Prostitution vs adultery

[frederick]

you are paying for her time for the next hour

I've never been to Amsterdam, so I can't vouch for the accuracy, but I saw a YT video where a woman said she sells 20 minute "appointments." Payment first and the clock starts when the cash is exchanged. Sounds brutal but that is business in the EU.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Fair point.

• A wife is a woman who you sleep with on the understanding that she is committed to you for an indefinite period of time (even if you think divorce is permissible, that's not the plan, your understanding is that the two of you are a thing for as long as possible if not forever).
• A prostitute is a woman who you sleep with on the understanding that you are paying for her time for the next hour and she is giving you no commitment whatsoever beyond that time on the clock.

The difference is about intent. There is no difference regarding "one flesh" - sex creates a "one flesh" bond, whatever that is, so both situations create a "one flesh" bond. "One flesh" is identical in both circumstances. You cannot recognise the difference if you are unwilling to look beyond "one flesh". You might as well stand beside a car or a tractor, staring at the engine, and say "I can't see how these vehicles are different, because a vehicle is a thing with an engine, and they both have engines, so they're both the same" - while refusing to take your eyes off the engine and see any other parts of the vehicle.

And this then shows us the difference between sex with another man's wife, and sex with a prostitute. Sex with another man's wife is sex with a woman who is committed to another man. Sex with a prostitute is sex with a woman who is NOT committed to another man. The commitment / intent makes the difference.

From a practical standpoint I completely agree with you. I can even root that principle in a logic train that is based in scripture. What I can not do is find a passage that says that. Also there is another problem; we have to deal with Paul’s admonition to not lie with a harlot because the two become one flesh. That’s an intention free one flesh.

I’m not just being obstinate or obtuse or even obstructive. It’s objectively what the text says. Obviously. Unless someone wants to obfuscate it. They would have to be pretty oblivious to try that though. It would send the conversation all pear shaped, or oblong as it were.

 

[The Revolting Man]

How about trying to understand the concept of logical sequence, and necessary but not sufficient conditions? Like the fact that he could not (unless he was Zec-like) manage to consummate with her without her actually having agreed to the marriage and ridden on a camel for days. "Contract," and Covenant.

This is why you don't have reasoned discussions with someone so hubris filled as to claim:

So there was no marriage until consummation? You’re agreeing with me? Prior to taking her to the tent anyone could have backed out and it would have just been a crazy road trip? Did anyone else hear Mark agree with me? I want this moved to the best of forums.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Let’s say Issac took Rebekah in secret. Are they married? No - he would have to get permission from her covering. The way Abraham did it for his son - Issac - was righteousness in action.

You left out some parts; they were related, there had to be along journey and there were lots of camels involved. Those are all necessary parts of a valid marriage too! Also expensive gifts! Poor people aren’t allowed to get married! It’s only for rich relatives who live far apart and have lots of camels!

Would you be serious? You can’t look at one example of a marriage and just pick the elements from it you want to implement. We’re not even expressly told God approves of this marriage. If Isaac and Rebecca’s marriage is the template then you have to use the whole thing as the template. Go get some camels or you’re an adulterer.

And then you can try to find some scriptural justification for a brother being a covering. That will keep you busy for a long time since there is none. Of course if we were going to do that then we would have to find some scriptural basis for a woman always having to have a covering which you can’t, in fact I can prove the exact opposite.

But hey, let’s start with the small lifting out of the way first.

 

[The Revolting Man]

because the scripture states her father and mother died. She

No it doesn’t. You’re assuming that.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is still the best conversation we’ve had on this topic.

Meat Thread 'One Flesh: Restoring God's words around "marriage"'

Feb 25, 2023

I apologize for starting yet one more new thread around the topic of one flesh, however previous threads have taken a verse-by-verse approach and I want to take a more holistic approach this time by looking at all the verses that contain the phrase one flesh at once.

Some of what I'm going to say won't be surprising to some of you and some will. Let's start with the most surprising part, I may be in the throes of an evolution around an aspect of this issue. There's something in 1 Corinthians 6:16 we've all missed and that colors my bumper sticker statement that "sex=marriage." We'll talk...

• The Revolting Man
• Replies: 88
• Forum: Marriage Issues

• 
• 

I wish we had been able to finish it. I just reread it and was a little disappointed in my prose. It was too dense can closely reasoned. I didn’t clearly state what I was going to say before I said it. I was very excited and it was taking all of my concentration to contain my nervous energy and boundless enthusiasm. There was a lot of shouting and wild gesticulating while I wrote that.

I’m very grateful for this Proverbs 6 talk because it really is the only weak spot in the argument. Solomon assumes the existence of a scenario where you can have sex with a woman and not be committing adultery. Unless we try and claim that it’s a virgin prostitute I have some explaining to do.

But once I do explain it then I’m not sure what objections could be left.

 

[Maddog]

SMH.... not this again

 

[OttoM]

No it doesn’t. You’re assuming that.

Nonetheless, she's a captive from a war. The situation is similar to a man purchasing a servant woman. If the man chooses to have sexual relations with her - and she is not engaged or married - is her status not upgraded to (his) wife? He doesn't have to get permission from a covering.

 

[FollowingHim]

Also there is another problem; we have to deal with Paul’s admonition to not lie with a harlot because the two become one flesh. That’s an intention free one flesh.

I actually said that myself, that fact doesn't contradict anything I said, it's actually integral to it. Read what I wrote again, I'm not sure how you missed this.

SMH.... not this again

Yes, please let's stick strictly to the prostitution question at hand as much as that is possible...