Sex for Personal Gain

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I said, I don't make the rules - that's how the passage tells us we should show our love - as we would to ourselves - and if that is pain, then it is pain.

Only if your wife likes that. :pac:

The passage does not say physically treat your partner as you physically treat yourself. The word "love" in that passage in the original Greek is agapao, which means love in the moral emotional caring sense, not in the physical act of sex or "love making".

Therefore it is very difficult to get a meaning from the text that the author is saying physically perform acts of love making on your wife that you would like performed on yourself.

Another translation of that passage could easily be

So husbands ought also to care for their own wives as they care for their own bodies. He who cares for his own wife cares for himself

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakass,

I love how you call it nonsense and then turn it into nonsense. What you claim I was doing is not anything I espoused. Let me clarify:

Jakkass wrote: »

1) I quote 1 Corinthians 7 about sharing sexuality between a man and his wife.

Yes and that quote said in it, perfectly clearly, that “the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does”

Jakkass wrote: »

2) You find extremists / distortionists that have taken this passage out of context.

False. This is not something just interpreed wrong. It is there, in black and white, that a person does not have authority over their own body.

These are the exact words and they have only one meaning. You either do, or do not, have authority over your own body. It can not be both. And the text clearly says it is “not”.

I found people who have one interpretation and you have another. Fine. They would call you wrong, you call them wrong. So I have not found “extremists / distortionists” as you claim. I have found people who, given they have no more evidence for the authority of this text than you, have come to an interpretation that is just as valid as yours.

Jakkass wrote: »

3) You claim because I do not have the same interpretation as these extremists / distortionists that I do not hold the Scriptures as having authority.

Entire, wholly, fabricated lie. That you would sit there and tell me not to twist things when I in fact have not, while wholesale inventing a position I never espoused is just comical to me in the extreme.

I never said that YOU do not hold the Scriptures as having authority EVER. Not once. In fact I said the polar opposite.

What I said is that you have offered us no evidence to consider the scriptures as an authority on this subject, except that you believe they are. So you have wholesale invented words and put them into my mouth. Take your words out of my mouth sir as I have enough of my own.

In short I quite clearly said you believe they are and you reply by saying I claimed you believe they are NOT? Laughable.

Let me repeat myself so you do not misrepresent me wholly again. YOU have given Us no reason to think the scriptures are an authority AT ALL. Therefore *I* do not consider them as such. Furthermore to this I am relieved to find there is no reason to consider them an authority as ANYONE who would espouse the view that someone has not authority over their OWN body is abhorrent to me.

You can hold the scriptures to be anything you want. More power to you. This is your right. However until you show some reason to think they are an authority, then their authority exists solely in your head where I hope to whatever god you believe in that they stay.

However, yet again in an attempt to get back on topic I must point out that unless you can show these scriptures to be an authority on the subject, it simply is not data useable in this discussion so I repeat once more the question I asked before which you totally ignored:

We DO have authority over our body. Our laws and society are built on this which is why we have laws on murder, rape, violence and more. And, to get back on the topic of this thread, if we have authority over our own body and we decide to have sex for money, then what grounds have we to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place?

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes and that quote said in it, perfectly clearly, that “the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does”

This is the logical conclusion from a man and a woman being joined together in one flesh (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6).

I do genuinely believe that it is a sin for married couples not to share themselves sexually with one another.

What is a sin? A sin is a falling short of God's standard (Romans 3:23, Isaiah 59:2)

What is God's standard to Christians. The ideal! I.E It is ideal that a married couple who love one another share themselves sexually with one another.

What is so offensive about that?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

False. This is not something just interpreed wrong. It is there, in black and white, that a person does not have authority over their own body.

Read above.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

These are the exact words and they have only one meaning. You either do, or do not, have authority over your own body. It can not be both. And the text clearly says it is “not”.

I believe that people should share with each other sexually. I do not believe that this encourages rape. Believe it or not (despite atheist objections to the Bible) rape is condemned explicitly in several passages. So yes, both are valid.

I find it ironic that you feel that I should be more black and white about my faith coming from a position of lacking it yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I found people who have one interpretation and you have another. Fine. They would call you wrong, you call them wrong. So I have not found “extremists / distortionists” as you claim. I have found people who, given they have no more evidence for the authority of this text than you, have come to an interpretation that is just as valid as yours.

Right. I differ with them. I would like them to explain to me Biblically where they come from. I regard them currently as distortionists based on what Biblical knowledge I have.

I take the general view of the Scriptures, one passage shouldn't be isolated, but it should be considered in the grand scheme of divine revelation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Entire, wholly, fabricated lie. That you would sit there and tell me not to twist things when I in fact have not, while wholesale inventing a position I never espoused is just comical to me in the extreme.

I have no intention of twisting anything. I have given you my truthful assessment of what has happened from my point of view.

I personally don't want to get into petty semantics however.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I never said that YOU do not hold the Scriptures as having authority EVER. Not once. In fact I said the polar opposite.

It was implied in this quote:

I am glad to see you do that here and we agree the Scriptures are certainly not an authority in this matter.

I do believe that the Scriptures are an authority on this and every matter as a Christian.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I said is that you have offered us no evidence to consider the scriptures as an authority on this subject, except that you believe they are. So you have wholesale invented words and put them into my mouth. Take your words out of my mouth sir as I have enough of my own.

The point of this thread wasn't about evidence. It was the two strawman assertions:
1) The Bible encourages depriving ones partner of sex. I demonstrated this is not true by using 1 Corinthians 7.
2) The Bible encourages rape. I have also dealt with this using Ephesians 5.

If you want to start a thread asking Christians to demonstrate why God has authority that's something else altogether. That was certainly not my intention in quoting 1 Corinthians 7. Rather it was to clear up a misconception.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Let me repeat myself so you do not misrepresent me wholly again. YOU have given Us no reason to think the scriptures are an authority AT ALL. Therefore *I* do not consider them as such. Furthermore to this I am relieved to find there is no reason to consider them an authority as ANYONE who would espouse the view that someone has not authority over their OWN body is abhorrent to me.

See above. The thread was never about "proving". It was about clearing up misconceptions about the Christian texts.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can hold the scriptures to be anything you want. More power to you. This is your right. However until you show some reason to think they are an authority, then their authority exists solely in your head where I hope to whatever god you believe in that they stay.

See above.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However, yet again in an attempt to get back on topic I must point out that unless you can show these scriptures to be an authority on the subject, it simply is not data useable in this discussion so I repeat once more the question I asked before which you totally ignored:

You're missing the point again!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We DO have authority over our body. Our laws and society are built on this which is why we have laws on murder, rape, violence and more. And, to get back on the topic of this thread, if we have authority over our own body and we decide to have sex for money, then what grounds have we to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place?

That's fine. I never said you couldn't debate the notion. I was merely clearing up based on this quote. You then sidetracked the main point:

The Corinthian wrote:

The Abrahamic religions have a particularly negative view of sex, in comparison to most other religions, with both Christianity and Islam inheriting this from Judaism. Oddly, this was a problem during the early Christian conversions in that successfully proselytizing the wife of a prominent Roman, who would then withhold sex from her husband as sinful, would result in a lot of very irate people in positions of power.

This is what is on topic. Not proving that God has authority, but demonstrating that Christianity does not encourage withholding sex from ones spouse.

By the by, please tone down the temper , this isn't your Atheist Ireland blog (which I found quite interesting) . I have no interest of discussing in any other context apart from a calm one. I think mutual calmness in replying to other peoples posts isn't too much to ask!

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakass,

Any impression of temper you get from my words exists solely in your head. You have not the ability to anger me, a comment which is about me not about you, as I know what is required to anger me and it simply is not present here. Suffice to say however, that angry or not, you do not get to dictate to me what tone I reply in so you waste your time even trying.

Again you have not shown evidence that there is a god, so your standard of sin is purely arbitrary, in your head and off topic. If you think the “logical conclusion” of anything is that someone does not have authority over their own body or they are admonished to provide sex against their will then so be it. That’s the person you are and it says more about you then I ever could or would. Needless to say I find it abhorrent and I see no evidence for it, and I am further relieved to see no evidence for it.

The “ideal” for me, since you use this word, is that a married couple who love each other respect the fact that the other person is no slave that you own, but are autonomous people with full authority over their own self. If the partners choice of when to have sex does not please you then you are in the wrong marriage and you are more than welcome to leave it.

However I note again you did not answer my question. I asked you that, given we DO have authority over our own body, do you or do you not see any reason on the subject of prostitution to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place on the matter? If no, then say it. If yes then adumbrate why.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you have not shown evidence that there is a god, so your standard of sin is purely arbitrary, in your head and off topic. If you think the “logical conclusion” of anything is that someone does not have authority over their own body or they are admonished to provide sex against their will then so be it. That’s the person you are and it says more about you then I ever could or would. Needless to say I find it abhorrent and I see no evidence for it, and I am further relieved to see no evidence for it.

That wasn't the intention of why I quoted it. Hence you would be taking the thread off topic. It's up to you whether or not God exists, it is another matter to claim the Christian texts say something they do not though.

I thought that would be simple to understand.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The “ideal” for me, since you use this word, is that a married couple who love each other respect the fact that the other person is no slave that you own, but are autonomous people with full authority over their own self. If the partners choice of when to have sex does not please you then you are in the wrong marriage and you are more than welcome to leave it.

I don't think the Christian scriptures encourage us to view wives as slaves. Hence why I included Ephesians chapter 5 in discussing it further. I agree with you on this. In an ideal marriage though, I think people will share love with each other sexually.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However I note again you did not answer my question. I asked you that, given we DO have authority over our own body, do you or do you not see any reason on the subject of prostitution to call it immoral, make it illegal, or even to stick our nose into anyone else's business in the first place on the matter? If no, then say it. If yes then adumbrate why.

I think prostitution should be illegal because it involves the sexual exploitation of people in vulnerable situations.

It's quite clear that I regard sex inside of marriage to be the best and most pragmatic situation for sexual intimacy.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass,

Again I did not say what the texts say. I gave you examples of others who do. What the Christian texts say is about as useful to me on this topic as what the Lord of the Rings says. Until such time as you show there is a god, then any “text” based on that assumption is about as useful to me as you coming into this conversation and saying “My imaginary friend says X so I want to use X as data in this conversation”.

Also you accredit me with more power than I wield with the words “It's up to you whether or not God exists”. It really is not. It either exists, or it does not. I have no power over this. It is not up to me to believe it exists either. I simply have not been shown any evidence at ALL that it does, therefore I have no other option available to me other than to proceed without that assumption. Nothing is “up to me” if I am given only one possible course.

So, since you can not show Christian Scripture to have ANY authority in this matter, let us return to the real world on topic shall we? In this real world you say you think prostitution should be illegal but you give no evidence or argument for this. The one thing you do say is that “it involves the sexual exploitation of people in vulnerable situations”

This is a problem for 2 reasons:

1) It does not do so exclusively. There are people who are perfectly willing to go into such lines of work and are not vulnerable at all. Therefore you are extrapolating a generalisation for all out of an anecdotal fraction.
2) The argument is too general. There are many industries which exploit workers with low pay, bad working conditions and no worker rights. This is an indictment of the employer in each industry, not of the product or service. For example children were found in poor countries to be used in sweat shops to produce a certain brand of clothing. This was clearly exploitation of the workers and people moved against that particular trade name and its management. At no point did any one stand up and say “Ah this means clothes are immoral!” It would have been ludicrous to do so, yet you do it here. This is a “guilt by association” fallacy.

philologos

Again, for the third time. The reason why Christianity is even involved in this discussion is due to the OP, and The Corinthian bringing it up. The point of quotation was to clarify how a strawman had been made. That's all.

I'm quite aware of your position on the Bible being like the Lord of the Rings, or God being an imaginary friend (All unsubstantiated positions in comparison to defences commonly made by apologists). It would be futile to even discuss how it rings true unless people are willing to consider that it is a possibility. That's why it was never my intention to get into such a discussion.

nozzferrahtoo wrote:

1) It does not do so exclusively. There are people who are perfectly willing to go into such lines of work and are not vulnerable at all. Therefore you are extrapolating a generalisation for all out of an anecdotal fraction.

In the majority of situations it is due to vulnerability, it also fuels illegal trafficking. It is essentially rape in a lot of cases as people are doing it through financial coercion and the inability to find a job. In most cases those involved are not from Ireland.

The law is there to protect people from harm. It is difficult if not impossible to reflect these situations in the law, therefore it should be exclusively illegal.

On a moral level, it also depends on what you think of sexuality. I don't consider it something like eating or drinking, it has more meaning than that.

nozzferrahtoo wrote:

The argument is too general. There are many industries which exploit workers with low pay, bad working conditions and no worker rights. This is an indictment of the employer in each industry, not of the product or service. For example children were found in poor countries to be used in sweat shops to produce a certain brand of clothing. This was clearly exploitation of the workers and people moved against that particular trade name and its management. At no point did any one stand up and say “Ah this means clothes are immoral!” It would have been ludicrous to do so, yet you do it here. This is a “guilt by association” fallacy.

Most industries do not. It is far easier to discern exploitation at work where it does not involve a private matter such as sexuality. I thought that was fairly straight forward.

The reasons for why I support clamping down on prostitution are two fold:
1) Safety for the women involved,
2) Moral reasons that are the result of my understanding of sexuality.

I don't believe in an excessively permissive society. Restrictions are needed to ensure general safety and human rights.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass,

I think you miss my point. I do not care WHY Christianity was involved in this thread. I am giving you my reasons why I think it is off topic and not useable as data in this thread. Until the base assumption of it, that there is a god, is shown to be true it just is not pertinent to this conversation. Going on about WHY it is on this thread is irrelevant to my point there.

If you can translate a Christian influenced concern into real world argument I would of course listen to it at length. Just saying “Its relevant because it is in scripture” is not enough however.

Given that you have not offered a shred of a scarp of evidence for this entity, the only assumption left open to us to choose from is that it exists purely in the heads of those who think it exists. As such it is not admissible here as actual data no matter how many times you call my position “unsubstantiated” as if that changes anything.

Back on topic again.

You say in the “majority” of situations. What studies of figures are you citing here? Also you are still committing “guilt by association” fallacy. If someone is raped then this is a crime of rape, not of prostitution. If someone is trafficked then this is a crime of trafficking, not of prostitution. These are crimes and I would stand shoulder to shoulder to you fighting against them.

However if someone chooses, of their own free will for whatever reason to enter into Prostitution, THIS is what I am asking about and you have given no argument against it yet. Instead you argue against crimes that are committed in parallel to it, and try and indict prostitution by association.

Similarly cigarettes and alcohol are illegally imported and sold on the black market. You might think these products are immoral and if you do then so be it. But they are not made immoral by someone illegally importing them. The illegal import is a separate crime in itself and C&A products are not indicted by the actions of these people. Just the same as prostitution is not indicted by the fact that people illegally traffic people to engage in it.

Or to put it even shorter: You are fighting the right battle but against the wrong target.

If you want the “safety” of women in the industry then stop forcing them underground by first making them illegal and secondly making them social pariahs that you call immoral. Legitimise their industry, make them tax payers on their income into their own tax, pension and medical insurance, and grant them all the transparent rights of worker safety and protection that we all enjoy in our industry of choice. Why not? … given that you have offered no argument to make the practise immoral or illegal other than that it does not conform to your personal measurement of what makes sexuality meaningful. Or put another way, if a product or service is not meaningful or useful to you then…. Simply do not purchase the product or service. Simple as that. However saying someone else can not sell or buy a product or service merely because you have a personal dislike or distaste for it, is really forcing your personal unsubstantiated views on others.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You say in the “majority” of situations. What studies of figures are you citing here? Also you are still committing “guilt by association” fallacy. If someone is raped then this is a crime of rape, not of prostitution. If someone is trafficked then this is a crime of trafficking, not of prostitution. These are crimes and I would stand shoulder to shoulder to you fighting against them.

I'm fairly sure the figures will back me up. I'll do some research when I get some time.

Carrying on though, if a rape is facilitated by prostitution, then prostitution is to blame for that

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However if someone chooses, of their own free will for whatever reason to enter into Prostitution, THIS is what I am asking about and you have given no argument against it yet. Instead you argue against crimes that are committed in parallel to it, and try and indict prostitution by association.

If it is impossible or unviable to legislate specifically for situations where the former is not the case then simply it should be completely illegal so as to minimise the risk to the general public.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Similarly cigarettes and alcohol are illegally imported and sold on the black market. You might think these products are immoral and if you do then so be it. But they are not made immoral by someone illegally importing them. The illegal import is a separate crime in itself and C&A products are not indicted by the actions of these people. Just the same as prostitution is not indicted by the fact that people illegally traffic people to engage in it.

I believe it is immoral for people to lie to the State concerning taxation in any form.

I believe the crime, and the facilitator are linked. You do not. There is such a thing as causation to be considered instead of separation of mere convenience.

Or to put it even shorter: You are fighting the right battle but against the wrong target.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you want the “safety” of women in the industry then stop forcing them underground by first making them illegal and secondly making them social pariahs that you call immoral. Legitimise their industry, make them tax payers on their income into their own tax, pension and medical insurance, and grant them all the transparent rights of worker safety and protection that we all enjoy in our industry of choice. Why not? … given that you have offered no argument to make the practise immoral or illegal other than that it does not conform to your personal measurement of what makes sexuality meaningful.

Nonsense. In Sweden they've had quite a lot of success in clamping down the prostitution industry. Clamping down has decreased the Swedish level of human trafficking to levels far far below the Dutch levels.

I don't think excessive permissiveness is the way forward.

nozzferrahhtoo

I see now what your main error is. Rape is not facilitated by prostitution any more than DVDs facilitate piracy.

You can not indict a service of industry by the fact people are able to use it to break a law.

To have a consistent position, based on what you just said, you would have to call for DVDs to be considered immoral and illegal because their presence allows people to break copyright laws.

So again you are fighting the right battle but against the wrong target. We should stand up against rapists and infringers of copyright law. This however does not indict prostitution or the DVD industry like you are attempting to make it using this guilt by association fallacy.

metrovelvet

If I remember correctly, Aquinas argued for the preservation of prostitution so as to prevent the decent women from being raped. I dont think it was that he thought the prostitutes would be raped but without the side outlet available to men, men would start raping decent women.

The church have historically had an ambivalent attitude towards prostitites, and were also if I remember correctly one of the main reasons purgatory was invented.

philologos

metrovelvet wrote: »

If I remember correctly, Aquinas argued for the preservation of prostitution so as to prevent the decent women from being raped. I dont think it was that he thought the prostitutes would be raped but without the side outlet available to men, men would start raping decent women.

Practically it is better if the State can minimise the prostitution industry as small as possible using police force as they have in Sweden than maximising it out allowing for more people to be in potential danger of being exploited.

N.B In Sweden it is illegal to seek out prostitution. So the crime falls on the one seeking it rather than the prostitute.

I like Aquinas' thoughts on some things. However I don't believe the Church Fathers are infallible. I regard him as a philosopher.

metrovelvet wrote: »

The church have historically had an ambivalent attitude towards prostitites, and were also if I remember correctly one of the main reasons purgatory was invented.

I personally don't believe in purgatory.

Carrying on though. I think that it is good that the Christian community stand up against the harm caused to vulnerable women through prostitution even if there are some who do it out of their own will. There will always be casualties through prostitution, so we're better off without it.

We're also better off as a society without encouraging the objectification of women as mere sexual objects. They should be appreciated as far more than this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

We're also better off as a society without encouraging the objectification of women as mere sexual objects. They should be appreciated as far more than this.

Yes exactly. They should be treated as autonomous people who have control over their own body. People who can enter a career path of THEIR choosing without us wrapping them up in cotton wool telling them what they can or can not do consensually with their own body or career choices, especially when you are yet to show a single argument against prostitution in and of itself except a hand full of guilt by association fallacies.

994

Jakkass wrote: »

N.B In Sweden it is illegal to seek out prostitution. So the crime falls on the one seeking it rather than the prostitute.

Is that really just? So a woman can sell an illegal service with impunity, but a man who buys that illegal service can be jailed?