I have read the Rule, in this case 53 applies: Omnes supervenientes hospites tamquam Christus suscipiantur, quia ipse dicturus est: Hospis fui et suscepistis me. Et omnibus congruus honor exhibeatur, maxime domesticis fidei et peregrinis...Pauperum et peregrinorum maxime susceptioni cura sollicite exhibeatur, quia in ipsis magis Christus suscipitur; nam divitum terror ipse sibi exigit honorem.
I recognise the discrimination (again, unknot panties, read the definition) but it doesn't bother me. what does bother me is people who "quote" sources they haven't read in order to justify their own limited knowledge. there is actually nothing in the Rule, any of the caputs, regarding opposite genders. And if the reason to prevent temptation, then it really should be males prevented from staying if we are to judge by the news and the law suits.