Prostitution, war and poverty

[FollowingHim]

In most major historical conflicts, prostitutes have accompanied troops in one form or another. In both WW1 and WW2 there were military brothels servicing soldiers on both sides (including the allies in both wars), doing massive business. There were also innumerable casual prostitutes and other loose women servicing soldiers unofficially. These caused enormous problems with venereal disease among soldiers. In some places the military tried to stamp out brothels - but that just resulted in more "black-market" uncontrolled prostitution. In other places the military instead took the opposite approach, running official military brothels where health checks were enforced to try and reduce disease risk. But few soldiers actually wrote home about or talked about it to their descendents, so it is a part of history that tends to get forgotten about.Going back to the American Civil War, the term "hooker" originates from the vast numbers of prostitutes who followed General Hooker's army and became known as "Hooker's girls". This is a very interesting part of history that illustrates the behaviour of humanity when facing the worst of situations.

Even in WW2 there were also women who would give soldiers casual sex without requiring payment at all. We can think this is a new thing, but it clearly is just a part of the human condition.

Some interesting quotes from "Love, Sex and War" by John Costello:

Every man and boy wanted to have one last fling before the real war got him. One shot at it in a real house before he went off and maybe was killed. I’ve noticed it before, the way the idea of war and dying makes a man raunchy, and wanting to have it as much as he could. It wasn’t really pleasure at times, but a kind of nervous breakdown that could only be treated with a girl and a set-to.

The much-publicized official crackdown on organized prostitution encouraged servicemen to take advantage of the teenage ‘Victory girls’ who swarmed round military installations chasing men in uniform. By 1943, the army and navy were so concerned about complaints that girls and women were roaming the streets of Miami that a special directive was issued to military police to stop men soliciting these ‘women of easy virtue.’ But they were soon reporting failure to curb ‘soliciting of women in the streets’ because ‘the females in question often take the initiative in making the acquaintance of a soldier or sailor.’

The Italian campaign more than any other in World War II confronted the British and American military commanders with their impotence when it came to coping with endemic prostitution. A foretaste of the problem was given by British medical officers in Sicily, who were treating forty thousand VD cases a month, twenty times more than the number treated in England. As one report advised, ‘prostitution is almost universal among all but the highest class of Sicilian women.’ Government-regulated brothels also existed in all of the large towns. Control had broken down, although General Patton wasted no time trying to restore it by putting US Army medical teams into Palermo’s six large houses of prostitution. This did not endear him to General Montgomery, his arch rival, whose pride as well as his puritanism was offended when it was announced that the brothels were open for business again – under US Army management.
...
Naples became the main staging port for the gruelling Italian campaign as well as the principal rest and recreation centre for thousands of Allied troops. Wine and girls were as plentiful as food was scarce for its inhabitants, who were packed into what one British officer called ‘human rookeries.’ K-rations became the passport to the passion GIs discovered Latin women could bring to the most transient of casual sexual encounters.
...
In Naples, as one official American report put it, ‘Women of all classes turned to prostitution as a means of support for themselves and their families.’ A British officer recorded his surprise that Prince A. and his twenty-four-year-old sister came down from their palace to his office. ‘The purpose of the visit was to inquire if we could arrange for his sister to enter an army brothel.
...
There was an estimated female population in Naples of over a hundred and fifty thousand, many of whom became freelance whores, compounding the problems caused by the estimated fifty thousand regular prostitutes in the ‘undetermined number of brothels which had previously been regulated by the civilian government and used by the German and Italian Armies.’
...
‘Women of all classes turned to prostitution as a means of support for themselves and their families. Small boys, little girls, and old men solicited on every street for their sisters, mother and daughters and escorted prospective customers to their homes.’

This isn't talking about some third-world country. This is talking about Europe and the USA. Women were so desperate they were willing to prostitute themselves simply for army rations.

And some further quotes from "Sex and the Somme". Note that the actual article has a b&w photo of a scantily clad WW1 prostitute.

Soldiers did not know when their time might be up. One in ten British soldiers who saw service in France and Flanders was killed there. During its bloodiest phase, a junior officer had on average just six weeks to live. These men had an entire life’s worth of experiences to squeeze into their next few mortal days.

Such behaviour was condoned, understood and accepted. But astonishingly, even more acceptable was the idea that older, married men should be entertained by prostitutes whilst away at war.

An 18-year-old Private, Bert Chaney, was intrigued by the orderly queue he saw during his few days in Béthune. He was advised by one man in the line that ‘these places were not for young lads like me, but for married men who were missing their wives’.

Private Percy Clare recalled similar advice. Clare’s memoir details the affairs that took place in Amiens and Arras between numerous prostitutes and English soldiers.

He also refers to one sermon given by his Brigade Chaplain in which he ‘excused unfaithfulness to our wives while away from home in the present circumstances’.

It was widely believed during this era that regular sex was necessary for men’s physical health.

For married men, the need was considered to be even more imperative. They had become so accustomed to regular sexual fulfilment that the routine needed to be continued even while away from the marital bed.

Venereal disease rates amongst serving soldiers were of great concern to the army authorities. 150,000 men in the British army were admitted to hospital with a venereal infection whilst stationed in France.

‘Feel not disgust dear reader; nor think too hardly of them — I, who know all their circumstances, what they have borne, what they have yet to bear, cannot find it in me to condemn them, and you have no right to!’

And this from "Inside the brothels that serviced the Western Front"

Captain Harry Siepmann, writing in the 1950s, offered another reason why he and his fellow officers had chosen to visit the brothels of Paris rather than spend a few days of precious leave in Blighty: by the end of the war, he said, the "out-of-touch atmosphere" of jingoism and unthinking patriotism in Britain "jarred badly with the grim realities of France".

Then of course there were the Korean "comfort girls" the Japanese army forced to work as sex-slaves for their troops. The method was morally worse, but the fundamental service being provided was the same, showing that the perceived need was universal among men of all countries.

Presumably these services become readily available in modern war-zones also, for exactly the same reasons. Combine starving local women with soldiers facing death and having access to some money and/or food, and this is inevitable.

But the situations described are also very similar to reports of prostitution in third-world countries. Poor parents in the Philippines today will sell the services of their daughters, exactly as families in Naples in WW2 did.

Our society tends to moralise against prostitution, preaching how evil it is - yet cannot prevent it. If a society as moral and Christian as our societies were back in WW1 could not prevent prostitution, but ended up officially facilitating it for troops instead, then this is unpreventable. Women will always resort to this when desperate enough, and there will always be men willing to pay for it.

This is real life. It's easy to moralise from our comfy chairs, but this is reality.

The only way to prevent prostitution may be to maintain an economic environment where there are no desperate women. But that can only be achieved in limited places and for limited times, times will always change.

The scriptural approach to prostitution is very interesting. It is clearly strongly spoken against in various places. Yet there is no punishment specified for prostitutes, or for men using their services. Scripture is merciful, and does not punish people for resorting to prostitution out of desperation. We are told to support women - yet if a woman fails to receive support, and has to sell her body to receive it, there is no condemnation.

I'm not sure what my point is, I just find this history fascinating and figured others may also.

 

[FollowingHim]

And just to show it's not all about war, but just comes back to poverty, here's a poem from London's Punch magazine in 1850, about why women were choosing to leave Britain for the colonies.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

My question would be, would a woman who'd participated in events like mentioned above, or abortion, or promiscuity, who had repented and straightened their life around and living chaste for some time, be considered eligible marriage material or eligible for spiritual covering?

I think that this is one of those areas that will be determined individually, but I'm curious where you guys (as well as gals) are on the issue and why.

 

[andrew]

Hosea? God's direction to marry Gomer? That's my initial reaction; more if I think of anything contra.

 

[andrew]

[H]ere's a poem from London's Punch magazine in 1850, about why women were choosing to leave Britain for the colonies.

Wow....

 

[andrew]

This is more intuition than anything else, but prostitution 'feels' like one of those things we should pity more than condemn.

We are clearly told to eschew it, but as you pointed out, FH, there is no specific punishment, so it appears as advice more than law. I know, "whoremongers and adulterers God will judge", but (a) that doesn't mean we have to judge, and (b) judge has different nuanced meanings that don't always involve condemnation and punishment. Lumping fornication and adultery into one statement is a bit confusing, but again, there is no legal penalty for fornication per se (unless you consider marriage in some circumstances a 'penalty'), while adultery is a capital crime. So they're alike in some ways, but clearly different in other ways.

Meanwhile, back to Gomer, God's directive to Hosea and the whole redemption story of the book of Hosea seems to me to provide guidance here.

 

[Mojo]

My question would be, would a woman who'd participated in events like mentioned above, or abortion, or promiscuity, who had repented and straightened their life around and living chaste for some time, be considered eligible marriage material or eligible for spiritual covering?

I think that this is one of those areas that will be determined individually, but I'm curious where you guys (as well as gals) are on the issue and why.

It was this very proposition that caused me to fall on the side of "covenant = marriage" in that old thread. If a sex act creates marriage, then a prostitute must be a serial adulteress or married to countless men...(but refer to those threads to respond if you disagree).

I rely on this when thinking of a potential future wife: "Therefore if any man (prostitute) be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things (promiscuity) are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

 

[Mojo]

And yes, Hosea should be a starting and probably ending point in regards to that question.

 

[MissJ]

I would say, yes.
As many individuals look at those above actions as sinful behaviours. We all know that the wages of sin is death. We also know our thoughts are not G_d's thoughts. Man tends to categorize what is a bad sin or not so bad sin. Like a lie and a little white lie. For some reason the white lie is not as bad as the lie. How about abortion verses murder? The fact is it is all one in the same, sin.
Now with repentance there is new life and a new beginning. But once again the human being is problematic. Our thoughts are not His. He sees new life and our potential. We see what was and tend to judge base on those past actions.

I worked for head start a while back. When a child did something wrong. We needed to find 4 to 7 good things the child did that day to tell the parents afterwards. They said individuals tend to focus in on the wrong. This is away to balance it out.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So let me play devils advocate for a moment.

I recognize that once there is repentance that they are a new creature in Christ.

I know that none of us are perfect, myself especially.

I did find a punishment for a harlot with Judah and Tamar, that she was to be burnt. This was also to be the case of the Levites daughters, Lev. 21:9, for those who played the harlot in her fathers house. These were great examples because one was pre-Sinai and the other was post-Sinai. The first seems to be a culturally based punishment, the latter is Torah based. Both indicate that the common punishment was to be burnt.

I do recognize that Hosea is an anomaly. Not only does God give instruction for Hosea to marry at least one prostitute, God also says (to Israel) that He will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery. Hosea 4:14.

I do agree that it seems to be something that should be pitied rather than condemned personally.

I'm not certain that I'd be competent to judge anything outside of my household. (Worded very carefully)

So . . . . With all of that being said, as a believer in Christ, we should readily accept any repentant sinner as a new creature in Christ, regardless of the sin, into fellowship. I'm good with this assessment. With that being said, does accepting them as a new sister in Christ also equate to them being an acceptable mate or spouse and one who could be considered for your own spiritual covering? I.e. Does being accepted in the beloved automatically make them marriage material as an additional or first wife?

Consider the following:

The Levites were a sign to the rest of Israel demonstrating the difference between the holy and profane, much as Christians are to be to the rest of the world today.

As such, a Levite could not marry a woman who was a whore, or profane, or divorced. The high priest was further restricted from marrying a widow. (I believe there was a caveat to this if she was the widow of a Levite)

If, we were to accept a former prostitute into our families, (not just as a houseguest or unattached member of the family) as a new spouse, there may be additional risks such as STD's, personality disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, loyalty/acceptance issues, concerns with fidelity, boundaries with existing children, fallout from previous associations, fiscal responsibility and trust issues, not to mention the possibilities of long term psychological and physiological trauma or PTSD from the former lifestyle.

If you were to consider a former prostitute for marriage, what would your litmus test look like?
Would the Levitical restrictions play a significant role?
Would the Hosea option be regarded as anything other than a huge warning sign?
Would she be considered "a project"?

Or would her acceptance into your "spiritual covering" be viewed as a work of Grace in which you are striving to emulate your Heavenly Father? If so, would the possible havoc that her assimilation could have on your existing marriage(s) be a violation of your responsibility to protect what you've already been entrusted with?

Please keep in mind that my purpose for posting this is to be a devil's advocate. Not that I necessarily view these to be dogma but I think this could be a valuable exercise.

 

[FollowingHim]

Tamar was betrothed to Judah's son (whether or not he was actually going to give her to him), so prostitution on her part would have technically been adultery, hence the death penalty. Judah probably saw it as a great excuse to get rid of a problem, this is not necessarily representative of the general cultural approach to prostitution at the time. He was quite comfortable using a prostitute by the side of the road and then sending his servant to enquire with the locals about who she was so he could pay her, he didn't seem to have any problem with prostitution itself.
The priest's daughter was not to be burnt because of her own behaviour so much as for the fact that it "profaned her father". This is not necessarily applicable to anyone other than a priest's daughter.

When two prostitutes came to Solomon with a dispute, he didn't say "take them both away and burn them". He judged their dispute fairly and sent them on their way without any talk of punishment.

Hosea isn't an anomaly, as Rahab was a prostitute and also married an Israelite, ending up in the line of descent to Christ. Marriage of prostitutes was therefore not entirely unheard of, there could be other instances also but we aren't told enough detail to see them.

Obviously there are many practical issues as you have pointed out, I'm just sticking to the technical sin & punishment side of things.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Agreed on Judah's motives, however the punishment seems to be more than coincidence

Disagreed on the Levites daughter as just following this passage is instruction against marrying a divorced woman because it would profane her husband. No mention of burning, thus it was not about profaning the household so much as playing the harlot in her fathers house as an unmarried woman.

Agreed as to the cultural acceptance in both Judah's time and Solomons. The pronouncement of punishment may have been restricted strictly to the man in authority i.e. The father or father in law.

Hosea is an anomaly to me as he is the only one I'm familiar with who was commanded to marry an apparently unconverted prostitute. Rahab was apparently a repentant woman who had proved her loyalty to Joshua's men, thus a converted prostitute who became an honorable woman.

I'm not interested in punishing anyone, especially present day. I am interested in if anyone would honestly consider accepting a known former prostitute as a wife, and their reasons for or against.

 

[Mojo]

Short answer: Yes

But...not just off the streets. FORMER means to me pretty far in the past and after sustained stability, disease free verification and overwhelming evidence of true conversion.

In former posts I've wondered out loud if God is some cosmic matchmaker bringing souls together for matrimony, or if he gives us free will to take eligible spouses as we see fit for our household. In the instance of a former prostitute, it would definitely have to be God ordained for the benefit of restoring one of His dear daughters. That's a lot of baggage to just go about adding to a stable family.

 

[FollowingHim]

Short answer: As he said.

 

[Quartus]

re: I am interested in if anyone would honestly consider accepting a known former prostitute as a wife, and their reasons for or against.

I think baptism would wipe out prior sins of prostitution, so yes in principle to a new convert to the faith (and see below).
But after baptism (and assuming the sister could only be regarded a prostitute and so not married and divorced, but only a fornicator), final decisions would probably be based first by separate issues that had relevance, and only after that, perhaps also on a case by case basis... had the sister fully appreciated the significance of what she had done, and if so why had she behaved in that way? This situation envisages two stages does it not - restoration to fellowship as a pre-requisite, and then that she be considered single and not divorced.
The problem as always is that being overly strict puts stumbling blocks in people's lives which should not be there, whereas erring in the opposite direction (in marriage) condones adultery.

To specifically answer your question at a personal level, I think a number of brethren who may feel that while fellowship and marriage (not re-marriage) should not be denied, they would not take the additional step of potentially introducing a Hagar (illustrated only in the sense of a bad influence) into the family, but then we're well into the case by case basis: Rahab made it into Hebrews 11v31 and is portrayed (albeit as an example of the universality of his argument by illustrating absolute extremes) with Abraham in James 2:21, 25.
By definition a Rahab who could not marry would never consider marriage, but I think I would find difficulty in arguing that a Rahab who could marry would be a bad influence on any family.

 

[Quartus]

Just a few thoughts on Tamar , who I think should be regarded as a wonderful sister. Her name means "palm" and we read in
Psa 92:12 The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree

By trying to destroy her, Judah unwittingly attempted to destroy the seed royal (Ruth 4:12,18-22), prophetic of Judah's descendants/family at the crucifixion.
His realisation
Gen_38:26 And Judah acknowledged and said, She hath been more righteous than I;
was later echoed by Saul after he called off one of his later attempts to destroy the seed royal
1Sa_24:17 And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil.

 

[Mark C]

Tamar was betrothed to Judah's son (whether or not he was actually going to give her to him), so prostitution on her part would have technically been adultery, hence the death penalty.

Correct in general, but remember that at that point Judah only knew she was pregnant, thus guilty of SOME adultery (and the 'burn her' angle is interesting, too - yes, it applies to the cohenim, which were of course NOT yet in the 'torah of Moses'. ) The key is the levirate issue (also Written down later) and Judah's ability to "man-up" and admit "she is more righteous than I," thus marking himself worthy of being a progenitor of the line of Kings. She was not "whoring" at all - in spite of appearances - but doing what was right, and promised.

But what is more relevant to this thread is something almost always missed in English translations of Scripture that fail to recognize a difference between "whoring" ('tzanah' and variants of the root word, or 'shoresh') and mere "prostitution" - whether it's the 'oldest profession' or 'dinner and a movie':

The root word as used almost everywhere ELSE prior to that time (and subsequently) has to do with idolatry, temple prostitution (a VERY different thing!) and the kind of "lust of the eyes" that led men to worship other gods. The prohibitions against even intermarriage, and men following after a bit of "action" that includes idolatry (up to even Solomon) make the point. (As do so many current 'sex-goddess' Hollywood/rock star false-god-worshipping tzanot.)

Last week's annual cycle Torah portion was "Balak" and the story of the pagan prophet Balaam, who was NOT allowed to curse the sons of Israel, but did find a downright Klintonian ("all depends on what..." the meaning of 'don't curse 'em DIRECTLY' means...) method for getting the people of YHVH to curse THEMSELVES - via 'tzanah'/whoring. It just didn't involve silver-for-services.

For those interested, this was a central element (along with 'prostitution' as it turns out) of what I taught last Sabbath on that parsha:

Balak 2017

MP3 for "Balak: Spiritual war, ‘Whoring’ vs prostitution, or dinner and a movie”

 

[The Revolting Man]

It was this very proposition that caused me to fall on the side of "covenant = marriage" in that old thread. If a sex act creates marriage, then a prostitute must be a serial adulteress or married to countless men...(but refer to those threads to respond if you disagree).

I rely on this when thinking of a potential future wife: "Therefore if any man (prostitute) be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things (promiscuity) are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

This is exactly what the text says, don't be one flesh with a loose woman. You're joining Christ with her. She is in fact a serial adulteress, serially married to each man. The phrase Paul uses is the exact same phrase Christ used when talking about divorce and quoting Genesis.

 

[Mojo]

This is exactly what the text says, don't be one flesh with a loose woman. You're joining Christ with her. She is in fact a serial adulteress, serially married to each man. The phrase Paul uses is the exact same phrase Christ used when talking about divorce and quoting Genesis.

If I am wrong on the first part, do you believe the second point (she can become a new creature)?

 

[The Revolting Man]

If I am wrong on the first part, do you believe the second point (she can become a new creature)?

Yes of course, but I would be more careful of serially new creatures than serial adulteresses. An honest whore is far superior to a dishonest church lady.