temple prostitution

[Alzrius]

I guess this is far different from the lot of the typical female prostitute, but I guess my point is that, assuming sexual politics is entirely due to socialisation (which I doubt), then the society in which the prostitution takes place could well see prostitutes of either or both genders proud of what they do, and possibly envied.

You make some good points Snoweel, but tleilaxu already said previously that he was only interested in this aspect in the form of female prostitution, not male.

That said, sexual politics is entirely due to socialization. There is nothing ingrained in our minds about how we view sex and gender roles, thats something that society creates. A guy wouldn't be upset at being a gigolo because, in this society, its more acceptable for men to sleep around than it is for women, so a man would feel a lot less shame about doing that for money.

Again, as far as I know, women prostitutes, which is what tleilaxu was talking about, are not proud about what they do. Hence, I think that those temple priestesses would try to differentiate themselves from "normal" prostitutes to distance themselves from the inherent social shame of that occupation.

 

[mythago]

Social shame depends on the social context, no?

 

[Alzrius]

Absolutely. I was assuming, since every indication we've gotten is that the society in question for this campaign where the priestess are is like our own in how gender roles work, that it would also be shameful for women to sleep around, and even more shameful to do it for money.

Hence, social shame in this context is inherent in women as prostitutes. That's what I'm saying those priestesses would try to get away from. They'd be doing the same services, but by convincing people its not really prostitution, they'd move to a different social context, and thus they'd get more respect from other people, and have more respect for themselves (and of course the whole holy aspect would help also).

 

[mythago]

Gotcha. It would, of course, depend on the campaign setting--but there is historical precedent for women being "entertainers" (heterae or geisha) who may incidentally trade sex for money, but who are definitely regarded as far above a common prostitute. Definitely not 'respectable women,' but having a certain level of social respectability.

 

[Alzrius]

Point taken. That is indeed true of other cultures. I've looked at geishas in my studies on Japanese culture, and they were viewed as being more respectable than mere prostitutes. Of course, not all geishas were prostitutes, and some geishas were more respectable than others.

Like I said, I assumed tleilaxu was operating in a campaign were gender roles and such were paralleling the modern, western view of such things.

 

[Snoweel]

That said, sexual politics is entirely due to socialization.

Which, it can be argued, is entirely due to the fact that one gender is able to give birth and therefore be positive as to their parenthood, while the other has no such assurance.

So the sexual politics that admittedly are due to socialisation are the unavoidable result of one gender attempting to gain some control over the "superior" reproductive role that the other gender was gifted with. So, it's socialisation intrinsically linked to a genetically determined gender fact.

There is nothing ingrained in our minds about how we view sex and gender roles, thats something that society creates.

And I explained why above.

A guy wouldn't be upset at being a gigolo because, in this society, its more acceptable for men to sleep around than it is for women, so a man would feel a lot less shame about doing that for money.

Now you're generalising. I'm sure most of us know females who are proudly promiscuous. Of course this is due to socialisation, which I've admitted, but I believe such an attitude will always remain a rare aberration. (Though I've lived in countries where the genders are more (and less) identical in their places within sexual politics.

Again, as far as I know, women prostitutes, which is what tleilaxu was talking about, are not proud about what they do. Hence, I think that those temple priestesses would try to differentiate themselves from "normal" prostitutes to distance themselves from the inherent social shame of that occupation.

Assuming modern day sexual politics (as opposed to, say, that of the Celts), I'd have to agree with you.

But any culture that has priestesses selling their bodies is likely to have far different sexual politics than our own.

 

[Alzrius]

tleilaxu, have you seen the adventure "Porphyry House of Horrors" (the Book of Vile Darkness adventure) in Dungeon #94 (I think it was 94...)?

Its something you may want to use for ideas, since the Porphyry House is a whorehouse. It's not a temple (except in the fact that its a front for a cult), but its got good ideas for how a brothel would be run in a magical world. There are some ideas there that you might find worth lifting.

 

[Alzrius]

Which, it can be argued, is entirely due to the fact that one gender is able to give birth and therefore be positive as to their parenthood, while the other has no such assurance.

So the sexual politics that admittedly are due to socialisation are the unavoidable result of one gender attempting to gain some control over the "superior" reproductive role that the other gender was gifted with. So, it's socialisation intrinsically linked to a genetically determined gender fact.

This is completely discounting matrilineal, and to a degree matriarchal, societies that have sprung up over the years. There is nothing "unavoidable" about men trying to oppress women to "gain control" over the "superior" reproductive role, and even then that explanation for why men do oppress women is just one of many, and it quite debatable. There is nothing factual in there.

Sex is different from sexuality and gender roles. You can have male or female reproductive organs, but there is nothing at all inherent in how that will make you behave. Society shapes gender, and those roles are not necessarily tied to sex at all.

Now you're generalising. I'm sure most of us know females who are proudly promiscuous. Of course this is due to socialisation, which I've admitted, but I believe such an attitude will always remain a rare aberration. (Though I've lived in countries where the genders are more (and less) identical in their places within sexual politics.

Well, yeah. I'm not going to take every single exception into account. Obviously any over-arching statement has those it doesn't apply to. When speaking of a society as a whole, generalities are all you have to work with.

But any culture that has priestesses selling their bodies is likely to have far different sexual politics than our own.

Thats debatable, hence what we're doing here. Just because a society has one aspect to it thats different from our own doesn't mean that some generalities can't be the same. Hence why many countries in our world, with different customs and cultural practices, can still find women prostitutes to be undeserving of respect.

 

[Wayside]

You ought to check Herodotus Histories, the original source for this practice. I believe that it was a religious duty of the worshippers, not solely of the priestesses, to serve thus in the temples at least once before marrying, and I seem to recall that Herodotus says something about prices.

Sure, check Herodotos out, however he is not the 'original' source. The oldest written accounts of such practices are Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian. It even serves an important purpose in the epic of Gilgamesh, when the temple whore seduces Enkidu out of the wild into civilisation after 7 days and 7 nights of uninterrupted.. umm.. gung-ho action.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I would insert a caveat into this argument on the formation of gender as opposed to sex.

It is difficult to say to what level sex informs gender as we have very little idea about which demonstrated differences between the sexes are caused by what and less about how this would inform differences between the behaviours of members of different sexes. What cannot be doubted is that society builds the idea of gender and much gender based behavior stems from the resulting socialization.

Also humans are notoriously various. Even where differences in capabilities and behavior are provable to some point of generality this is no guarantee that comparative differences between individuals will not be either aberrant or greater.

All of which is to say, that is dangerous to say that society creates the entirety of any behavior without regard to other external, internal, individual, or historical factors.

But also to say, that we have a lot of play in talking about differences between societies and individuals within them whether those societies are real or hypothetical.

I would also add that a primary difference I see between early societies that do or do not participate in the behavior of ritual prostitution is the degree to which the society has been made fluent in property and households. One of the distinct differences in the account of Herodotus is the distinction between Greek society in which the individual and household is priveleged above all else, so that the polis is a collection of these units, and the Barbaric societies in which people are far more beholden to the idea of the group and the super-individual, such as the king or god.

This would be related to what I said above about the profit being expressed in non-monetary values.

In response to some prior questions, the Hebrew correlations are could point you to are mostly the ones that have been pointed out to me from the old testament. No full descriptions to parallel, which would be a little suspicious if they were there, but small details showing up in various places.

I'm not very familiar with the scope of scholarship on this subject outside of Herodotus, Gilgamesh, and the general works I've read on Babylon and Summeria.

Someone mentioned earlier that the Ishtar cults simply encouraged promiscuity and I have no idea if this is true or not. But I would suspect that part of the problem of sacred prostitution in areas with a mixture or religious practices would be that it makes an ideal convenience. The sacred adjective would provide woman who were prostitutes with additional protection, which would also make prostitution a far more attractive option. Particularly if there is a local culture that disapproved.

I think there was also a mention of the rise of proscriptions against sodomy from these interactions in the Eastern mediterranean. I don't doubt that there is truth to that, but I would also point out that the idea of sodomy and homosexuality is wildly flexible over the course of English history of the last 400 years alone. Claiming that current ideas of those proscriptions are that old makes the history of those ideas much simpler than they are.