• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Prostitution?

paterfamilias said:
Correct


Slavery has been going on since before we will have become modern humans much less before recorded history. It still goes on today. It is going on all over the world and certainly is going on in America today with all of the trafficking of children over the border with the assistance of our government. I suppose that our government is creating a "safe space" (hate that simpering manipulative phrase) for human enslavement. So, clearly it is not so bad if it never went away, it is on all contenents and our money and controllers are instrumental to its expansion...clearly we should get behind and rah rah slavery...right? Should be an even bigger benefit that there is such a big overlap between slavery and prostitution now that we are all on board with both of them right?

I suspect you get my hyperbolic rhetorical point that legalizing ie endorsing prostitution is pure D grade A immoral chuckleshit cope. He wants to screw hookers. We get it. So he is going to wrap himself in a twisted logic to relieve himself of the justifiable revulsion he should feel with himself for this desire.

Not remotely harsh enough. Not bloody remotely...though, I will admit that coming from a woman...the criticism would likely not have the desired effect.
Don't know the guy obviously but he sounds like he needs his thinking and mindset checked by men who would call him on his beta (I hate using these terms as it is normally used by douchebag types doing bravado chest thumping but I am talking about evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith's take on the opportunistic mating strategy of sneaking in where otherwise unwelvom while woman are unprotected or as in this case trading resources for sexual access) behaviors and encourage him to embrace masculinity far more strongly. So far I am not imagining this as particularly masculine behavior.

On a personal level I would also advocate for polygamy very strongly. I dislike discussing the more private aspects of polygamy but it is not exactly a secret that many men who engage in polygamy will have strong libidos...the fortunate thing is that it is also a system where a man is of necessity required to focus all of his energies inwards toward the family. I know it certain was life changing for me.

In the end though I think the guy is just justifying using strange anonymous woman as a convenience.
Click to expand...
You are 100% right on this topic, it would too much to quote everything but you literally hit the nail on the head with it all. Right down to my friend not having a father or another man to discourage his opinion. Some things just don't have as much of an impact coming from women.
 
paterfamilias said:
Who remembers the article(s) from a few years ago about how after Germany legalized whoring, that an unemployed woman on unemployment benefits lost her benefits when she said not to a now under the new rules "valid" offer of employment by a brothel? Apparently they found her seeking work profile on some site and initiated contact. The government sees it as a valid offer of employment and disallowed the ability to say no to being a hooker without loosing the benefits which were presumably just enough to make do.
I will have to look it up and see how it was resolved. I did discuss it with a friend in Germany and he expressed surprise at my surprise. Said that it happens all the time.

Disgusting
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly she was offered a job on a phone sex line, not an actual brothel (unless these are two different cases). The principle is the same through.
 
I am currently reading through a book that has long sat on my shelf waiting to be read - The Ethics of Sex, by Helmut Thielicke - and came across a very insightful passage about prostitution that I thought I would share. Emphasis added. Thielicke was a German philosopher / theologian, and is quite heavy going like all German philosophers, I've tried to keep these quotes brief!

The context is that he is discussing the fact that sex involves both a physical desire, and a desire for the person themself - a desire of relationship. These are two different things but, in good / wholesome sex, are both present and intertwined. When a man uses a prostitute, he separates these two, and is only satisfying the physical desire, but not the relationship - and it is this lack of relationship which makes the sex unethical.
This thought is further supplemented in a way that is important for anthropology by the fact that we find a corresponding attitude in the prostitute who is "used" in this way, except with this shade of difference: what is for the person who uses the prostitute for purely physical purposes a negative, an ethical deficiency (that is, the fact that he is seeking merely the function and not the person, desiring union and not community) is for the prostitute a positive element in her "professional ethics". A certain self-respect, which is found even in these circles, requires that a prostitute must not give herself as a "person", must not share in her professional acts, but only exercise instrumental functions. She distinguishes very precisely between her business activity and her personal love (possibly for her souteneur) in which she participates and also invests her person. Therefore when a woman descends to the level of prostitution a strange reversal of ethical standards occurs (and it would be pharisaical not to recognise that these are ethical standards even on this level): the dissociation of the person from the union becomes a virtue, a requirement demanded by self-respect, whereas for the same reason the partner of a prostitute must see himself regarded with contempt as morally delinquent. In the pastoral care of prostitutes, regard for this strange inversion of ethical structure cannot be a matter of indifference. One who does not address the prostitute at the point of her self-respect is not addressing her in a Christian way but rather moralistically and therefore is not addressing her at all. Here, too, the gospel - unlike moralism - gives us the freedom to make a fellow human approach (John 8:7)
Click to expand...
He goes into further detail on how prostitutes are not motivated by their own physical desire, but rather a simple business transaction which they see as containing a degree of honesty as both parties are clear about the situation, and then goes on to discuss the difference with promiscuous women that are not prostitutes:
On the other hand, it turns out that erotically sensitive, and therefore participative, women, possibly by nature possessed of a definite ethical attitude, are more likely to become completely demoralized, becoming hetaerae or coutesans with constantly changing partners, and yet persistently refusing to go the way of prostitution. Thus one such completely destitute courtesan said, "The only thing wrong is that I like love too much." "She would really rather live the 'life of a beggar' than become a prostitute." That which one participates in - even by means of such a perverted "love" - cannot be treated in a business way and as a means of earning money."
Click to expand...
And then goes back to discussing the general implications for Christian ministry to people in situations like prostitution:
Ethics cannot be formulated by subsuming cases under principles, but only by seeking - with a knowledge of these principles - to see cases "from the inside". Then these cases take on a completely different aspect. But to see cases "from the inside" means nothing less than meeting with understanding the human beings who are involved in these cases. ... Thus Jesus does not deal with the "case" of adultery, rather he addresses himself to the adulteress.
Click to expand...
 
theleastofthese said:
My friend and I recently got into a discussion about prostitution. He holds the stance that it should be legalized, even admitting that he would most likely partake in using one. He also mentioned the need for safer places and stricter health regulations for prostitutes so their health and lives aren't at such a high risk.

My stance was that even if there was a "safe environment" for them to practice, their health would still be at risk for the following reasons:

A) Women were not created to have casual sex, a woman participating in this behavior is most likely not emotionally well. It's unkind to prey on her weak state of mind.

B) Both condoms and birth control fail. By engaging in casual sex, it's putting the woman at a higher risk of becoming a single mother. And even worse, putting her at risk for having an abortion. She is already not in the right frame of mind and not making the best decisions; if she becomes pregnant, she may feel even more pressure to have an abortion under these circumstances.

C) Many of the women who partake in this work are drug addicts or turn to drugs to cope with their decisions. Why further encourage their behavior when what they need instead is help.

He responds by saying that prostitution has happened since the beginning of time and will always happen. It's better to create a safe place for them to practice, since we can't stop it from happening.

I said we can most certainly stop it from happening and offered many solutions.

I also said that if he truly loved women and cared about their well-being, he would discourage this behavior instead of attempting to put a band-aid on a deeper-rooted problem.

I can only form my opinion from the perspective of a woman. I have to ask, was I too harsh on his stance?
Click to expand...
Heck no! You weren't too harsh on him... You are very heartfelt compassionate for those women, God bless you 🙏🏼
 
FollowingHim said:
They made it legal here some years ago. As I understand it, it hasn't improved conditions for women at all, just made it even easier to hide abuse because you can put a legal front on it. It has allowed activists to promote prostitution and make things even worse. But I have no actual contact with the industry so could be mistaken.

Prostitution is extremely degrading for a woman. Men are clearly instructed not to use prostitutes (you can tell your friend that). However, scripture never forbids it (for women). Nowhere are we told "if a woman is found being a prostitute, stone her to death". There is no penalty at all. I find this very interesting.

I think it is God's way of being compassionate to women in poverty. If a woman loses everything in life, her last resort is to hire out her body to keep herself fed. And she is not condemned for doing so. Women don't tend to do this because they wanted to. They do it because they see no other option (even if there is another option and they are mistaken). And we will never stop it, because we will never manage to prevent all bad situations that women may fall into. There will always be a woman somewhere in the world who is desperate enough to resort to this.

So if the Bible does not forbid it, I don't see why secular law should forbid it. This is a problem we should be able to deal with in a constructive way rather than through prosecution - by helping women out of these situations rather than condemning them for falling into them.
Click to expand...
I don't feel like arguing with you about it but I wanted to share that I feel sick seeing (even in the entire context of your post) the following:
"I think it [prostitution] is God's way of being compassionate to women in poverty."

I find your understanding of God's compassionate ways very much out of alignment with what I believe. I am also surprised that some time had passed and certainly others have read this post, and yet it is I who is now providing even minimal pushback.
That being said, I want to genuinely thank you for the service you do in maintaining this forum.
 
Communication said:
I don't feel like arguing with you about it but I wanted to share that I feel sick seeing (even in the entire context of your post) the following:
"I think it [prostitution] is God's way of being compassionate to women in poverty."

I find your understanding of God's compassionate ways very much out of alignment with what I believe. I am also surprised that some time had passed and certainly others have read this post, and yet it is I who is now providing even minimal pushback.
That being said, I want to genuinely thank you for the service you do in maintaining this forum.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I did not say that very clearly and I can see how you took it differently to what I intended.

Prostitution is not something that God has provided to be compassionate to women in poverty. It is something He is completely opposed to, and we see that very clearly in scripture.

However, the lack of punishment for prostitution IS God's way of being compassionate to these women.

When I said "it is" in the sentence you quoted, the "it" I was referring to was the lack of punishment, not prostitution itself. I expect that other readers took it this way, as intended, hence the lack of pushback until your own post. I think if you re-read it you will see it reads more clearly this way - both the text before and after that sentence is talking about lack of punishment. However I see why you took it wrong and should probably have worded it less ambiguously.
 
FollowingHim said:
Fair point. I did not say that very clearly and I can see how you took it differently to what I intended.

Prostitution is not something that God has provided to be compassionate to women in poverty. It is something He is completely opposed to, and we see that very clearly in scripture.

However, the lack of punishment for prostitution IS God's way of being compassionate to these women.

When I said "it is" in the sentence you quoted, the "it" I was referring to was the lack of punishment, not prostitution itself. I expect that other readers took it this way, as intended, hence the lack of pushback until your own post. I think if you re-read it you will see it reads more clearly this way - both the text before and after that sentence is talking about lack of punishment. However I see why you took it wrong and should probably have worded it less ambiguously.
Click to expand...
Ah, thank you for the clarification. I still don't know if I agree but al least any divergence in our judgement on this matter much less than I first perceived.
All the best.
 
MeganC said:
So...prostitution has a definition:



What's important to note here is that prostitution is an act that can occur once or multiple times.

I will be throwing stones in my glass house as I go along here. Just saying this so no one else has to. ;)

Definitions 1 and 3 do not require a criminal offense as a condition to satisfy the act.

That said a woman who is a trophy wife who marries a man because he is wealthy can arguably be considered a prostitute. A woman who marries a man in exchange for a home and security could also meet this definition.

Granted, she gets to call herself a wife but aside from only having one steady customer is her motivation any different from the women who sell themselves on the street?

She is trading on her body and sexual talents for personal gain. Money even.

I say this as what matters is what is in the woman's heart. As women we have to sort out our motivations and ensure that our actions and major life decisions are both right and done for the right reasons.

I will plead guilty that I fall short of my own measure. I'm trying to do better now but when I married Steve it was more about what I wanted from the relationship and situation than anything to do with what I wanted to do for Steve.

I made the right decision for all the wrong reasons.

I guess this is why I often say that the title of concubine was much more fitting for me in the early years of my marriage. I grew over time to become a wife but at the start? I was a prostitute with one customer.
Click to expand...
Here are a few of my thoughts on this idea.

Biblical sexual morality seems much more concerned with marital fidelity (the with whom, and when questions of sexual activity) than the motivation for sexual activity.

The woman who marries for security and provision, or even status seeking is still a wife, and her sexual activity is legitimate.

Likewise, a man may have profound thoughts of Christ like love as he engages in sex with his wife, or he might just have sex with her because he has strong physical desire. Either way, it still seems like legitimate sex.

Saying this woman in a permanent covenantal union is a prostitute with one customer seems like calling a monotheist "an idolator with one God". It doesn't make sense.

A "kept woman" or "mistress" whose lifestyle is paid for by a man might be a prostitute with one customer, as she will later move on to a different customer.
 
FollowingHim said:
Fair point. I did not say that very clearly and I can see how you took it differently to what I intended.

Prostitution is not something that God has provided to be compassionate to women in poverty. It is something He is completely opposed to, and we see that very clearly in scripture.

However, the lack of punishment for prostitution IS God's way of being compassionate to these women.

When I said "it is" in the sentence you quoted, the "it" I was referring to was the lack of punishment, not prostitution itself. I expect that other readers took it this way, as intended, hence the lack of pushback until your own post. I think if you re-read it you will see it reads more clearly this way - both the text before and after that sentence is talking about lack of punishment. However I see why you took it wrong and should probably have worded it less ambiguously.
Click to expand...
Hopefully we don't go too far afield on this but, What about the lack of punishment for either man or woman for prostitution? The closest I have found is the idolatry in ancient pagan temple worship, the old version of pimps and hoes with a different god called money.
 
Maddog said:
Hopefully we don't go too far afield on this but, What about the lack of punishment for either man or woman for prostitution? The closest I have found is the idolatry in ancient pagan temple worship, the old version of pimps and hoes with a different god called money.
Click to expand...
THis goes to what I have been meditating on for a while. What do the punishments for sexual immorality tell us about God's purpose?

Adultery in town: both parties are stoned
Adultery in wilderness: Male is stoned
Sex outside of marriage: Male must marry and pay bride price
Wife found to not be a virgin: Wife stoned

The common thread in all of these situations is the chastity of the woman has value to her "Head" as well as to her.

A prostitute would necessarily be a "head"less woman. I think a man caught having sex with a proatitute may still have to marry her, but not have to pay the brideprice since there is no one to pay.

I just came up with that, so I could be way off 😅
 
@NS4Liberty, I think the punishments give us a scale of how serious God sees different sins. Obviously all sin is sin, by saying that I'm not saying some sin is ok, it's not. But some is more serious than others.

Which means @Maddog that the lack of punishment for either shows us that God sees adultery as a more serious sin than prostitution.
 
FollowingHim said:
@NS4Liberty, I think the punishments give us a scale of how serious God sees different sins. Obviously all sin is sin, by saying that I'm not saying some sin is ok, it's not. But some is more serious than others.

Which means @Maddog that the lack of punishment for either shows us that God sees adultery as a more serious sin than prostitution.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but what makes it more serious? I think it is the cultural effect of the sin as well as what I would call protection of property rights. A woman's chastity has value and paternity decides inheritance. In a sense a man and a "head"less prostitute having sex is a victimless sin/crime. No value was taken from an outside party.

Now other sexual immorality like beastiality and dudes doing dudes is punished not because of loss of value but because of rejection of God's creation...maybe?
 
NS4Liberty said:
I don't disagree, but what makes it more serious? I think it is the cultural effect of the sin as well as what I would call protection of property rights. A woman's chastity has value and paternity decides inheritance. In a sense a man and a "head"less prostitute having sex is a victimless sin/crime. No value was taken from an outside party.
Click to expand...
Yes. And dishonesty. Adultery is deceit, fraud, theft. Prostitution is an "honest" business transaction, in the same qualified sense that drug dealing is an honest business transaction. Both people involved know what's going on, and neither is being defrauded.
NS4Liberty said:
Now other sexual immorality like beastiality and dudes doing dudes is punished not because of loss of value but because of rejection of God's creation...maybe?
Click to expand...
Exactly. It goes completely against God's created order.
 
My question arose from reading the account in Genesis 38 where Judah intentionally laid with a prostitute who was an undercover Tamar, his daughter in law who wanted a baby. She truly played the part of a prostitute but in essence was not one. Her prostitution and even her deception was not called into question. So I ponder, Why Not?
 
Remember that event occurred prior to the delivery of the Mosaic Law, when people were living with a more limited understanding of God's instructions, the extent of this knowledge being unclear as we do not have it outlined in scripture. So we do not know the standard of knowledge of God's requirements that she was being judged against.
 
Many (including yours truly) believe that others prior to Moshe, including Noach, Abraham and his sons, etc, knew the Instruction of YHVH. Adam walked with Him, so did Enoch, and Noach clearly knew, for one example, "clean and unclean" animals (7 pairs vs 1). When Judah said of Tamar, "she is more 'righteous' (Instruction-obedient) than I" - he was correct. And the reference of the story was Deuteronomy 25, later.

Even pagan Abimelech (et al) knew that adultery was wrong. (Although they evidently didn't have as much of a problem with murder...)
 
PS> If you're interested in a much deeper analysis, @Maddog, it's in parsha "Vayeshev" (covering Genesis chapters 37-40, usually in December). I talk about that story every cycle, some years in more detail than others, depending...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top