Should I go to a sleepover with guys and girls?

[Baelor]

Look …the person asked “should I go” and received a number of “no’s” as responses. Such too was my response to the question. The OP has not asked for further discussion. I am not looking for a further protracted discussion here either…

Okay, let us return to the purpose of the thread and return to the OP’s request on page 2:

I want to clarify the type of sin that I am concerned about. I am wondering whether guys are more prone to lustful desires during (“innocent”) co-ed sleepovers.

Clearly, no one here can make a judgment on this at a universal level. The OP, however, has provided some relevant details:

I am worried that, even though there will be no sex, some guys will be more likely to consent to impure thoughts and desires because of the girls there.

If the OP is confident that there will be no sex, and the friends are in fact platonic/are also aware and confident that there will be no sex, and are not hoping differently, then the fact that they are sleeping in the same house hardly seems relevant.

The idea that there is inherent sexual tension between any two people of the opposite sex is false.

Note things that the OP has explicitly she does not care about in this thread:

I was not asking for a poll on whether sleepovers are still socially acceptable after the age of 20

Therefore all challenges of the variety “Why would 20-year-olds want to do this?” are irrelevant to this thread.

Second, I should clarify that, based on my knowledge of the type of people that will be at the sleepover and the type of atmosphere to expect, I am fully confident that there will be no sex or inappropriate contact, and very little drinking

Therefore, all challenges of the variety “Near occasion of sex etc.” are invalid, as are all challenges of the variety “Alcohol lowers inhibitions, etc.”

(If my expectations turn out to be wrong, I am planning to leave promptly.)

Furthermore, the OP is clear that should these conditions break down, she will remove herself from the situation anyway.

I recommend that the OP’s question, and only that question, be addressed, and another thread be created if posters are interest in discussing sleepovers more generally.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

I have no idea why you had to ask this.

The answer would be a very obvious NO.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Interesting stats on that last link. I found this one startling:

“•In the 1960s, one in 50 teens had a STI. Now over 1 in 4 do. That’s an increase of more than 1250% if infected teens.”

Failed social experiment indeed.

Increase in sexual activity, or increase in people coming forward for testing?

 

[Catholic90]

Some statistics. I’m quite worried that some of you are unable to see this, to be honest. I didn’t think it could be so hard to get this point across.

Statistics.

There are lies, da*& lies, and statistics.

I am very skeptical of statistics, since 67.54% of all statistics are fabricated.

Who did they test? How did they test? How did they ensure a fair sampling? Who decided it was a fair sampling? Nope.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Statistics.

There are lies, da*& lies, and statistics.

I am very skeptical of statistics, since 67.54% of all statistics are fabricated.

Who did they test? How did they test? How did they ensure a fair sampling? Who decided it was a fair sampling? Nope.

How you interpret them is the key. For example the claim that STIs have risen since the 1950s. You might have a statistic which shows they have, but it could be that testing got better, or more people came forward for testing. People don’t seem to like having statistics interpreted in a way that they don’t like.

 

[Bookcat]

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?

There is a difference between say a mixed sexes group being involved in some sort of event where there are separate sleeping situations 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.

In the general case of a mixed group from various backgrounds (non-practicing Christians etc) I would ask why should a Christian attend the a sleep over?

 

[bbentrup]

To the OP: 1ke’s posts on this thread are fantastic. You are not responsible for another’s thoughts as long as you are trying to respect reasonable norms of modesty. Though there might be some moral dangers involved here, there are also moral dangers in staying home, both for you and them. Your moral sensibilities seem like you could offer a lot of positive influence on the gathering and seem more than sufficient to conquer the dangers. I hope you go and have fun and represent all the good in Christianity (while keeping options to leave if prudence dictates). God bless!

 

[Leegal]

There are a lot of reasons, other than wild sex orgies, that a group of people may arrange a sleep over.

1. Bad weather.
2. Plans the next morning
3. Movie nights (like a movie marathon)
4. Computer parties
5. When plans will likely leave one too tired to travel immediately home.
6. Out of town guests are in town.
7. When one is out of town

You also wrote,

Are you suggesting that the only two categories of sleep-wear are sexy lingerie OR clothes that most find uncomfortable?

Or are you pointing out the absurdity of picking only extremes?

I can’t really tell your intent- I’m sorry.

I think it’s a legit question by the poster who asked the purpose. Weather is not a consideration here because the party is planned for some future date – say next Saturday night. So, what bad weather are they already planning for?

So, is it a party and (since I think that over 20 usually has outgrown “sleepovers”), will there be alcohol?

 

[Baelor]

I would ask why should a Christian attend the a sleep over?

Why is the fact that the individual will enjoy it insufficient?

You cannot provide a substitute for a sleepover. Watching movies, playing games, cooking/ordering dinner, and then sleeping and making breakfast together. That sounds like fun to me.

 

[JimG]

Increase in sexual activity, or increase in people coming forward for testing?

Increase in sexual activity. It’s not simply that the rate of teen infection with sexually transmitted diseases has increased by 1250%, but that the number of and variety of STD’s have multiplied as a result of sexual activity. In my high school–just before 1960, the teen pregnancy rate was zero. That was not because everybody was using condoms; it was because there was no premarital sex.

 

[Bookcat]

Such should guide one…

And one ought to ask what is the event? What and who are involved?

There is a difference between say a mixed sexes group being involved in some sort of event where there are separate sleeping situations 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.

In the general case of a mixed group from various backgrounds (non-practicing Christians etc) I would ask why should a Christian attend the a sleep over?

Entire context.

 

[Bookcat]

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? That sort of thing.

There is a difference between say a mixed sexes group being involved in some sort of event where there are separate sleeping situations 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.

 

[jill316]

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

Staying up into such late hours in such a social situation with the opposite sex is not a good idea due to ones inhibitions lowering due to late night fatigue. Introduction of alcohol makes matters worse.

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.

Answer: Yes -

You know darn well there is one thing and one thing only on the mind of men that age sleeping next to young females, which is simply nature taking its course.

I agree with Ancient1, though without being quite as “to-the-point.”

Which is why it is often so hard for young men like myself to behave themselves (especially when the girls are obvious about their ease of virtue), let alone not experience feelings of lust!

To be rockhard honest, you will be very hard pushed to find a fella in his early twenties who is mature and respectable enough to control himself. Very hard pushed. The fact of them being non-Catholics lowers the chances of that significantly into-the-bargain. I’m saying this as a 19 y/o male.

Staying up into such late hours in such a social situation with the opposite sex is not a good idea due to ones inhibitions lowering due to late night fatigue. Introduction of alcohol makes matters worse. … One is not understanding that it is not necessarily a question here of external sins…mortal sins in thought or desire too can be involved… Chastity yes can be gravely at risk even in interior sins of thought–as well as modesty is here in question

Answer: No -

Why do people think that other people simply can’t control themselves? I know I can, and I don’t think I’m unusual!!

Do guys think lustfully of every woman who crosses their path? Are they completely incapable of controlling themselves when in a social situation with women? If that were the case, social interaction between the genders would be sexual anarchy.

The chances of that sin being commited is in my eyes not influenced much by being present or absent.
Men being together with female → chance they are attracted to her, …
Men being alone → chance they discuss which female they are atrracted to, …
In my eyes the chance for lustfull thoughts is lower in presence of women, because most men are somewhat used to control their thoughts around women, who are not interested, so they do not act in any offensive way.
(Of course chance for something actually happening increases with presence of women, but you asked for the problem of thoughts.)

Sleeping over at a friend’s house, where the friend knows me and thinks of me as an actual person- reduced chance of being an occasion of lust. If the other person is respectful, they’re not going to have problems. If they do have problems, they have the responsibility for dealing with them. They can remove themselves from the party too.

“To be rockhard honest, you will be very hard pushed to find a fella in his early twenties who is mature and respectable enough to control himself.”
Nonsense.
“The fact of them being non-Catholics lowers the chances of that significantly into-the-bargain.”
More nonsense.

I am happy to admit that on two occasions in my high school years we slept together in one large cabin while out camping (2 consecutive nights). There were 5 guys and possibly 6 girls, and no-one had issues. Of course each person had their own sleeping bag. To touch one of the girls, and I had a crush on one of them, would be impossible for me and I wasn’t even tempted to do it. Also I could not think sexually about the girl I had a crush on or any of the others. These things simply did not come to me, there was nothing to resist. That’s not to say I did not find women sexually attractive but somehow knowing these people and being close to them made that idea moot.

 

[jill316]

If I am counting correctly, it is a tie game - 5 against 5! Now the question becomes, which 5 people are wrong, and which 5 people are right? Who am I to decide this for myself? Because if 5 of you thought about the question and are wrong, chances are that my answer will be wrong as well.

A very interesting question was raised in the discussion that might solve this dilemma. In my own words, the question posed was:
Does it matter whether my presence increases the chance of another person sinning? Put differently, Am I morally obligated to be in the business of preventing other people from sinning? Here are the responses given that directly address that question:

Answer: Yes -

Being wary of other peoples potential sins because of your person, and acting to reduce those chances can be an act of loving charity, not neccesarily scrupulosity. The good fight for personal purity would be much easier in this day and age if more people acted this way.

Answer: No -

If you feel that you’re responsible for someone else’s lustful thoughts just by being there, then, as I said earlier, you might as well lock yourself in an ivory tower for all eternity, since there’s no practical way you can prevent yourself being seen by another man and thereby representing an occasion of sin for him. … You can’t help someone else’s unbidden thoughts.

Well, men having lustful thoughts (or women) can happen on a crowded city bus or subway. Does that mean riding the bus is immoral?
Simply *being *in a group of people is not sinful, and you are worried about other people’s **potential **sins-- so I would say that is scrupulous.
OTOH, the women must act modestly around the men (and vice versa), and I would say the time when this would come into play would be when people are getting ready for bed or getting up in the morning. So, that would be the time to have extra modesty and to not be seen in sleeping clothes.

You are a potential occasion for sin where-ever you go. The suggestion of the ivory tower where you are never seen probably wouldn’t be enough. I don’t feel that you need to take responsibility for anyone’s thoughts. Obviously, I’m in the minority here, but I am going out on a limb and guessing that most wouldn’t expect you to shoulder the full responsibility of another’s thoughts either. The guys are responsible for their own thoughts, too.

At some point, responsibility doesn’t need to be solely on the person who is being objectified. Dressing modest and being modest is charitable. I don’t consider sleeping in the same house any more immodest than sleeping in a hotel. Knowing someone is sleeping a room away isn’t a normal lust-inducing thing. If it is so for someone, perhaps they ought to remove themselves. They can’t expect the object of their desires to remove herself so as if not to tempt them.

You are not responsible for another’s thoughts as long as you are trying to respect reasonable norms of modesty. Though there might be some moral dangers involved here, there are also moral dangers in staying home, both for you and them. Your moral sensibilities seem like you could offer a lot of positive influence on the gathering and seem more than sufficient to conquer the dangers. I hope you go and have fun and represent all the good in Christianity (while keeping options to leave if prudence dictates). God bless!

These last few posts are especially interesting. But before I go ahead and take your advice, DexUK, 1ke, TheWatcher, and bbentrup, I want to be sure that you are right. Can you answer the following questions?

1. Does Church Doctrine support your claim that “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”?
2. Even if it is not a sin for me to knowingly become a potential cause of another person’s sin, how can a Catholic stand by and willingly allow sins to be committed like that? 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?

Lastly, I was particularly moved by 1ke’s advice,

Like most things, this is an area of prudential judgment. … So, form your conscience and use prudence.

This is something I’ve been struggling to do for quite some time. Usually when I try to use my conscience, all I get is confusion. What does one do to obtain “prudential judgment”?

 

[jill316]

(As a side note: I believe I still owe some answers to certain posters.

I do not believe the OP stated there would be sleeping together. The OP said there would be sleeping over. That can be done in separate rooms.
I am still not convinced of a need for staying overnight, the OP has not stated why there is such a need. Clearly by her comments she can go home, so it seems local and not some sort of camping or destination event.

Don’t try to answer for the OP, I am asking her specifically. Why is this a sleepover specifically? Why not just have a party and let people go home?

And one ought to ask what is the event? What and who are involved? … I would ask why should a Christian attend the a sleep over?

I am not sure what the sleeping arrangements will be since my friend is planning it. There is not a pressing need, but as for why it’s a sleepover, I would say the following answer sums it up:

Because…people want it to.

Why is the fact that the individual will enjoy it insufficient?
You cannot provide a substitute for a sleepover. Watching movies, playing games, cooking/ordering dinner, and then sleeping and making breakfast together. That sounds like fun to me.

)

Out of curiosity, in the end, what was your decision?

I don’t know yet.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I would say: Go.

But as an anedoct, it is said: “Up to 40ties, when in doubt say no; after the 40ties, when in doubt say yes”.

That is a joke only and even so I do not know whether it is funny.

 

[Darran]

Statistics.

There are lies, da*& lies, and statistics.

I am very skeptical of statistics, since 67.54% of all statistics are fabricated.

You realise that is an old joke, not actually a statistic

If you can’t do anything but doubt a powerful majority of statistics, the word of bishops and a general philosophy of the current world, then there is atleast some form of denial there. On topic:

---

To correct you Jill, in what this situation seems to be, the responsibility is more than likely not on you to prevent them from sinning, but an act of grace is always an act of grace should you chose not to go for that reason.

There was a saint (was it St Bernadette?) who was incredibly beautiful and chose to cover her face in dirt so that she wouldn’t distract people and/or cause them to have impure thoughts.

She didn’t need to, but that is precisely why she or anyone else are saints. They go that extra mile.

If you are sure of the people and you’re sure it’ll be safe and sensible, you can go. That is fine. If you choose not to go out of an act of charity, that is a very commendable thing. I am not saying that you should, or shouldn’t as none of us really know the full circumstance. You will need to make your decision on this yourself.

Does that make sense?

 

[DexUK]

But before I go ahead and take your advice, DexUK, 1ke, TheWatcher, and bbentrup, I want to be sure that you are right. Can you answer the following questions?

1. Does Church Doctrine support your claim that “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”?
2. Even if it is not a sin for me to knowingly become a potential cause of another person’s sin, how can a Catholic stand by and willingly allow sins to be committed like that? 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?

Lastly, I was particularly moved by 1ke’s advice,

This is something I’ve been struggling to do for quite some time. Usually when I try to use my conscience, all I get is confusion. What does one do to obtain “prudential judgment”?

The answer to this lies in your own good judgement. If you deliberately set out to provoke lust in a man, then yes, you bear some co-responsibility for someone else’s sin because you would not be acting in a way compatible with chastity. However, I think I am right in suggesting that you are endowed with a fair amount of good sense and that you would not go to this gathering dressed like a woman-of-the-night but rather that you would dress modestly. In such a situation, you could not reasonably be expected to be responsible for a guy’s lustful thoughts. If he has them, then he’s going to have them anyway, regardless and then that’s his problem and not yours.

Furthermore, I would suggest that such a man who is prone to lustful thoughts would, if in the company of a modest woman, be less likely to act upon them in the way that he might were he to be alone, especially if he is with other company as well. The very fact that it’s NOT one man and one woman alone actually prevents the physical sins that can come along with a man’s lustful thoughts, since he is very very unlikely to proceed with such acts with people around him. If he did, he would probably be arrested or kicked out of the gathering instantly, don’t you think?

There are realistic limits to your culpability for other people’s thoughts, and such limits include the fact that you are entitled to NOT being imprisoned through your life because of what sins other people MIGHT commit. Since you will not be dressing provocatively you cannot be to blame. There’s no need to dress in sackcloth and ashes and there’s no need to constantly double-think everything.

This is all an example of what “prudential judgement” is, in respect of your own behaviour. I don’t think you have anything to worry about.

As for the ivory tower… quite apart from being highly reminiscent of the objectionable oppression of women in strict islamic states, (i.e. the burqa, hijab, etc) if every woman thought that they should lock themselves away in case a man caught sight of them and should do so forever, the human race would disappear wouldn’t it? There is such a thing as ‘overkill’… and this would definitely be it.

God endowed us all with free will. Men have the free will to act with modesty and decorum in the presence of women. You state that the people who will be present at your gathering are not the types to go cavorting and fornicating in such a circumstance. You need not take responsibility for those men’s fleeting thoughts since they are unlikely to act on them. And remember, a fleeting thought is not a sin. It only becomes one if a person chooses to dwell on it and act upon it with full consent, full knowledge of the sinfulness of it and the fact that it is grave matter… I doubt that any such opportunity will arise in a situation where everyone is, for every practical purpose, each other’s chaperone.

 

[Bookcat]

This is something I’ve been struggling to do for quite some time. Usually when I try to use my conscience, all I get is confusion. What does one do to obtain “prudential judgment”?

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.

 

[bbentrup]

Can you answer the following questions?

1. Does Church Doctrine support your claim that “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”?
2. Even if it is not a sin for me to knowingly become a potential cause of another person’s sin, how can a Catholic stand by and willingly allow sins to be committed like that? 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?

Jill, to some extent you have to use common sense. If one of your friends says “if you don’t come to the party, then I will get depressed and go on a shooting spree,” are you morally responsible for her subsequent actions? Would you be responsible if she did that even if she didn’t tell you beforehand? Obviously not. Each one of us is ultimately responsible for our own sins since we believe in a God of perfect justice.

We do have responsibility for the sins of others in a looser sense. Most famous is Jesus’s admonition against causing one of his little ones to sin. If I remember correctly, it would be better to have a millstone tied around our neck and to be cast into the ocean than to cause such sin. But, going back to the first principle, responsibility for self, this has to be understood within our respective calls from God. As a parent, if I introduce my children to pornography, I am condemned. If I allow them exposure to pornography through culpable neglect, I am condemned. (Mercy for these sins, if sought contritely, still abounds the more.) If I take reasonable steps, but my judgment fails me because of unforeseen actions, I am not responsible for any such exposure.

If you go and expect people to lust after you (and some on this thread claim such inevitability), then that is probably a lack of prudence, even if you take precautions. You have indicated your expectations are quite different however. Under that understanding, it would be an innocent mistake on your part if lust did occur.

Since this is really no more than a prudence analysis (since your intent is not at issue), it’s also necessary to conduct an analysis of the costs of staying at home, both for you and them. Would staying at home expose you to just as much temptation? Would staying at home prevent you from being an effective buffer of goodness at the party for a friend? (Not that you can commit sin to help others avoid it.) Since prudence is the name of the game, I think your going would be fantastic (if your previous judgments were correct), as that could give good witness to your non-Catholic friends and help you gain wisdom as to the nature of such events and male-female interpersonal conduct, generally.

I’ll also enter the fray on the total depravity debate and suggest that not all teenagers/tweeners are animalistic in their sex drive. Again, you can make prudential judgment of their hearts inasmuch as it concerns your own interaction with them. Physical attraction and beauty are even gifts from God which in modern times is even more important to actively use. If you have these gifts and protect them prudently, you will likely help convert men’s hearts to seeking virtue as they will try to follow you on your chosen path.

I am sorry for not citing more authority as you wished. My training is not in theology, though others may be able to help out here. I would start looking up Prudence in the Catechism, and then googling Catholic sites where prudence meeting sexual mores is discussed. Even there, there are dangers, however, as puritanism heresies are still rampant. It’s a fine line trying to fight both that and concupiscence, you sound like you are doing well to discern the boundaries. God loves the truth-seeker, and if you do mess up in a fit of confusion, He will be waiting to forgive you in his sacrament of Confession. Again, I sound my broken record of Prudence, and will pray for you as you make your decision. God bless!