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.
How would one go about determining if a prostitute is righteous, other than taking the word of a whore? Seems dangerous to put your complete trust in a woman, hence God created woman with a maidenhead so that she could not defraud her husband and draw him into adultery unknowingly. Your thoughts?
– IF consent to sex is consent to marriage,
– THEN prostitution is per se adultery.
– Why then do the specific regulations re prostitution exist, since adultery is a death penalty offense?
– IF there exists a legal loophole such that a known prostitute might not be able to be convicted of adultery, THEN the regulations make sense even if prostitution is per se adultery.
-1 Cor. 6:16 says that whoever lies with a prostitute becomes one flesh with her, in a tone that implies this should be obvious “Do you not know?”
-Matt. 19:6 says what God joins together no man should separate, referring to divorce from one’s wife.
-Gen 2:24 says that a man who cleaves his wife becomes one flesh with her.
When you remove the emotional from entire thing I think it kind of makes sense
On the whole prepubescent thing: one could argue that because the girl is given her virginity at birth then the moment she born you can have her. I’m to thinking based on the logic of when things begin.
I’m Trying do something very difficult for a woman: to think logically without emotion.
I remember a part of dangerous liaisons where Metres ( Glen close) ex lover how did fiancé plate in the school of his choosing. Maybe that’s how God made for marriages to work in industrialized society: a man married His wife the day after she is born and then send it off to finishing whole school to gain that skills he desires in wife? Or should she well up in her husband’s household learn from the older wives
The Lord is perfect and all of his ways are perfect even if we don’t like them
#uglydon’tgethusband