotel because it would be bad for business. I can understand both sides.
The problem is not the toilet. To be honest, what bothered me most was that a stranger would look into my home and see what I have (books, cats and piles of dust). It made me feel very insecure. I feel a little bad that I didn't allow her. I feel like I did wrong and I'm trying hard to convince myself that I did right: hence, the post.
Would you allow a stranger to live with you and your son?
It must be a thing of social evolution, like you say. Here, when there were less people, it was common to have always a large pot of soup boiling in the fire, in case a traveler came. And if needed, there would be a hamock ready for anyone needing a place to sleep. That custom is gone, I don't know what happened in between.
It is a matter of self-confidence and also trust in strangers. In some cases the trust is abused, in some not. It is extremely difficult to dance this dance of human encounter. The resonance between two people on an unconscious level plays, I think, an essential role. At all times, people had to consider whether or not they wanted to allow a stranger access to food and necessities. The inner intention, which is not openly spoken of in such moments, but which, when one listens into oneself, nevertheless comes across, is decisive for how one behaves towards one another. I think there is no general answer to the question of whether you should have let the woman in, but only an individual, momentary one.
Would you want to undo your decision?
I would not rule it out that I would let strangers live with me if I had enough space and money to afford it. I'd have to rely on my knowledge of human nature. However, it is unavoidable that you are still wrong or that things happen that you have not taken into account. Life is always a risk, where you have good and bad experiences. However, I think that people generally respond positively to encouragement and to their good potential. A deeply suspicious person should not let strangers live with him.
If it were normal to have a pot of food ready for beggars or travellers, one would have developed a habit in it. I assume, for example, that in seven out of ten cases trust would be justified and in the other three cases someone is acting ethically wrong. Since we no longer cultivate such a culture, there is no established habit in it. That's sad in a way. ...