Divorce and adultery

[rockfox]

Women who trade sex don't always do it in exchange for cash. A woman who sleeps around for any reason falls in to this category. Those who do it for money are just a little more honest and frankly admirable than those who do it for whatever other reason.

The problem with that logic is it applies to wives as well; who demand a higher price for their services than the harlot who only asks for a meal or a fixed price upfront.

I know you're looking for scripture here but the word study pretty much lays it all out there. Also, the text doesn't really reference a monetary exchange.

I did as you suggested. Looking at how it is used and the lexicon, the word as used in scripture seems to cover everything from adulterers to temple prostitutes to ordinary prostitutes to women just sleeping around. Problem is, the law treats all of those very differently (from the death penalty to no punishment at all) and somewhat inconsistently when it comes to transgression. It strikes me as a rather overly broad term.

So then do the 90% of Christian fathers whose daughters do not marry as a virgin; are they running afoul of Leviticus 19:29 then?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I did as you suggested. Looking at how it is used and the lexicon, the word as used in scripture seems to cover everything from adulterers to temple prostitutes to ordinary prostitutes to women just sleeping around. Problem is, the law treats all of those very differently (from the death penalty to no punishment at all) and somewhat inconsistently when it comes to transgression. It strikes me as a rather overly broad term.

A lot of those problems resolved for me when I accepted that sex forms or breaks a marriage. There are a lot fewer categories to deal with then.

So then do the 90% of Christian fathers whose daughters do not marry as a virgin; are they running afoul of Leviticus 19:29 then?

Yes. As the father of seven daughters it's very scary.

 

[rockfox]

A lot of those problems resolved for me when I accepted that sex forms or breaks a marriage. There are a lot fewer categories to deal with then.

Not to start that conversation again, but I don't find the sex forms marriage argument convincing so it doesn't help me any in my path to understanding this.

Especially since there is no penalty in the law for prostitution, they're just not allowed to donate to the temple. Which is quite different than for an adulterer (also called harlot) for which the penalty is death. Unless of course you're a Levite's daughter; God apparently wanted to very publically stamp out with fire any back door temple prostitution.

Which also explains the prohibition against Levite's marrying harlots; only virgins. Which in itself only highlights the acceptability for others to marry them; but I'm not sure yet how to square that with Deuteronomy 22:21.

Yes. As the father of seven daughters it's very scary.

I know what you mean.

 

[IshChayil]

...relationship, which means you are trading something quid pro quo to get what you want.
Just because it's "dinner and a movie" instead of hard cash doesn't mean it's not prostitution....
...

I was rereading this for some reason just now and this really jumped out.
The social hypnosis blurs boundaries and we need to step back and refocus. I find that statement above shocking and true.

 

[FollowingHim]

The problem with that logic is it applies to wives as well; who demand a higher price for their services than the harlot who only asks for a meal or a fixed price upfront.

I'd actually argue that a wife is a lot cheaper. Because a wife provides a lot more services than just sex. Think of everything your wife does for you, and start adding up the cost of hiring a chef, nanny, cleaner, prostitute, private secretary etc to do absolutely everything she does every day - the cost starts to add up very quickly. I couldn't afford to pay for that - but my wife does it all for only food, board and sundries. If you add it up, I really can't make the maths say that a wife demands a higher price than a harlot.

 

[andrew]

Reminds me of an old joke about Paul McCartney....

 

[rockfox]

I'd actually argue that a wife is a lot cheaper. Because a wife provides a lot more services than just sex. Think of everything your wife does for you, and start adding up the cost of hiring a chef, nanny, cleaner, prostitute, private secretary etc to do absolutely everything she does every day - the cost starts to add up very quickly. I couldn't afford to pay for that - but my wife does it all for only food, board and sundries. If you add it up, I really can't make the maths say that a wife demands a higher price than a harlot.

I have read a blog post or two from men who worked out the actual math and found their wife to have been vastly more expensive than a hooker.

For many men, their wives don't do all that yours does. Then there is the issue of fridged wives; which really messes with the economics. And then if she leaves you, takes have your stuff, costs you half the rest in lawyer fees, and then makes you pay out the nose in alimony; well, the cost quickly skyrockets.

But whether the value of a wife is a good one or not, the point was: if we define a harlot as one who trades sex for goods (money, shelter, etc) we ensnare wives in with that. But more importantly, the harlot is honorable/honest about her cost upfront. The wife on the other hand, at time of marriage becomes entitled to half of all your future potential earnings while not being obligated to any specific performance of her own (despite what she may promise at that time).

 

[frederick]

while not being obligated to any specific performance of her own (despite what she may promise at that time).

As far as believers are concerned, it seems God would disagree with that - according to 1 Cor. 7:3-5.

Those who are aren't saved/redeemed will do whatever seems right in their own eyes anyway so that's a whole different situation.

 

[Keith Martin]

I'd actually argue that a wife is a lot cheaper. Because a wife provides a lot more services than just sex. Think of everything your wife does for you, and start adding up the cost of hiring a chef, nanny, cleaner, prostitute, private secretary etc to do absolutely everything she does every day - the cost starts to add up very quickly. I couldn't afford to pay for that - but my wife does it all for only food, board and sundries. If you add it up, I really can't make the maths say that a wife demands a higher price than a harlot.

You make an excellent point, @FollowingHim, but this reminds me of the folly of counting calories, because that only tells you how much fuel you'll need to digest the calories you're counting; it fails to take into account that each of those foods you're eating provides some measure of fuel itself: some foods provide way more fuel than is required to digest them, whereas others provide far less fuel than it takes to transport them from top to bottom.

You have only considered the value of the services your wife provides to you. What about the services you provide to her?

I don't believe in marital bookkeeping, but I believe that, in most marriages, the balance sheet isn't far into the red or the black -- but only because husbands provide enough to earn what wives provide -- and vice versa. I think what @andrew was getting at when he equated dinner and a movie with prostitution is that, if the expectation that gifts are required for sex to be provided, then she's getting paid for those services. And if that becomes the foundational pattern of a relationship, it is out of whack. Also, neither party in a marriage should kid itself: both sides pay far more for the sex than one would have to pay a hooker. One certainly couldn't afford to pay for everything one's wife does . . . but neither could one's wife pay for everything one does for her, including making love with her.

 

[steve]

Just to confuse an issue that is already off of the rails.
Into the perceived cost of sex with a hooker you have to factor in the possibility of an STD.

 

[mystic]

Damn! There go my plans for the afternoon.

 

[Keith Martin]

Just to confuse an issue that is already off of the rails.
Into the perceived cost of sex with a hooker you have to factor in the possibility of an STD.

Well, there are hookers, and then there are hookers.

One generally tends to get what one is willing to pay for.

;^)

 

[steve]

Well, there are hookers, and then there are hookers.

One generally tends to get what one is willing to pay for.

;^)

I will take the word of an obvious expert.

 

[rockfox]

As far as believers are concerned, it seems God would disagree with that - according to 1 Cor. 7:3-5.

Those who are aren't saved/redeemed will do whatever seems right in their own eyes anyway so that's a whole different situation.

Of course. But the on the ground reality is neither law, nor society nor the church expect or compel her to. 99.999% of pastors won't even quote that verse in church.

But none of this is me equating wives with harlots; I don't necessarily believe exchanging sex for goods is what defines them. But maybe I'm wrong? Maybe a gold-digging wife who is motivated by extracting his resources IS a harlot? As opposed to one who is there out of motivation to be his helper?

I don't know.

 

[FollowingHim]

Just to confuse an issue that is already off of the rails.
Into the perceived cost of sex with a hooker you have to factor in the possibility of an STD.

In some circumstances that can be a bonus. In WW1, on the Western Front, when a soldier's life in the trenches was usually very short, the diseased prostitutes could actually get paid more than the clean. Because getting a venereal disease meant being sent back from the front for 6 weeks to recover in hospital. A 6-week break that could save your life. So diseased prostitutes were in high demand and paid accordingly. Such are the horrors of war. Just a historical thought to ponder in the light of the 100th anniversary of armistice day next week.

 

[rockfox]

In some circumstances that can be a bonus. In WW1, on the Western Front, when a soldier's life in the trenches was usually very short, the diseased prostitutes could actually get paid more than the clean. Because getting a venereal disease meant being sent back from the front for 6 weeks to recover in hospital. A 6-week break that could save your life. So diseased prostitutes were in high demand and paid accordingly. Such are the horrors of war. Just a historical thought to ponder in the light of the 100th anniversary of armistice day next week.

Harlots have been an ever present feature of war. They were always part of the camp followers crowd. IIRC during Roman times soldiers would even have wives and families among the camp while out on campaign (which could last years). Not their actual at home wives, but camp wives; kind of like a temporary marriage thing. It was one way for widows, harlots, and the like to have some semblance of family life. A lot of wealth flowed through the legion.

I'm told that this still goes on today (both the harlots and the camp wives). But we call them women soldiers now. I'm not kidding. And rather than STD's to get out of war it is pregnancies.

 

[rustywest4]

I'd actually argue that a wife is a lot cheaper. Because a wife provides a lot more services than just sex. Think of everything your wife does for you, and start adding up the cost of hiring a chef, nanny, cleaner, prostitute, private secretary etc to do absolutely everything she does every day - the cost starts to add up very quickly. I couldn't afford to pay for that - but my wife does it all for only food, board and sundries. If you add it up, I really can't make the maths say that a wife demands a higher price than a harlot.

I’m gonna hire a chef-wife, a nanny-wife, a laundry-doing-wife, a secretary-wife... I will pay them in sex and food and housing!

 

[frederick]

I noticed you didn't include clothing...... will that make the sex part easier and quicker?

 

[frederick]

Ahhhh...... more money for food.