Should I go to a sleepover with guys and girls?

[Bookcat]

“You are not responsible for another’s thoughts” and “Responsibility doesn’t need to be solely on the person who is being objectified”? The Church teaches that a person who is an “accessory to sin” is also responsible for the sin. If I cause another person to have lustful thoughts, knowing fully well beforehand that I might be a source of temptation, am I not an “accessory to sin”?

There is behaviors and intentions that are sinful (can even be gravely so) --which are a cause to others lustful thoughts…and there are reasonable actions that are not sinful but which still may be involved in some way in a persons lustful thoughts.

There is a difference between:

Sinful

1. Wearing a particularly immodest outfit in order to cause lust.
2. Wearing a *particularly immodest *outfit knowing it will likely cause lust.

---

and​

Not sinful

1. Wearing a *modest *outfit thinking that since your a girl that some guy might just still look at you with lust cause you do not wear the most unattractive thing possible…

---

Now “could it happen” that one may know that say ones boyfriend has a particular problem with lustful thoughts tempting him when you wear such and such particular outfit even though it would be considered modest…and thus ought to avoid wearing that outfit for his sake? Yes of course. But one also needs to avoid undue speculation too.

 

[Leegal]

Thank you all for your responses.

I’d like to reiterate that I am not asking for a poll on whether this sleepover is likely to become a “sex orgy”. Bookcat and TheRealJuliane seem quite confident that it will. Bookcat, I understand your warning that

If this sleepover starts to become a “sex orgy” (and I’m certain it will not), I plan to leave right away. That closes that discussion.

Rather, I am asking, assuming that no sinful physical acts are committed on this sleepover:
Does the presence of girls at a sleepover generally cause guys to become more than usually tempted to sins of lust and impure thoughts? I ask this question because I want to avoid being a possible cause of their sin.

In response to THAT question, I have gotten varied responses. Here are all of the responses I’ve received that directly address the question, organized under Yes or No.

No, I don’t think all young men are out of control. I think it’s possible to have a party and then people stay over without the men being driven into sin. My niece is 22 or 23 and for various reasons has had both men and women over, and for whatever, reason either I always allow them to stay if they have been drinking anything (and they are overage), and, if not, they are all well behaved otherwise, but because of lateness and distance I do not want to seem the struggling to get home at a late hour even without having had a few beers… Most, if not all, seem respectful and we have always liked my niece’s choices. But there always is some adult present in the home. I would not send a young man out of the house for a two hour trip home on NYC subways at 3:00 a.m. But then the house is 3 floor and we have two living rooms and a spare bedroom.

Do you have any reason to believe that these young men are disprespectful? I have not found that to be true with the young men my niece has brought home or brought over as friends for parties. In fact, I find them very mature.

Lust is their problem providing you don’t contribute to it by talk and manner. You know these friends – I know my niece’s friends when I supervise a party that becomes a sleepover. And I take away car keys. We have not had a problem with any couples pairing up – the house is too open for that – but I’m more concerned with safey so I take an inventory before the party – who plans to stay, who is drinking, who is designated driver, and who is scheduled to go with whatever driver. And then I have the keys.

Usually the worse that happens is they make a mess.

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you all for your responses.
Bookcat and TheRealJuliane seem quite confident that it will.

Huh…???

I think something was misread.

 

[dsf11785]

Wouldn’t it be better for me to stay in that “ivory tower” all my life, than to allow even one more mortal sin to be thrust against God?

Let’s consider how Jesus dealt with this question in His own life. Did Jesus spend His life in hiding, doing whatever would cause the least number of sins to be committed? No, He went out and did something good for mankind. In the process, Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, Pilate perhaps neglected his duty, the soldiers scourged, mocked and crucified Him. None of these sins would have been committed if Jesus had stayed home, and Jesus knew it. But HE DID IT ANYWAYS.

Now, since Jesus is presumably the very person that you are trying not to offend, it would be foolish for you to take a different approach. So I implore you to come down from your ivory tower and do something good for mankind, even if others will then use you to sin. That is what Jesus did, and that is what He created you to do.

Go to the sleepover and do something good while you are there.

 

[Bookcat]

Prudence can take time and practice to develop.

It can be that one needs more to rely on the prudence of another (which is actually part of prudence…via counsel…but sometimes we need to do this more) such as a good Priestdirector/confessor.

A few things to read in Catechism on making a moral judgment:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#I
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#V
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2284.htm
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm#II

Prudence:

holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/edwardpsri/theartofliving/02.asp

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm#I

---

General thoughts about any potential mixed group:

Prudence, chastity, modesty, good example, avoiding scandal…etc

Such should guide one…

And one ought to ask what is the event? What and who are involved? Are they staying up real late (a consideration), is alcohol involved? are they sleeping in separate rooms? Are the guys not going to see the girls in PJ’s? are they persons who are seeking to live in chastity? or are they persons who have the likely the approach of surrounding disordered culture?. Is it going to cause anyone scandal? (one needs of course to be reasonable here --if one is being modest in an ordinary and the person still has bad thoughts-tis not your fault) Do I know them? Why is it an overnight thing? Is it a retreat? What is the atmosphere? What movies are being watched? What games? Who is coming? …Those sorts of questions.

There is a difference between say a mixed sexes group being involved in some sort of event where there are separate sleeping situations with right intent and circumstance etc …say perhaps on some pilgrimage or retreat…

And a mixed group of persons who are influenced by the surrounding disordered culture having a sleep over.

 

[Tenofovir]

Thank you all for your responses.

I’d like to reiterate that I am not asking for a poll on whether this sleepover is likely to become a “sex orgy”. Bookcat and TheRealJuliane seem quite confident that it will. Bookcat, I understand your warning that

It depends on the guys. For me, it was not an issue. But for some, it may be. It’s difficult to say which guy gets aroused and which one is cool. Of course it also depends on the sexual attractiveness of the woman concerned. In this regard it’s not always the pretty girl or the beautiful girl, but the girl who behaves or dresses suggestively, unless of course she is totally unattractive.

But of course with us men, one never knows. Best to sleep with a Doberman in your room. My great-grandmother used to say that all men are snakes, she was married to a faithful man though

 

[Bookcat]

Let’s consider how Jesus dealt with this question in His own life. Did Jesus spend His life in hiding, doing whatever would cause the least number of sins to be committed? No, He went out and did something good for mankind. In the process, Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, Pilate perhaps neglected his duty, the soldiers scourged, mocked and crucified Him. None of these sins would have been committed if Jesus had stayed home, and Jesus knew it. But HE DID IT ANYWAYS.

Now, since Jesus is presumably the very person that you are trying not to offend, it would be foolish for you to take a different approach. So I implore you to come down from your ivory tower and do something good for mankind, even if others will then use you to sin. That is what Jesus did, and that is what He created you to do.

Go to the sleepover and do something good while you are there.

What did he teach us to do?
*
If your eye causes you to sin…cut it out!

Temptations to sin will come…but woe to him by which they come!*

Now my saying this is simply addressing the post here. Not the OP question directly…I did that above.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat … seem quite confident that it will…

Please note that such was a misreading/misunderstanding of what I posted… I note this for it keeps getting posted here as part of peoples posts.

This is a good post to understand what I am getting at: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8838458&postcount=111

 

[dsf11785]

What did he teach us to do?
*
If your eye causes you to sin…cut it out!

Temptations to sin will come…but woe to him by which they come!*

Now my saying this is simply addressing the post here. Not the OP question directly…I did that above.

I’d like to define 4 different possible levels of temptation.

1. Performing an action that is certain to tempt others to sin.
   Example: Wearing immodest and very suggestive clothing at a dance and looking seductively at every man who walks by.
   Example: Handing a gun to a vagrant bum and explaining to him how his life would improve if he robbed a nearby bank and got away with it, and offering him your car to get away.
2. Performing an action that might possibly tempt others to sin.
   Example: Wearing slightly immodest clothing in public and acting normally.
   Example: Leaving alcohol in the cupboard while your teenager is home alone for an entire weekend, confident that your teenager is well-behaved.
3. Performing an action that does not normally tempt others to sin, but that someone might easily use as an opportunity to sin.
   Example: Going out in public wearing modest clothing. Now the robbers, liars, gossipers, and lustful men have another person to use for their sins.
   Example: Getting married. Now your spouse has an opportunity for a divorce.
4. Performing an action that no one could possibly use as an opportunity to sin, unless they tried very hard.
   Example: Locking yourself in an ivory tower.

Where Bookcat and I disagree, I think, is that I would categorize going on a sleepover as a #3, whereas Bookcat would categorize it as a #1.

The point of my last post was to say that one should not refrain from #3 category actions simply because others might use your action to sin. Jesus performed #3 category actions on multiple occasions. Nearly all good deeds conceivable are #3 category actions. It is impossible to do God’s will without performing #3 category actions freely. I hope we agree on this.

It appears that there is no consensus here on whether going on a sleepover is a #1, #2 or #3. However, all of the posters who would clearly categorize a sleepover as a #1 or a #2 have also claimed that most sleepovers end up with sex. If you disagree with that (and it appears you do), I encourage you to dismiss their views on lustful thoughts as well, and join us sensible people who know that mature, respectful men in their twenties do not ordinarily get lustful thoughts by sleeping over with girls.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I’d like to define 4 different possible levels of temptation.

1. Performing an action that is certain to tempt others to sin.
   Example: Wearing immodest and very suggestive clothing at a dance and looking seductively at every man who walks by.
   Example: Handing a gun to a vagrant bum and explaining to him how his life would improve if he robbed a nearby bank and got away with it, and offering him your car to get away.
2. Performing an action that might possibly tempt others to sin.
   Example: Wearing slightly immodest clothing in public and acting normally.
   Example: Leaving alcohol in the cupboard while your teenager is home alone for an entire weekend, confident that your teenager is well-behaved.
3. Performing an action that does not normally tempt others to sin, but that someone might easily use as an opportunity to sin.
   Example: Going out in public wearing modest clothing. Now the robbers, liars, gossipers, and lustful men have another person to use for their sins.
   Example: Getting married. Now your spouse has an opportunity for a divorce.
4. Performing an action that no one could possibly use as an opportunity to sin, unless they tried very hard.
   Example: Locking yourself in an ivory tower.

Where Bookcat and I disagree, I think, is that I would categorize going on a sleepover as a #3, whereas Bookcat would categorize it as a #1.

The point of my last post was to say that one should not refrain from #3 category actions simply because others might use your action to sin. Jesus performed #3 category actions on multiple occasions. Nearly all good deeds conceivable are #3 category actions. It is impossible to do God’s will without performing #3 category actions freely. I hope we agree on this.

It appears that there is no consensus here on whether going on a sleepover is a #1, #2 or #3. However, all of the posters who would clearly categorize a sleepover as a #1 or a #2 have also claimed that most sleepovers end up with sex. If you disagree with that (and it appears you do), I encourage you to dismiss their views on lustful thoughts as well, and join us sensible people who know that mature, respectful men in their twenties do not ordinarily get lustful thoughts by sleeping over with girls.

sorry your last sentence just dont sound right repectable men dont ‘ordinarily’ maybe just usually. I could try a make a decision based on all the moral theology i know and everything i can consider, yet my decision would be too legalistic to be practical. This is why the decision is yours not mine. I believe that sleep overs for the sake of sleepingover is not right that is my conscience, u may believe it is only wrong when we something immoral is done and i will say it gives the devil a chance, and we can continue argueing forever. We will both be damed when we refuse to use our conscience.

 

[Bookcat]

Where Bookcat and I disagree, I think, is that I would categorize going on a sleepover as a #3, whereas Bookcat would categorize it as a #1.

I would not per se catagorize any event that involves guys and girls to stay in the same place (different rooms in same house etc) overnight as such.

And oh since you included me in that group…and then later said all on the thread in that group thought it would end up in having sex …and thus one ought to dismiss the concern about thoughts…I will note too that I for one did not say such-- so it seems you have inadvertently set up a straw man to knock down.

As to thoughts…as to “interior sins” yes such is a real concern to be considered.

For my more expanded thoughts see: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8838458&postcount=111

 

[Darran]

I would not per se catagorize any event that involves guys and girls to stay in the same place (different rooms in same house etc) overnight as such.

For my more expanded thoughts see: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8838458&postcount=111

Have you ever noticed the pattern in 3 page+ threads where the conversation tends to “spiral” out of control through misinterpretations/(name removed by moderator)roper reading?

The devil certainly knew how to attack in the 16th century.

 

[Baelor]

Bookcat, is the approach to considering the morality of sleepovers proscriptive or not?

In other words, would a sleepover with atheists automatically fail your test?

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, is the approach to considering the morality of sleepovers proscriptive or not?

In other words, would a sleepover with atheists automatically fail your test?

(i really do not have a test…)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8838458&postcount=111

 

[Baelor]

Bookcat, do not be evasive or play games with me. I am quoting the relevant part of your post:

General thoughts about any potential mixed group:

Prudence, chastity, modesty, good example, avoiding scandal…etc

Such should guide one…

And one ought to ask what is the event? What and who are involved? Are they staying up real late (a consideration), is alcohol involved? are they sleeping in separate rooms? Are the guys not going to see the girls in PJ’s? are they persons who are seeking to live in chastity? or are they persons who have the likely the approach of surrounding disordered culture?. Is it going to cause anyone scandal? (one needs of course to be reasonable here --if one is being modest in an ordinary and the person still has bad thoughts-tis not your fault) Do I know them? Why is it an overnight thing? Is it a retreat? What is the atmosphere? What movies are being watched? What games? Who is coming? …Those sorts of questions.

There is a difference between say a mixed sexes group being involved in some sort of event where there are separate sleeping situations with right intent and circumstance etc …say perhaps on some pilgrimage or retreat…

And a mixed group of persons who are influenced by the surrounding disordered culture having a sleep over.

“Such should guide one…” You then list a great number of questions to ask. Consider the definition of a test: “a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, esp. before it is taken into widespread use”

Providing a large number of questions that you explicitly state one should ask oneself before a particular action can certainly be considered a test.

But fine. Call it whatever you like. The fact that you had me go through to get an actual response from you instead of answering my question, the meaning of which was obvious, is very irritating. Do not do it again.

Let me rephrase: Could one correctly determine that a sleepover with atheists is morally permissible after going through all of the questions/guidance you posted?

 

[Bookcat]

“Such should guide one…” You then list a great number of questions to ask.

I listed certain virtues and certain moral principles. That is what is meant by “such should guide one”

The questions were simply questions that came to mind that could be of practical help.

Here is the original post such was from: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8836601&postcount=99

I later cut and pasted…hence my causing the confusion.

As to if one could determine via the virtues listed…yes hopefully if one has such. Perhaps one may need to “borrow” virtue from another…such as ones confessor.

As to my suggested questions --that is what they were. Not a test.

 

[Baelor]

I listed certain virtues and certain moral principles. That is what is meant by “such should guide one”

The questions were simply questions that came to mind that could be of practical help.

I know that. That is why you posted them, and continue to link to that post in almost every subsequent one.

My question is not what they are or why they were posted. I asked you something very simply: whether, reflecting on them, someone could correctly determine that it was morally permissible to attend a sleepover with atheists.

The answer to this question is fundamental to understanding what you are saying. How can I use your suggestions appropriately if I do not know whether there are pre-determined outcomes?

So, please answer the question, or state that you are not going to. But stop yanking me and any one reading this thread along for your own amusement, your unwillingness to engage in meaningful conversation, or whatever your reason is.

 

[Bookcat]

I know that. That is why you posted them, and continue to link to that post in almost every subsequent one.

My question is not what they are or why they were posted. I asked you something very simply: whether, reflecting on them, someone could correctly determine that it was morally permissible to attend a sleepover with atheists.

The answer to this question is fundamental to understanding what you are saying. How can I use your suggestions appropriately if I do not know whether there are pre-determined outcomes?

So, please answer the question, or state that you are not going to. But stop yanking me and any one reading this thread along for your own amusement, your unwillingness to engage in meaningful conversation, or whatever your reason is.

see above.

 

[Baelor]

see above.

To make sure I am clear on your answer, you are saying that it is not inherently morally impermissible to have social sleepovers with friends of the opposite sex.

 

[Bookcat]

To make sure I am clear on your answer, you are saying that it is not inherently morally impermissible to have social sleepovers with friends of the opposite sex.

It would seem that one has to judge according to virtue etc.

For example … say a Catholic University group of the opposite sex goes on a retreat together. With the girls are sleeping in different places than the guys…and they seeking to grow in holiness…

Such can be a very good thing even.

But one has to judge rightly. And a secular “sleepover” raises certainly more questions.