Talk:Sacred prostitution

message: :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:
#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.
#Rea Silvia was killed for breaking a vow of celibacy -- so either Vesta went through priestesses very quickly, or there's something wrong here.
#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. 
#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)
thread_title:  Priestesses of Vesta in Rome 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect 

message: 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"
:Actually, the word you are looking for is Qedesha,Kedesha, קְדֵשָה, which means a paid prostitute. YUBachur 3:46, 3 June 2012
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)
thread_title:  Error 

message: 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)
replies: text: Aphrodite was herself a foreign goddess, adopted by the Greeks from the Phoenicians. "Qedesh" may have been a Phoenician title for Ashtoreth (pick your variant name), and would have signified "the Holy One" - a term used also in Hebrew (closely related to Phoenician) to denite consecrated temple courtesans of Canaanite religious practice. So, in answer to your question, quite possibly. 74.83.14.59 (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qedesh in Athens? 

message: 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) , 
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)
thread_title:  Biblical references 

message: 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)
replies: text: In the Ancient Near East section, what is meant by "argues taxatively?"  A more standard adverb would be an improvement, but I can't offer one: I don't understand the meaning. Ohayrt (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Greece and Rome 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revisionism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reorganized 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Surviving references

message: 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)
thread_title: False Mesopotamian History

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Biased Revisionism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Anti-Iranian blogs are not reliable sources. — goethean ॐ 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What Goethean said. Pimping for Allah? Drmies (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How can one go about verifying the authenticity of a document and its translation?K012957 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Modern day Iranian sacred prostitution 

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

message: In the article it is claimed that the biblical word "kelev" means dogs.  Not; it is meant as a man-servant or scout.  There was no Hebrew word for dog when Eliezer Ben-Yehuda helped create the modern lexicon.  He chose the word "kelev."Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelev 

message: In this section 
Whatever the cultic significance of a kedeshah to a follower of the Canaanite religion, the Hebrew Bible makes it clear that cultic prostitution had no place in Judaism.   The word Judaism is used incorrectly here.  There was no use of the word Jew until after the Babylonian exile. The HB largely refers to Israelite and Judahite religions.  The Primary Source used is for Deutronaomy which is too early to use the word Judaism.  I am happy to use another term such as Israelite and Judahite religion, but Judaism is not correct.  Note that use Debresser removed the phrase worship of Yahweh, which he/she incorrectly referred to as cult of Yahweh.  What other term should be used, as the Primary source of Deuteronomy is clearly referring to Yahweh worship here, as opposed to one of the other Israelite/Judahite gods/goddesses.  Suggestions for re wording are welcomed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Judaism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sacred prostitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506011058/http://www.homepages.ihug.com.au/~kimkemmis/bibhom/Deut.htm to http://www.homepages.ihug.com.au/~kimkemmis/bibhom/Deut.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108223720/http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes275/studentproj/jy84/index.html to http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/nes275/studentproj/jy84/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article seems to tie together very different phenomena across time and space. The subtopics don't hang together well, and I don't think it makes sense to maintain the scope as is. 
I propose splitting the Ancient Near Eastern, Greek, and Roman from the other sections to create a more coherent article. It seems like the other sections should be deleted or re-distributed to other articles.  Thoughts? 
-Artemeesia (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article? 

message: I'm moving the Japan section to the talk page because it is such a mess.  The main source is a website with advice about visiting "sex clubs" in Japan.  That site cites no sources, and is neither scholarly nor neutral.  I have no idea what "Kuly, 198" is.  Trying to search for it just leads back here.
: Seems heavy-handed to remove the section. "Kuly, 198" refers to: Kuly, Lisa. " Locating Transcendence in Japanese Minzoku Geinô: Yamabushi and Miko Kagura," Ethnologies 25.1:191–208. (2003) See notes & references on Miko --John B123 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found no mention of temple prostitutes in Kuly's work. It seems that they came from the sex club source, which is obviously biased and contains no references to actual research. I will remove that source and rewrite the section to be more in line with Kuly. --Gaahsbgz (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan 

message: Sacred prostitution was once practised by the Miko within traditional Shinto in Japan. There were once Shinto beliefs that prostitution was sacred, and there used to be lodgings for the temple prostitutes on the shrine grounds. This traditional practise came to an end during the beginning of the Meiji era, due to the encroachment of Western Christian morality, and the government implementing the Shinbutsu bunri; which, among other things, drastically decreased the roles of the Miko, and modified Shinto beliefs until it became what is now colloquially referred to as State Shinto.Ways of thinking that connect religion and prostitutionKuly, 198.
126.16.4.74 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: Temporary/alternative marriage arrangements do not qualify as prostitution as a concept in Islam. "Sacred" prostitution is even further and such arrangements, if even taken as prostitution —which is not the way it is legalized in Islam— is a social arrangement and does not have a sacred aspect to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F109:F800:6442:AC9B:FC19:F9C6 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst temporary marriages may not be considered as prostitution in Islam, in practice its widely used to circumvent anti=prostitution laws, and iddah after a temporary marriage is often not adhered to. However, whatever your view on temporary marriages, I don't see they qualify to be included as sacred prostitution, and neither does concubinage, John B123 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with that they are widely used to circumvent anti-prostitution laws. How widely iddah is adhered to in practice, I do not know; however, if it's not adhered to, then that kind of marriage would be legally problematic due to the Islamic jurisprudence, http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=330955, apparently, and that would constitute malpractice by Muslims rather than a workaround endorsement for prostitution in Islam. And yes, my main objection is, regardless of whether you classify this as prostitution or not, it is definitely not "sacred" prostitution. 2001:56A:F109:F800:6442:AC9B:FC19:F9C6 (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thought the same thing. I saw this discussion and decided against deleting. Why does anyone want to add sexual slavery in general and concubinage which is not sacred prostitution is beyond me. 202.14.122.201 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: "However, there are multiple examples of condemnation and instructions against male same-sex intercourse (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus 20:13) in the Torah that predate Judaism.[citation needed]"
Is anyone aware of any evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah predate Judaism? Or are we taking Leviticus as a historical source, and is that what authorities say we should do?  deisenbe (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sodom and Gemorah - pre-Israelite? 

message: The article is called: "Sacred prostitution"
and starts with:
"Sacred prostitution, temple prostitution, cult prostitution, and religious prostitution are general terms for a sexual rite consisting of sexual intercourse or other sexual activity performed in the context of religious worship, perhaps as a form of fertility rite or divine marriage (hieros gamos)."
But then caveats that with:
"Some scholars prefer the terms "sacred sex" or "sacred sexual rites" to "sacred prostitution" in cases where payment for services was not involved."
Reading the citations listed it seems more of the sources use `sacred sexual rites' or similar than the term prostitution or at least mention than calling the practices prostitution was generally a description made after the fact by latter scholars. In the interest of academic neutrality wouldn't calling the article: "sacred sexual rites" (with a redirect from any searches for sacred prostitution) with the article listing that these activities are sometimes called as above, be a more accurate (and less loaded) reflection of the scholarship?
(I also note that it seems explicit payment for services was the exception rather than the norm in most of the instances discussed in the bulk of the article, so that `sacred sex rites' is also the more often accurate term for the collective practice as it doesn't exclude sacred prostitution as an example. Where as the reverse is not true).
Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlEDaze (talk • contribs) 05:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, it seems difficult to tell apart literal prostitution from unpaid sex from what sources tell us about sexual rites. The fact both are included here is because, as you said, academia has traditionally covered both under the same term due to this inability to certainly differentiate between both. I think your idea about the rename has a good basis, but we have already a separate article for that, sexual ritual. You might want to expand on it. Creador de Mundos (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for discussion about accurate representation of cited sources before making any edits 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Devadasi  § RfC: Should article reference reports of sexual exploitation and prostitution in the modern day.  Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Talk:Devadasi]]

message: stop pushing your theory 80.57.2.97 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephanie 

message: "Nevertheless, zonah and qedeshah are not interchangeable terms: the former occurs 93 times in the Bible, whereas the latter is only used in three places, conveying different connotations." If you're taking a stance, state your stance! What do you mean? Not that it matters much, since you're quoting no author. Why do you want that bullshit detail to be there? If it's true, it's trivially true. And Strong's isn't a source! It's not even a good source for word frequency in the corpus, the way you're using it! And rules policing to reinstate unsourced content? Come on. Explain to me why you want the claim to be true. @Johnb123 Temerarius (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is lengthy discussion above by multiple editors on this and other items leading to the inclusion of the text you dispute. Strong is widely cited in other publications which per WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes it an acceptable source. If you wish the text removed you need to give good reason, not just it's "bullshit", and gain consensus. --John B123 (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Who? The fact it's been turned over on the talk page doesn't make it significant. It's a nonclaim in response to an imagined claim. It's misleading to readers both with knowledge and without. Temerarius (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Strong's isn't a general source! It's Strong's. It's got issues. It's applicable for narrow purposes. It's to be used carefully, not indiscriminately. Temerarius (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

text: You're telling me that by the rules, you're... allowed to keep the material on. It's up to Wikipedia standards. Sure, if you argue so. But you're arguing "may" while I'm arguing "should." Temerarius (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't care if the article takes a stance, I care that it's transparent about the meaning of the stances it takes. Temerarius (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I also refer to Strong's by the way, but narrowly. Temerarius (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   It's called consensus, that's the way Wikipedia works. --John B123 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nevertheless..."