Talk:Sacred prostitution

In ancient Rome, the priestesses of goddess Vesta had the two duties of always maintaining lit the goddess' fire, and to initiate young boys to sex at the moment of tonsura. The famous Rea Silvia, mother of Romulus and Remus, was one of these. The use of maintaining an always lit fire has been recorded in many coastal temples, and has been ideally connected with the preference (or exclusive licence) granted to sailors to use these services. It has been supposed that these fires should indicate the route to sailors, exactly like modern lighthouses.

This whole paragraph is dubious. The first half of the first sentence is at least accurate, but:

1. tonsura means "shaving", which was part of a Roman boy's initiation into manhood, but they called it depositio barbae. The ceremony further involved putting on the toga virilis for the first time, but where does this idea of sexual initiation come from? I can't find any support for this. . . well, anywhere.
2. Rea Silvia was killed for breaking a vow of celibacy -- so either Vesta went through priestesses very quickly, or there's something wrong here.
3. What does the stuff about coastal temples (assuming it's true) have to do with this? Vesta has been fairly conclusively identified as the goddess of the hearth, and her perpetual flame with the practice of keeping the house's fire constantly burning, which was easier than relighting it every day. This practice survived into the 20th century in some places.
4. Furthermore the whole idea doesn't jibe with the extremely male-centric Roman concept of sexuality. Granted that this mindset changed somewhat in the later years of the Empire, under influences from other cultures, but Vesta's cult dates back to pre-Republican times.

The Romans may have had some fertility cults, such as those of Isis and Cybele, but the worship of Vesta was not one of them. --67.69.188.80 19:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect

With the use of the loaded term prostitution rather than hieros gamos, and without mention of transgenderism in any way, this article is totally biased and fails to present its subject in proper context. Christianity has a long history of completely failing to understand transsexuality, and this is one of the examples. --Eequor 16:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what transsexuality has to do with it. Granted, there were transsexual temple prostitutes, but many hierodules in many cultures were garden-variety females. As for the word itself, it's not technically accurate (some cultures' hierodules were paid for their services, some were not), but that is nevertheless a widely-used anthropological term describing precisely the range of phenomena addressed by this article. "Hieros gamos", in contrast, describes a narrower class of rites (narrower still if you interpret it to refer only to the original rite of that name, and not simply to any mating/wedding of man and god). I'd advise either adding a section to the article explaining that many forms of what's called religious prostitution were not actually prostitution, or... well... coming up with a more accurate name than "hieros gamos", I suppose. Can't think of any alternatives, really. Then again, I have been awake for about 34 hours, maybe it'll come to me when I wake up. 82.166.53.176 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Error

From the original: "The Hebrew original employs the word "qedsha" in Judah's question, as opposed to the standard Hebrew "zonah". The word "qidsha" is derived from the root Q.D.Sh, which signifies uniqueness and holiness; thus it probably represents a religious prostitute, a term uncommon among the Israelites,"

The word is Qidosha which means "holy woman"... Qidsha means "She bless'/blessed"

Strongs Gen 38:21 interpretation of "harlot" "H6948 קדשׁה qedêshâh ked-ay-shaw' Feminine of H6945; a female devotee (that is, prostitute): - harlot, whore."

This is obviously an incorrect interpretation, however it may be a contextual interpretation...

So is this qedsha or qidsha, anyway? Cema 03:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the similarity of the words for "holy woman" and "prostitute" doesn't necessarily mean that temple prostitution was common, since the word for "holy woman" (or a variant thereof) could have been adopted to the "prostitute" meaning as a euphemism (or an advertising expression to highlights the purity of a prostitute). [Comment added by a visitor on 2008-03-19.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.28.236 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

i am certain that qedesha is from the root that translates as separate, usually with holy connotations, but as i was taught in an orthodox school at age 15, in this context literally meaning sparate from normal life to be used for sex.not a referance to temple prostitutes, which seem to be a total myth as every orthodox tradition states that the levels of modesty and the amount of privacy associated with sex in the time of the temple exceeds even the modern ultra-orthodox standards.

Qedesh in Athens?

Quoth the article:

In Greece, Solon instituted the first Athenian brothels (oik`iskoi) in the 6th century BC, and with the earnings of this business he built a temple dedicated to Aprodites Pandemo (or Qedesh), patron goddess of this commerce.

Why is that non-Greek name used as a synonym for Aphrodite? Did the Greeks consider that to be another name for her? --Jfruh 03:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prophet

Didn't some Jewish prophet marry a prostitute to teach Hebrews a lesson?

The prophet Hosea was instructed to marry a harlot, whom he later divorces. Both the marriage, resulting children and divorce are used as object lessons to the Jewish people. I don't think this qualifies as religious prostitution though.--Dunedan 18:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Citations? Any at all?

Biblical references

I altered language in this section to reflect that the interpretations associating phrases like "the price of a dog" are euphememisms for homosexuality represent somewhat speculative hypotheses, which should be attributed and sourced. Removed claim that this is "according to the Bible" since it's according to a particular school of commentary's interpretation of the Bible. Also removed this passage

these passages are often cited by conservative Christian denominations as indication of proscription against same-sex relations (homosexuality and bisexuality) ^{[citation needed]},

This claim has no cited sources and I question whether any traditionalists hold it. Conservative Judaism, in an otherwise comparatively liberal recent opinion on homosexuality (See Conservative Halakha#Homosexuality, expressly rejected claims that these passages concern the subject on grounds that the hypothesis is pure speculation. The passages commonly cited by traditionalists in Judaism are Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Suggest that conservative Christian editors (there are quite a number of them on e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity be consulted to see if this claim correctly describes what conservative Christian opinonmakers actually believe. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrible Article

Maybe someone with knowledge on the subject and with better resources should write this article. It is terrible and the first paragraph is poorly written. This is exactly why an increasing number of post-secondary institutions are not allowing the citation of wikipedia, as a legitimate primary source of information, in academic works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabrams20 (talk • contribs)

Can you improve it? Be bold! --Shirahadasha 06:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Greece and Rome

What abou the greco-roman temples in which this occured? Like the Temple of Bona Dea in Rome? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 01:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism?

Whenever I see any essay denying what has been recorded, particularly by persons contemporary to events, I always have to consider whether or not this is a modern revision (lie) for political reasons. The author of this article seems to be trying to assert that early and modern cultures "really" adhered or adhere to current Western practices and attitudes or those current attitudes the so-called historian rejects. A general rule is that revision is falsification and propaganda. --Calypsoparakeet (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

The changes I made were to remove unsupported speculation, innuendo, and misrepresentation of the underlying sources. If there is a particular thing I removed which you think *is* determined from the sources than cite it exactly and clearly. Thanks.Wjhonson (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So let's look at some of these removals:

• Unlink specific website used in bibleverse, a better alternative should be created [1]
  • You are welcome to go to Template talk:bibleverse if you don't like these templates and think they could be improved. But meantime, they are available for a reason and their use is encouraged. It is very helpful, if a Bible verse or a Quran verse is cited, for the reader to be able to go click straight to the text and see the exact verse in its full context. That is why these templates exist, and their use is encouraged. As for the translations chosen, yes it would be a good feature if the template made it easier to change translation, eg in a frame around the link provided. That could well be a good thing to suggest at Template talk:bibleverse. But until then, linking to 'HE' is useful for parallel Hebrew and English, to show the full Hebrew text of the verse in question. As for the Hosea verse, the specific NASB link sources the version of the translation given in the next lines, which points up the characteristic Hebrew parallelism particularly well; it's a Bible Gateway link, so the reader can easily compare several further renderings.

• • I can't see anything is served by removing this links - the idea that we are better served with no link, rather than a link to a particular translation, is not one I would subscribe to without very good reason.
• biblegateway is a sucky sucky sucky site [2]
  • Ditto.
• not "female" just consecrated person [3]
  • The -ah at the end of kedeshah marks it out as specifically referring to a female, as opposed to the form kadesh. Compare yeled boy, yaldah girl; melech king, malchah queen; etc.
• not "sex", and not definite
  • Okay, so calling Qedesha/Qetesh the "goddess of sex" was an oversimplification. But it is clear (sources concur) that her image was directly sexual, and that physical love was, at the very least, one of her key associations. "Goddess of sex" gives the reader a much more relevant and useful steer in the context of this article than "one of their Godesses".
• delete speculation of meaning behind warning [4]
  • The point is to alert the reader to the clear parallelism made, here and elsewhere, between instances of kedeshah and instances of zonah. I submit that the Hebrew Bible is quick to link the two. Someone else might say it is only quick to parallel the two. I think that is splitting hairs. But the point here is to alert the readers to the claim, and then let them make up their mind on the evidence. It is not enough to just quote the verse, in the way you have left the text. It should also be introduced to the reader why the verse is being quoted.
• Delete unreferenced clause which appears scurrilous
  • Google for "kinaidos" and you will find it means exactly what the article says it means. Since that is also exactly the sense and derivation proposed for keleb, (and the behaviour imputed to the kedeshim), it is entirely on-point to flag it here.

So: "unsupported speculation, innuendo, and misrepresentation of the underlying sources" ? I was providing links. It was you that removed them. If you think there is "misrepresentation" here, let's see some sourced argumentation to support that claim. All I have done is merely present the standard scholarly take on these words, and how they fit together. Jheald (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganized

Revised page to illustrate the distinction between 'classical' and 'revisionist' views of sacred prostitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.104.99 (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

Is anyone interested in renaming this article to something more appropriate? For example (and feel free to add a recommendation) USchick (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sacred marriage (mythology)
• Oppose Article seems to do what it says on the tin, at the moment. We have a different article on Hieros gamos: this is not it. Jheald (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Surviving references

To user 212.251.232.230: Your personal opinion of what you think is ludicrous is irrelevant. If you don't like the comparison, feel free to offer a credible source of where the idea originated. Why did the Masters of the Mishna feel the need to go out into the street to bring Shabbat into the Holy Temple, prepare for her a canopy with cushions and treat her like a Bride? Is there any other female who gets similar treatment in a Jewish temple? Hierodules were selected from the road, brought into the temple and served alongside with priests for the glory of God. The revisionist view in Judaism is the one that barred women from the temple entirely, which did happen eventually. The Masters of the Mishna are the ones who wrote down the oral history. Do you have an earlier source than the Masters? USchick (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

False Mesopotamian History

This article includes the paragraph:

"Later, as the introduction of metal tools spread from one culture to another, during the Iron Age, advanced technology revolutionized warfare. Through a series of invasions, indigenous populations of Mesopotamia were conquered, with the invaders imposing their own system of government and their own theocracy of monotheism.[15]"

The "iron age invaders" of Mesopotamia were the Hittites and Assyrians. The Assyrians and Hittites were polytheists. Furthermore, the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians were also polytheists with high priestesses AND high priests. The head of the Sumerian-Akkadian pantheon is male, and the heaven deity is also male. The above gibberish must be removed. NJMauthor (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Biased Revisionism

the "sabbath bride" section is ludicrous and not at all related to sacred prostitution, but rather some revisionistic view of "original mother-goddesses being replaced by the bad, male monotheist god". The "Sabbath Bride" is an original Jewish idea, and was never seen as a goddess, nor was prostitution practiced in reference to this personification of the Sabbath. A separate article regarding the "Sabbath Bride"-metaphor would be a more appropriate place to discuss it's origins and similarities to other female personifications, such as the personification of the Christian Church as a woman, a common image in the middle ages, once again unrelated to the practice of sexual acts in fertility cults.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Ammi (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 

Ben Ammi (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Ammi, I fully support you in wiping out any of the ridiculous Original Research in this article. You are correct about the Sabbath bride. NJMauthor (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Modern day Iranian sacred prostitution

An article at http://planet-iran.com/index.php/news/19414, purports to translate a document from the Shrine of the Imam Reza that appears to not only condone sacred prostitution, but to actively solicit for it. The change I made was almost immediately removed. I believe that it would be profitable to discuss whether it should be included or not.K012957 (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian blogs are not reliable sources. — goethean ॐ 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What Goethean said. Pimping for Allah? Drmies (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How can one go about verifying the authenticity of a document and its translation?K012957 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about a JPG on a weblog. If the issue has not been discussed in any article or book, then there is no chance of verifying it to Wikipedia's standards. — goethean ॐ 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look for an article. Meanwhile see Nikrah mut'a which describes the process and how the sunni don't and the shia do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K012957 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you intend to add content to this article, you will need to find a reliable sources which explicitly ties the practice to sacred prostitution. See WP:OR. — goethean ॐ 18:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The concept of temporary/weekend/hourly marriage is common in Islamic theology. Does that qualify as "sacred prostitution"? Probably not, since Islam itself -- to my knowledge -- doesn't think of such arrangements as prostitution, even if that is the end effect.

Silverstarseven (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved around sections

I grouped related information together and moved the Near East information into its own section. USchick (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)