THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.sex.wizards,alt.magick.tantra,alt.magick,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Sacred Prostitutes (was Re: Sexuality and Spirituality - ...)
Followup-To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.sex.wizards,alt.magick.tantra,alt.magick,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan
Date: 13 Jun 1996 22:04:29 -0700
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 113
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <4pqrst$3v6@jobe.shell.portal.com>
References: <4l94br$kk5@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com <4lho04$3od@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <317D0448.599E@sonic.net> ... <31bad970.64166418@news1.is.net>  
Reply-To: boggles@io.com (Jennifer Boggess)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick.tyagi:8499 alt.sex.wizards:47551 alt.magick.tantra:1902 alt.magick:76186 alt.religion.sexuality:12903 alt.religion:2347 talk.religion.misc:224107 talk.religion.newage:52610

[from alt.pagan: boggles@io.com (Jennifer Boggess)]

In article ,
AshleyB@halcyon.com (Ashley Branchfeather) wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Jun 1996 02:45:16 -0600, boggles@io.com (Jennifer Boggess)
> wrote:
> >But being ministered to by a priestess of the Goddess in Her temple, and
> >in return making a donation to its upkeep and the livelihood of Her
> >priestesses - not dehumanizing, but deifying, not degrading but uplifting,
> >returning sex to a union of the God and Goddess in a holy worker and a
> >supplicant - is that not spiritual?
> 
> I think it degrades the Goddess, and it certainly degrades the God. 

So I take it you are opposed to the historical practice of the Sacred
Prostiutes?  Is Innana not an aspect of the Goddess?

> His
> Divine Love is considered 'not good enough' and money is asked of Him
> instead. 

Not at all.  In this interaction, the supplicant is raised to the status
of the God by lovemaking with the Goddess in the form of one of her
priestesses.  For the priestesses, this is a full-time job; shouldn't the
clergy be kept fed?  The question of 'good enough' doesn't enter into it;
this isn't a romantic love match, but a religious ceremony along the lines
of the Eucharist.  (Not that romantic love isn't also good - I, for one,
highly enjoy it - but it simply isn't what we're talking about here.)

> The God I know would be deeply insulted at that, and I feel the
> same way. 

Hmm . . . the God I know would not be.  Pan, at least as I know him, would
have no problems at all.

Note that I would expect the God to have sacred prostitutes of his own . . . 

> Come to think of it, the Goddess I know would be horrified if
> She was ever offered cash for Her Divine Love. Love wants Love, not money.

But what would her priestesses eat?  Yes, Love wants Love - but love may
be expressed in many ways.  An offering of fruit or maintainence work on
the temple would be appropriate, yes?  Then why not the money to purchase
these things?  

Now, if the Godess offered herself freely, and her supplicant
misunderstood and believed it to be a transaction, I would understand her
being offended - but not  by the simple and understood ceremony of Sacred
Sex.

> >I think it's sad that we've lost the
> >idea that any sexual union done in perfect love an perfect trust is
> >potentially a union of the Mother and the Father.  "Greasy cash"
> >notwithstanding.
> 
> What perfect love? Do prostitutes love their clients? 

If they're good at their work they do.  They don't love them in that
Western Romeo-loves-Juliet sort of way, but if they are practitioners of
sacred sex, they should have a respect and caring for their clients, both
as a group and as individuals.

> What's perfect about
> it if they have sex to extract money from you? 

In the scenario I describe above, they're not, any more than your
therapist is talking to you to extract money from you.  They're having sex
with you to connect you with the Divine.  That, IMHO, takes love and
trust.

> Besides, how can you have
> Perfect Trust when they're putting on an act for you? I feel the clients
> are worth more than that.

So, IMHO, would Her Priestesses in the scenario outlined above.  They
wouldn't be putting on an act; they'd be acting as the representative of
the Goddess.  (Or the God, for Sacred Sex priests of the God.)  

> >And if you think there being money involved
> >automatically depersonalizes the whole thing, you have no business going
> >to a massage therapist, doctor, nurse, or counselor - these require almost
> >as much love and trust, and you don't blanch at handing them their earned
> >check.
> 
> Trust, maybe, but I don't love my doctor nor does she love me. She heals
> me and I'm grateful, and I pay her fee. 

And how effective, without love, is that healing?  Does she not care for
your well-being?  I wouldn't want to patronize a doctor who didn't care
for each of his or her patients personally.

> I don't heal her. She doesn't need
> to trust me all that much, either. 

Doesn't she trust you to share the complaints and imperfections of your
body with her?  Treating a hypochondriac is very difficult precisely
because you can't trust them to report their symptoms accurately.

> Sex, on the other hand, is a lot more
> than healing: when it's sacred it's an exchange of love and trust,
> unsullied by one person's motive to extract money from the other. That's
> what 'Perfect Love' means.

I agree with you.  I still believe that sex with a Sacred Prostitute can
be at least as healing and uplifting as an encounter with a massage
therapist, counselor, or doctor, and possibly a lot more.

-- 
 - Boggles, aka Jennifer Boggess              boggles@io.com
                                              omorka@brewich.com
 "I'm the one you're looking for; lay your burden down" 
       - Beans Barton