Month: December 2016

Ho, ho, ho.

Artisanal Toad29 Comments

Merry Christmas

The Subject Illustrates The Issue

While the subject of this post is prostitution, the issue is obedience. Whether or not some woman is paying her rent by selling sexual access to her body is irrelevant to the life of any given Christian, they were commanded not to judge. The question of whether God’s people are willing to accept what God said and live in obedience to His Word is quite relevant.
Whether anyone is willing to accept God’s Word when it disagrees with their churchian tradition indicates whether they are even a Christian.
In a previous post, I made a Biblical defense of prostitutes. The fact is, it wasn’t difficult, it was just a straight look at what the Bible says about prostitutes. Actually, what the Bible does not say is the more important issue, but it’s all good. Because prostitution isn’t a sin. Christian men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes by the Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 6:16, but that applies only to Christian men and says nothing about prostitutes. For Christian men, prostitutes are forbidden fruit.

Forbidden Fruit

Was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil a sinful fruit? Was it bad? No, regardless of how luscious and appealing that fruit was, it was not sinful. Adam and Eve, however, were forbidden to eat the fruit. Being forbidden fruit did not make the fruit sinful. In the same way, just because Christian men are forbidden to use prostitutes does not make prostitution sinful. It just means they’re forbidden fruit. I suspect that at least part of the problem is the fruit looks good, smells good, feels good… and it does more than just hang there- it wiggles. Which makes it all the more frustrating that it’s forbidden.
At this point we’re arguing over minutia and the only reason I’m arguing the minutia at all is to ensure the anklebiters don’t have a leg to stand on. See, what happens is once the anklebiters figure out that God chose not to say prostitution was wrong, their feverish little minds toil away trying to figure out if there’s some other way they can claim it’s wrong, even though God chose not to do that.

Does God Really Know What Is Best?

There was a debate almost two years ago and a true churchian who blogs as Simply Timothy (along with the anklebiter and born follower known as SirHamster) took umbrage with me. I not only defended polygyny but I made the point that whatever might happen when the husband and his wives spent time in bed was fine with God. The argument took place under “Bow Not Before Caesar” on Vox’s blog and was one of the longest running threads ever (page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5). Their problem was they discovered (much to their chagrin) that God chose not to forbid female-female sexual contact. This caused massive butthurt and in the end, they chose to reject God’s Word in favor of their teachings and traditions. Simple Tim proved he is a churchian with this statement:

 

I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin.
Attacking Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.
The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?

 

God must have made a mistake! Obviously, God got it wrong and Simple Tim has to save the day! Because Tradition! Simple Tim cannot accept the fact that God designed marriage to include multiple wives and the husband is in charge. So, if that husband wants his own bedroom symphony, he’s the man with the baton and God doesn’t have a problem with whatever might happen as long as the women were not blood relations. And we know that if God did have a problem with something that might happen in the marital bed, He wasn’t shy about saying so. Apparently God doesn’t have a problem with female-female sexual contact as long as it’s not incest.
The thread was eventually put into moderation and finally closed at 971 comments. The anklebiters didn’t realize they were proving the three laws of the SJW in that thread, SJW’s Always Lie, SJW’s Always Double Down and SJW’s Always Project. The farce continued here (page 1, page 2) with another 386 comments. Simple Tim then stated he would continue his opposition to God here (PDF). The sheer chutzpah of these people is amazing. Not satisfied with what God chose, they think they know better than God. They want to be God.
The take-away is if there had been something in the Bible that forbid female-female sexual activity or polygyny, he would have screamed it from the rooftops because God CHOSE to forbid such activity. Churchians love it when God agrees with their traditions. That God chose NOT to forbid such activity, well, that is a major problem for them. Simple Tim believes he knows better than God. There just had to be a way to claim this is a sin, even though Romans 4:15 and 5:13 makes it clear that it is not. Simple Tim is a churchian SJW.

We see the same thing happening with the subject of prostitution.

Churchians tend to ignore their Bible (unless they agree with what it says), but occasionally someone comes by and takes the time to search the Scriptures to see if what I’m saying is correct. Rather than assuming that what they were taught as a child is automatically correct. Our erudite commenter Pode has done so and he raised some objections that I will attempt to deal with now.
“The case for prostitution hinges on a woman being able to consent to sex as a separate and distinct activity from consent to marry. I still see some arguments against that assertion.”
Actually, the historical fact that prostitution has always existed and never been automatically considered adultery is the proof that God’s people have historically understood that in the case of a non-virgin (used goods), sex alone did not create a marriage. The rich widow could not be raped into marriage the way a virgin could, she had to agree to marriage before the sex made her married. That means her agreement to have sex is not her agreement to marry.
In other words, the non-virgin’s agreement to have sex does not create an agreement to marry any more than taking a used car for a test drive is the agreement to buy the car. Take that brand new car off the lot and you’ve bought it. Once it leaves the lot it’s no longer a new car, it’s now a used car and people who want a new car don’t want to settle for a used car. Everyone knows that. The previously owned used car? You’re expected to take it for a test drive. Everyone understands that. What’s a few more miles on the odometer if it’s a used car?
The cognitive dissonance is the result, not of God choosing to allow prostitution, but the fact that as one studies and that becomes clear… the realization also becomes clear that we have been lied to all our lives.

The State of the Argument

This is an ongoing discussion/argument that has already passed though several iterations. I provide the following (rough) roadmap of where we’ve been.
  • Prostitution is not forbidden, therefore it is not a sin.
  • No way! Once we ignore Rahab, the Bible has nothing good to say about prostitutes! Prostitution is BAD.
  • Romans 4:15 and 5:13 says there has to be a prohibition against prostitution in order for prostitution to be a sin. The Law does not forbid prostitution, so it’s not a sin.
  • You evil LIAR! Deuteronomy 23:17 forbids prostitution!
  • Sorry, Deuteronomy 23:17 specifically says “cult prostitutes” and cult prostitution was part of idolatry- typically fertility worship. Baal was a god of fertility and banging a temple whore was part of Baal worship. A woman selling sex is not a sin.
  • You vile twister of truth! Prostitution is adultery and adultery is forbidden as sin!
  • Wrong, a woman can only commit adultery if she is some man’s wife, which means she’s married. The unmarried prostitute cannot commit adultery.
  • Apostate heretic! Sex means she’s married! She married the first one and all the rest are adultery.
  • Sex alone only makes a woman married if she’s a virgin.
  • Perverted idolater! Choosing to have sex makes the non-virgin married too!
  • Wrong. Sex alone will make the virgin married because she does not have agency, which is why the virgin can be raped into marriage. The non-virgin woman has agency and is free to choose who she marries (1st Corinthians 7:39), which means she cannot be raped into marriage. Therefore, sex alone cannot make her married because she must consent to the marriage.
  • You vile, wicked reptile! Her father did not have the authority to make her a prostitute, which means she does not have that authority, therefore prostitution is a forbidden occupation, it’s wrong and a sin. You are not a Toad, you are a snake!<– You Are Here
It should be noted that the issue of prostitution comes after a long series of posts that demonstrate that the virgin is married when she has sex, even though she doesn’t know about it, and the issue is somewhat complicated because of that. The thing is, the issue of consent depends on the woman’s status and it is the responsibility of the man to deal with that.
Commenter Pode’s argument from the last post on adultery is essentially that because a father was forbidden to profane his daughter by making her a prostitute, the woman does not later have the authority to become a prostitute. Then comes a novel argument, followed by more of the “prostitution is bad” arguments.

The First Objection

Primary is the specific prohibition against a father making his daughter a prostitute (Leviticus 19:29). The father as his daughter’s agent is not allowed to give consent to sex without consent to marry (concubines are to be treated in the same manner as wives). If the woman’s agent does not have a power, she would not gain that power when she becomes her own agent.
No. Simply put, while an individual may willfully choose to do something that is injurious or risky, a guardian may not force his ward to do something that is injurious or risky because the guardian is held to a higher standard than the individual acting in their own capacity. In other words, every woman has (in her own capacity) the right to take her inheritance, walk into a casino and put the money on black. However, if that woman is a ward, her guardian does not have the right to force her to put her inheritance on black.
What the father has the authority to do, acting in his capacity as her guardian, she will have the authority to do in her own capacity. The fact that her guardian is limited in what he can force her to do in his capacity as her guardian does not necessarily limit the ward’s behavior when she acts in her own capacity.
The father is commanded not to profane his daughter by “making” his daughter a prostitute. How would a father “make” his daughter a prostitute?
We know that when an eligible virgin gives her virginity to a man, she is married to that man (Genesis 2:24) and is no longer under her father’s authority (Numbers 30:6-8) because she is now under her husband’s authority. Once she has been married, if her husband dies or divorces her, she does not return to being under the authority of her father, she is in authority over herself (Numbers 30:9).
A woman can legitimately be a prostitute only if she is not a virgin and not married. The only way she could meet that criteria and still be under her father’s authority is if she lost her virginity with a man who was not eligible to marry her while she was in her fathers house in her youth. In all likelihood it would be as a result of her being seduced and subsequently her father forbid her agreement to marry and refused to give her.
In the normal course of events, we are talking about an extremely small percentage of the female population. Given the situation, it is reasonable to assume the father is commanded not to make his daughter a prostitute as a protection for the daughter and to prevent fathers from creating or allowing this situation in order to profit from it. The text states a reason for forbidding this: “so that the land may not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness.”
The question becomes, what is being forbidden? The father is forbidden to profane his daughter by forcing her to become a prostitute. The fact that the father is forbidden to force his daughter to do a particular thing that is not otherwise forbidden is evidence that the particular thing is lawful. Which makes this a specific restriction on the fathers authority, not a prohibition on prostitution.
The lewness the land would be overrun with is fathers forcing their daughters to be prostitutes so that the land was overrun with them. Why the prohibition? Because what is shocking and horrifying to one generation becomes accepted by the following generation and commonplace by the third generation. Prostitutes have always been around, but fathers pimping out their daughters, forcing them to be prostitutes, that’s lewdness.
Then too, there is the relationship of the father and daughter to consider.
In Genesis 3:16 God issued his first judgment on mankind, saying “he shall rule over you.” I have written about this before and effectively God declared women to be incompetent and appointed their husband as their guardian. While it might be argued that prior to Christ the husband-wife relationship was primarily a master-servant relationship, it cannot be argued that the father-daughter relationship is anything but a guardian-ward relationship.
From that perspective, it becomes easy to see the command of Leviticus 19:29 as being a specific restriction on the father in his role as his daughter’s guardian which is there to protect the daughters and the society, rather than a blanket prohibition on prostitution. Does prostitution alone cause the land to be overcome with lewdness?

The Second Objection

Second area of concern is the authority relationships involved. If the act of coitus is a man’s vow of marriage, then he has made a vow and the Lord shall require it of him. If the woman can refuse consent to marry but consent to sex, she is placed in a position of authority to negate her lover’s vow. She is also put in a position of authority to instruct the Lord not to require it of him after all.
Umm… No. The act of coitus is the man’s consent, agreement and commitment to marriage. It is automatic if he engages in the act but he has a choice in whether to engage in that activity. The woman who is not a virgin and not married does have a choice and absent her agreement sex is meaningless. We already addressed this issue and the relevant portion is this:

 

1. Agency. Numbers 30:3-5 is specific as to the authority of the father over his daughter and Exodus 22:17 clarifies that even if a daughter’s agreement to marry resulted in the act of marriage, the father (in the day he heard of it) had the authority to forbid her agreement, thus nullifying the resulting marriage. He refused the agreement to marry for her and thus the sex did not create a marriage. Numbers 30:9 is very specific in detailing that the widow and divorced woman have agency, in that there is no-one with the authority to review their agreements. Whatever agreement or vow they make is binding on them. It follows that they cannot be bound by an agreement they did not make. Likewise, the Apostle Paul (in 1st Corinthians 7:39) is clear that the woman who is no longer bound is free to choose whom she might marry, only in the Lord.
If the father has the authority to refuse marriage to the extent that the act of coitus did not make her married and the widow or divorced woman has the same authority over themselves, how can they be married unless they agree to be married? It stands to reason that if the father had the authority to refuse agreement and thereafter sex did not make the virgin married, then the refusal to agree by the non-virgin was sufficient to prevent marriage.

 

A non-virgin may be eligible to marry, which means that she may marry. However, his vow to marry her is meaningless unless she agrees to marry him because that man is not in authority over that woman and he cannot make a vow that binds her unless she agrees to it. The woman has no authority over the man (and never will), so the idea that her failure or refusal to agree to his vow somehow grants her authority over him is ridiculous.

The Third Objection

Thirdly there are the specific prohibitions against a priest marrying a prostitute, prostitutes giving tithe from their earnings, illegitimate kids being cut off until the tenth generation, etc, that indicate that the profession is frowned upon in ways that farming simply isn’t.
The specific prohibition against marrying a prostitute you speak of was directed to the Sons of Aaron, the men of the Aaronic priesthood. We are speaking of Leviticus 21 and it starts (Verse 7) with the specific prohibition to all the sons of Aaron, he may not take any woman profaned by harlotry or who is a divorced woman. Does this mean that divorced women are considered prostitutes? Or is this a prohibition on marrying the two classes of women in which there is a possibility that the woman is actually married, in which case the union would be an adulterous one.
Now jump down to Verse 10, where the instruction gets even more specific to the priest who is highest among his brothers, who has been anointed and consecrated. That is followed by specific instruction for the high priest, which brings us to Verse 13, which says
“He shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow or a divorced woman or a woman who has been profaned by harlotry, these he may not take; but rather he is to marry a virgin of his own people; that he may not profane his offspring among his people; for I am the lord who sanctifies him.” Leviticus 21:13-15.
Notice that all non-virgin women are lumped in here together and forbidden to the high priest as a wife. The reason is that a non-virgin might cause his children to be profane. His wife must be a virgin of his own people. This restriction really has nothing to do with prostitutes, it’s about marrying a virgin.
The part about prostitutes being forbidden to make votive offerings in the Temple has nothing to do with forbidding prostitution and seems to be a direct reference to the preceding verse, which forbid cult prostitution both male and female. The prohibition on illegitimate children entering into the assembly of the Lord down to the 10th Generation actually begs the question of what “‘illegitimate” means. Does that refer to children born outside of marriage, or to children born of the prohibited unions between the Israelites and the tribes they were forbidden to mix with? Any child born to an illegitimate marriage would automatically be illegitimate. Virgins are married when they have sex and sex is how babies get started, so where did prostitution come up in this?
These are common objections that don’t bear up under the weight of scrutiny and the only real test is whether the Law forbid prostitution. It does not.
If two prostitutes shared a house and dagger and took turns acting as each other’s security against abusive clients, it becomes pretty difficult to convict even a known prostitute of adultery and stone her.
Why do you assume the prostitutes are committing adultery? The entire point is there is no record of prostitutes being stoned for adultery and in a village setting it is impossible for the community to not know what she is doing, when she does it and who she is with.
Since a woman’s testimony is only worth half that of a man, in this likely scenario it would take 3 men or 5 women to convict since the client and the two whores count as 2 men total. So it’s very likely that, then as now, there would exist a sizeable number of known whores who could not be convicted.
I have absolutely no idea where in the Bible you got the idea that a woman’s testimony is worth only half that of a man, because that’s Islamic Sharia law.
Thus the existence of the specific prohibitions would not necessarily imply that there was a righteous form of prostitution to regulate.
Pode, you’ve gone off the rails here. The existence of specific prohibitions within prostitution prove that prostitution, generally, is not immoral. Think of farming. Mixing your seed, plowing with an ox and ass yoked together, binding the mouth of the ox that treads the grain, etc., are specifically prohibited. Giving the land a Sabbath rest every seven years, leaving the corners of the field for gleaners, etc., these are commanded. Which means that other than those specific regulations, farming is permitted and a moral, licit activity. Want to tend a vineyard? Go ahead! Olive trees? Why not? It’s allowed.
If prostitution is per se adultery, the prohibition in Corinthians can be read not as creating a new primary offense, but explaining the nature of a new secondary offense. It’s bad enough you committing adultery, but because Christ now dwells in you, you’re involving Him in it too, so now it’s an even worse sin.
No, you’re grasping at straws here. There is nothing to demonstrate that prostitution is per se adultery. Cult prostitutes were forbidden in Israel and idolatry was forbidden in any and all forms. Which is why there was such a fuss over eating meat sacrificed to idols- many construed that to be partaking in idolatry. Paul was forbidding something to Christians (and Christians only) that had been previously allowed.

Fine Grinding

What we’ve been through in these posts is a bit of sifting of Scripture. First, we have nothing that says prostitution, per se, is a sin. So, the question becomes, how can we make prostitution a sin if the Bible doesn’t specifically say it’s a sin? I suppose the first olive out of the jar is adultery. Adultery requires a married woman. What about the woman who isn’t married? Well, let’s take away her choice and force her to be married if she has sex.
The usual refuge of poltroons is to claim there is a “Biblical Principle” at work and even though the Bible does not support what they want to say, there is a “Biblical Principle” that rules. What is really happening is people want to create a set of rules for their own purposes and claim God is supportive of that. Worse, they believe God is required to follow their rules.
This all results when people do not agree with what God’s Word says (or doesn’t say). God chose to forbid men from having sex with men. God chose not to forbid women from engaging in sexual whatever with women. God chose to completely ignore the subject of masturbation. God chose not to forbid prostitution. God chose not to forbid any man from having sex with a woman he was eligible to marry. And this is very disturbing to most Christians. Because they don’t actually like the way God set things up.

Oh… and the legal issue

I am constantly amazed at the number of “escorts” and others who violate the law by engaging in activity that meets the definition of prostitution, which is a crime. The reason I am amazed is because it’s completely unnecessary of the goal is to be paid for offering sexual gratification. If a man wants to pay a woman to engage in sexual activity with him, he can pay a woman for sexual access to her body (which is a crime) or he can pay an actress to engage in sexual activity with him while recording said activity on video for entertainment purposes. That is not a crime.
The only real difference between a prostitute and a porn actress is a video camera and the willingness of both parties to star in a porn production. Given that the presence of a camera tends to cause women to become more enthusiastic in their sexual performance (they don’t call it “porn star” sex for nothing), it seems reasonable to assert that legally participating in a recorded porn production with a paid actress is a superior method of obtaining sexual gratification in return for payment.
It seems likewise reasonable to assert that a woman who wished to engage in sexual activity in return for payment should choose to legally do so as a porn actress rather than as a prostitute. There are numerous advantages, such as being able to legally advertise such services and the freedom from prosecution. Some might consider the possibility that the video might make its way onto the internet to be a problem, but that would be video that was lost in the sea of porn and the name associated with it would be the woman’s “stage name” instead of her real name. That possibility should be balanced against the risk of being arrested for prostitution, which will create a permanent criminal record under her real name.
Again, there is no reasonable moral argument that a woman selling her body is automatically committing sin because prostitution is classified as a crime. Any woman who desires to receive payment in return for performing sexual acts can easily comply with the law by doing so as a porn actress, which is completely legal. Plenty of men take on the job of producing, directing and acting in their own productions and we have examples like Mel Gibson and Clint Eastwood. They hire actresses to play their assigned roles. All of this is perfectly legal. And if an actress wants to offer “one stop shopping” to make his production a reality, all he needs is money. Which he will pay to her. Which was the entire point to begin with.

Just Because It’s Not Forbidden…

Artisanal Toad10 Comments
angry-christian

“Doesn’t Mean It’s Permitted!”

New commenter oogenhand (a convert to the cult of the Easter Bunny), recently stopped by to offer his opinions on issues raised by our recent post concerning prostitutes and lesbians. His comment raises a number of points. The first being that oogenhand seems to be unsure as to the identity of the Apostle Paul, confusing him with the noted pervert and church infiltrator Augustine of Hippo. Augustine was the gnostic Manichean who infiltrated the Church and polluted it with his mad scribblings about sexual pleasure being a sin. It was the Easter Bunny and his followers, practitioners of the Nicolaitan sin, who promoted and revered the foolishness of Augustine and his partner in crime, the pervert Jerome.

 

Girl-on-girl is not allowed because although the women are married to YOU, they are not married to EACH OTHER.

 

Commenter oogenhant’s opinion about “girl on girl” is amusing, because he is claiming two women are not allowed to have sexual contact because they are not married.
Sexual contact is not the same as sexual intercourse. Two women cannot have sexual intercourse because sexual intercourse requires a penis and women don’t have a penis. Sexual intercourse is the act of marriage, the peculiar “ceremony” if you will that begins a marriage. Thus, it is physically impossible for two women to be married to each other because two women cannot have sexual intercourse with each other and marriage begins with the act of sexual intercourse.
That fact, however, does not prevent two women from having sexual contact.
The confusion over the difference between sexual contact and sexual intercourse is amusing. Masturbation is sexual contact with ones’ self, it is not sexual intercourse because there is no partner. Masturbation is not forbidden in any way- it’s not even mentioned or implied. “Girl on girl” is not forbidden, except within the constraints of a polygynous marriage, where female-female incest is prohibited. The prohibition presumes sexual contact between wives in a polygynous marriage, married to the same husband and most likely sharing the same bed with their husband.
All this would be one massive and somewhat amusing non sequitur except for one point- there are a number of forms of sexual contact that are forbidden. Incest, for example, is any form of sexual contact between people with forbidden relationships. Any sexual contact between men is forbidden. The point, is that sexual contact between women (except for the aforementioned prohibition on incest) is not forbidden.
It is said that there are two types of people. Your humble Toad is of the first group, those who believe that which is not specifically forbidden is permitted and we are to use wisdom in determining if that which is permitted is good for us.
There is another group who take a different position: that which is not specifically permitted is to be viewed with great suspicion, if not outright hostility. It is this group who have traditionally judged, shamed and manipulated their fellow Christians. You see, at the end of the day, they are claiming their opinion on the relative morality of something is what counts.
Commenter oogenhand is, as a zealous convert to the cult of the Easter Bunny, rather opinionated. He made further assertions. Note that all additions to oogenhand’s comment are in brackets.

 

Maybe polygyny is allowed and polyandry isn’t because the Bible commands MGC (circumcision), but doesn’t command FGC (clitoridectomy e.a.).Paul[Augustine of Hippo] was a gnostic manichean, who puts the spiritual and the physical at opposite ends. [Gnostics believe] the spiritual is good and physical is bad. This is wrong. The spiritual and the physical complement each other. This means that, Biblically speaking, spiritual circumcision without physical circumcision is just as worthless as the inverse. Paulburns in hell. Hell is eternal.

 

Physical circumcision is only commanded of the physical descendants of Abraham (Genesis 17:1-14) “between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.“ If one is not a physical descendant of Abraham or a slave who belongs to a physical descendant of Abraham, then the command of physical circumcision is not applicable. But, oogenhand complicates the issue by talking about spiritual circumcision. What is this spiritual cirumcision? We find the first reference in Deuteronomy 30:6

 

Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

 

Spiritual circumcision is something the Lord does, it’s spiritual. We find clarification in Romans 2:28-29

 

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

 

Commenter oogenhand is somewhat confused by all this, saying “Biblically speaking, spiritual circumcision without physical circumcision is just as worthless as the inverse.” He then goes on to say the Apostle Paul is going to hell. Like many followers of the Easter Bunny, he believes his opinion is more important than what the Bible says. Which is why they place their traditions above the Bible.
  • Circumcision of a descendant of Abraham is the act that signifies their entry into the covenant and is a sign of the covenant.
  • Sexual intercourse is the act by which a man and woman are married and a sign that the man and woman are married.
These are physical acts, significant in and of themselves, a sign of the covenant. Yet, along with the physical act, there is also the spiritual.
  • Circumcision of the heart is a spiritual circumcision by Spirit, performed by the Lord.
  • The spiritual joining of “becoming one flesh” is the act of the Lord that joins the two in marriage as one flesh.
Mere sexual contact is not the same as sexual intercourse and sexual contact does not signify anything other than a desire for sexual gratification. It may be generally forbidden based on the relationship (incest, males with males, etc.), or it may be permitted because there is no prohibition at all. Masturbation is an example of this and “girl on girl” sexual contact falls into this category.
Female genital mutilation is not the same thing as circumcision and female genital mutilation does not signify anything other than the attitudes and beliefs of the people who do such things. And when one considers that it’s the older women who do that sort of thing, not the men, it might give a thinking person something to ponder.
Polygyny and polyamory cannot be compared because polygyny is a marriage with more than one wife. Polyamory is an attack on marriage and in fact, a denial of marriage because a woman can only be bound to one man.

The Righteousness Of Prostitutes And Lesbians

Artisanal Toad40 Comments
prostitutes
Let’s talk about righteous prostitutes. Seems to be a bit of an oxymoron to Christians, but that’s because they don’t know what the word “righteous” means. I’ll use the King James definition here, but there are other points of reference:

RIGHTEOUS, a. ri’chus.
1. Just; accordant to the divine law. Applied to persons, it denotes one who is holy in heart, and observant of the divine commands in practice; as a righteous man.

Is the world’s oldest profession a righteous one? According to that definition of righteousness, if a farmer is in accordance to the divine Law and observant of the divine commands, the only question is whether he’s holy at heart. That questions the meaning of holiness, which hinges on the concept of sin. God is Holy, He does not sin. Christ is Holy, He does not sin. Christians are Holy, because they are imputed (judged) to have the righteousness (the state of being without sin) of Christ.
So, can a man be a righteous farmer? The answer is yes, as long as he is obedient to the divine Law and commands. In accordance with the divine Law, the farmer is not to plow his field with an ox and an ass yoked together, nor is he to mix his seed and there are other restrictions as well. He is commanded to give his land a Sabbath rest every 7th year and allow gleaners to follow the harvest as well as other commands. These restrictions and commands exist because God regulated farming. If the farmer is in accordance with the Divine Law and commands, the question is whether he is holy in heart. The only person who can judge that is God and not only that, but we are commanded not to judge such issues.
Can a woman be a righteous prostitute? The answer is yes. In keeping with the Divine Law, as long as she is not involved in idolatry (meaning she’s selling her body in a money/goods transaction) AND she is eligible to marry the man she is servicing (no adultery/incest), there is no transgression of either Divine Law or Command. The reason is simple: there is no prohibition and without a prohibition there is no violation and with no violation there is no sin imputed. In other words, the woman is not in sin for selling her body. That is true or the Apostle Paul lied in Romans 4:15 and 5:13.
The typical knee-jerk reaction of Churchians is to Google “bible verse that prohibits prostitution” and they get to 1st Corinthians 6:15-16. They glance at it and claim it forbids women from being prostitutes. Actually, it doesn’t. That prohibition is aimed directly at the men, forbidding only Christian men from using the services of prostitutes. The men were already forbidden to use the cult prostitutes involved in idolatry, this was a specific prohibition that forbid Christian men the use of righteous prostitutes.
Obviously a woman could be an unrighteous prostitute. She could be married and every customer would be another case of adultery. She could provide her services as part of the worship of foreign gods, which is idolatry. However, just as a woman can be a righteous wife, she can also be an adulteress.

Why Are Christian Men Forbidden To Use Prostitutes?

If prostitution can be a righteous and moral activity, why was using prostitutes forbidden to Christian men? When one considers what Christian wives are like, it seems rather unfair to the men. The argument goes along the lines of saying that there must be something wrong with the prostitutes if the activity was forbidden. That’s a great Churchian argument, but the fact is, the men were forbidden to use prostitutes precisely because the prostitutes were not doing anything wrong.
The act of sexual intercourse in which the man penetrates the woman is, by definition, the act of marriage. With that act the man gives his consent and agreement to marry, as well as his commitment in marriage to the woman he is penetrating. Because of that, there is no prohibition anywhere in the Bible that forbids a man from having sexual intercourse with a woman who is eligible for him to marry. Obviously, any restriction on sexual intercourse between a man and woman eligible to marry each other is a restriction on the man’s authority to initiate marriage.
At the time when Paul sent his letter to the Church at Corinth, the men knew they were not engaged in an illicit or otherwise immoral activity when they paid a prostitute to have sex with her. They were well aware that some prostitutes were doing nothing wrong in selling their bodies, while other prostitutes were adulteresses and/or idolaters.
The men used the services of a prostitute because she was eligible to marry and at the same time (by virtue of her “profession”) the man knew that sexual activity would not result in a marriage. In other words, men had the right to have sex with any eligible woman because they have the authority to initiate marriage, but they were abusing that authority by having sex with the one group of women who would not consent to marry them. They were using the act of marriage, purely for pleasure, in such a way that it could not possibly result in marriage.
Which meant they were having their sexual needs met and felt no pressure to take on the responsibilities of being a husband and father by getting married. The women were not abusing their authority because they had no authority to abuse.

Men And Women ARE NOT Equal

There is no restriction or prohibition anywhere in the Law that forbids a woman who is eligible to marry from becoming a prostitute or selling her body to any man she is eligible to marry. There is nothing in the New Testament that forbids a Christian woman from selling her body as long as she is eligible to marry. Call it whatever you want, but women get a pass on that. Men, not so much. As I have pointed out before, the only prohibition on the use of prostitutes found anywhere in the Bible is in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, and that prohibition is specific to Christian men. The prohibition that forbids Christian men from using prostitutes does not apply to non-Christian men and has nothing to do with women.

Men and Women Have Different Standards of Sexual Morality

A man is free to have more than one wife at the same time because Genesis 2:24 gave the authority to initiate marriage to the man but did not limit that authority to a single woman. Because a man initiates marriage with the act of sex, a man is free to have sex with any woman who is eligible to marry him. A woman, once bound in marriage, may only have sex with her husband and no other man. If she has sex with any other man she commits adultery. The only way a man can commit adultery is if he has sex with another man’s wife. It does not matter if the man is married or not, a man can only commit adultery if the woman is the wife of another man.
God said if a man lies with a man as with a woman it’s an abomination and a death penalty offense. If either a man or a woman has sex with an animal it is a perversion and a death penalty offense. What did God not forbid, and barely even mentioned at all? Women with women. There is no general prohibition on anything sexual that women might do with women. In fact, the incest statutes that apply to polygamy (Leviticus 18:17-18) presume that wives in a poly marriage will have sexual contact. After all, nobody gets married to sleep alone. As long as there’s no incest involved, God doesn’t care about sexual activity between women and whatever that might be is not a sin.

Why Do Christians Hate Girl-Girl Sexual Contact?

cute-lesbians That really is a valid question: why do churchians get so bent out of shape about this? Why are they so filled with hate?
First, it’s because they’ve been taught that Romans 1:26 somehow “forbid” lesbian sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. Romans 1:26 doesn’t even mention sex between women, it says that certain women were being punished by God with the degrading passion of rejecting the natural function of women.
What is the natural function of women? Well, what was Eve created for? Was Eve created to be a “helpmeet” and wife and mother to Adam, or was Eve created to be Adam’s sex toy? The only way that “rejecting the natural function of women” can be interpreted as lesbian sex is if the natural function of women is to be a sex toy for men.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but anything in the New Testament that goes beyond what is already in the Law can only apply to the church. Romans 1:26 is descriptive, with Paul describing the wrath of God being poured out on unbelievers who refuse to acknowledge, honor and worship their Creator. Clearly Romans 1:26 does not refer to the church and there is nothing wrong with a Christian woman engaging in sexual activity with another woman, just like there is nothing in the Bible that forbids a Christian woman from selling her body. There might be specific issues of conscience and faith that apply to individual women, but that’s a conscience issue for the individual to decide and we are commanded not to judge their decision.
The second reason is that it’s not about the women, it’s all about the lack of attractive men. Romans 1:26 describes women with a degrading passion that causes said women to reject being a wife and mother under a man’s authority. In other words, it’s a rejection of men, but it’s also a refusal to settle for men that aren’t desirable. Some women settle for men they aren’t that attracted to. Other women refuse to settle for a man they aren’t attracted to and settle for another woman instead. In both cases the women can’t get what they want so they settle for something else. And when I put it like that it gives everyone a case of heartburn. The men are butthurt at being rejected because it really is a rejection of their lack of masculine attractiveness. The women are butthurt, claiming they don’t want a man, they prefer women… right up until an attractive man shows them some interest. Then they discover they’re actually bisexual. Or they were confused, it was just a phase they were going through, they’re actually straight. Ooops.
tumblr_mu0c8bfl6p1rtil2yo1_1280The third reason is that women are pretty vicious when it comes to judging others, especially other women. And no matter how much of a witch she is with her husband, a wife can still look down her nose at girls who are with girls. It doesn’t matter what the details are, churchians are programmed to throw rocks and their leaders are expected to point to the right group or person.
Understanding the socio-sexual dynamics of what is happening helps one to understand why most lesbians are fat and ugly. The truth is that good-looking lesbians are very rare. The fact lesbians tend to be fat and ugly is because they were never able to attract the attention of a man they found attractive. And the men they were attracted to probably didn’t treat them well. Can you say “pump and dump?” Lots of room for embarrassment and humiliation in there. But rather than settle for a man they weren’t attracted to (a man in their league), they’d rather be with another woman.
article-2591430-1ca6585600000578-182_306x423 While previous photos have shown femmes, the “lipstick lesbians” who probably haven’t given up on the idea of attracting the attention of a man they’re interested in, most “lesbians” finally give up on men completely. After that they tend to get fatter and make themselves as ugly as possible.
Lots of feminists will howl at that and while there are exceptions, that’s pretty much the general rule. Which is one more reason why lesbians are angry with men. They couldn’t get what they wanted.
But, at the end of the day, does not getting what they wanted and settling for something else make them bad people? No. Are they “In Sin?” No. Have they done anything morally wrong? No. And the funny part is the even though lesbian porn seems to be really popular with men, the truth is that most lesbians seldom actually do that sort of thing. They fight a lot, as evidenced by the fact that the incidence of domestic violence between lesbians is really, really high.
When we compare the two issues of prostitution and female-female sexual contact, we can see that both can be completely righteous and moral activities for Christian women and both of them have traditionally been hated by the churchians because churchians hate sex. They always have.
More than that, however, is they do not like it when God’s ideas of how things should be don’t agree with theirs. God chose to prohibit the things He chose to prohibit, which means He chose not to prohibit those things He chose not to prohibit. God did not forget, He did not overlook anything, He did not get confused.

What About
Issues of Conscience?

The clearest statements on issue of conscience and sin are found at Romans 14:23 (that which is not of faith is sin) and James 4:17 (If you know the right thing to do and do not do it, that is sin to you). Those things that are forbidden in the law are forbidden for everyone. However, even though a person can be within the Divine Law, if they violate their conscience they are in sin. Likewise, because someone is doing something by faith that they know is right for them, they are not in sin and both Paul and James were very specific: who are you to judge your neighbor? They were speaking of judging someone over issues of conscience.
The issues discussed in this post are not issues of Divine Law because the Law does not condemn or prohibit prostitution or sexual contact between women (unless it’s incest). Perhaps an individual Christian might decide that she could not possibly spread her legs for money and the thought of a marital threesome with her husband and another wife is nauseating, but that’s OK. Some people get nauseated on a boat or a plane, but that’s not a sin and they can avoid boats and planes.