Jump to content

Talk:Sacred prostitution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question for discussion about accurate representation of cited sources before making any edits

[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Devadasi

[edit]

 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)[reply]

Stephanie

[edit]

stop pushing your theory 80.57.2.97 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless..."

[edit]

"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)[reply]

@Temerarius: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I also refer to Strong's by the way, but narrowly. Temerarius (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it's been turned over on the talk page doesn't make it significant. It's called consensus, that's the way Wikipedia works. --John B123 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]