This is fair. I may be conflating my irritation at the classlessness in the APG with my disgust for G&M (which does come all the way out and present prostitution as an objective good). I'm not sure if I can properly detangle them, but that's not the APG authors' fault.
No, it represents courtesanship as an objective good.
Why not?Because I have no intention of discussing psychosexuality with random strangers under my own name on a Google-indexed public forum for an RPG. I do have a real life when I'm not fighting pretend dragons. The extent to which I am willing to go into my beliefs is that I feel that institutionalized prostitution is an objective social evil and should not be presented sympathetically. I don't want to get get into a discussion of "Well, what is prostitution, really?" like Kolo seems to want to start. That said...
Actually no, my point is that everything every organized church in history has given to its parish members, in particular its sacrements has been with the request of money, goods, time(labor) in return. If one can accept that sexual acts can be sacrements, then one should be able to accept that the organization of the church will expect compensation in return. This would be prostitution in your view no? Chuch sacred prostitutes give out 'sacrements' parishioners give church money. I think that is straightfoward prostitution no?
Ok, task for you...what exactly is morally reprehensible about prostitution? If you could make ordered points so it is easier to reply to, that would be wonderful.I have no intention of discussing psychosexuality with random strangers under my own name on a Google-indexed public forum for an RPG. I do have a real life when I'm not fighting pretend dragons. The extent to which I am willing to go into my beliefs is that I feel that institutionalized prostitution is an objective social evil and should not be presented sympathetically.
Not only that, but with no moderation the forums are currently a piranha pool.
Well are you willing to explain why you think it is, that the version of a goodly calastrian temple I presented is evil or even neutral, given the massive potential for benefit it could provide?
Actually no, my point is that everything every organized church in history has given to its parish members, in particular its sacrements has been with the request of money, goods, time(labor) in return.Not every religious belief set has a corresponding religious institution. The most successful belief sets do, because religious institutions are very good for spreading belief sets.
What
Actually no, my point is that everything every organized church in history has given to its parish members, in particular its sacrements has been with the request of money, goods, time(labor) in return.Not every religious belief set has a corresponding religious institution. The most successful belief sets do, because religious institutions are very good for spreading belief sets.
Ok, but we are talking about an institution here right? Your offense comes not from the fact that prostituion exists, or that there are good people who are involved or had been involved in it. But that there is a church of a specific god that promotes it as a positive thing correct? From your comments about your problem with the description of the potential behavior of 'good' churches of Caelistra that is what I gathered.
|
WhatActually no, my point is that everything every organized church in history has given to its parish members, in particular its sacrements has been with the request of money, goods, time(labor) in return.Not every religious belief set has a corresponding religious institution. The most successful belief sets do, because religious institutions are very good for spreading belief sets.
Not every religion has a clergy.
|
Can I ask, now that AMIB has denied the request to go into detail regarding his feelings about societal/psychological concerns regarding the concept of prostitution and other similar concepts multiple times (and by the way in a succinct and polite manner) what is the objective of asking him the same question with slightly different formatting over and over?
People have been basically been telling him to shut up over multiple threads for the last 36 hours, NOW everyone wants to poke at him because he finds a topic that he doesn't feel comfortable addressing?
I'm just not sure I understand the need to press the issue...
|
Not every religion has a clergy.WhatActually no, my point is that everything every organized church in history has given to its parish members, in particular its sacrements has been with the request of money, goods, time(labor) in return.Not every religious belief set has a corresponding religious institution. The most successful belief sets do, because religious institutions are very good for spreading belief sets.
Yeah, like dead religions.
*points finger at Akhenaten*
Well are you willing to explain why you think it is, that the version of a goodly calastrian temple I presented is evil or even neutral, given the massive potential for benefit it could provide?Because no such organization could exist in the real world without oppression and exploitation. They're "good" in the setting, because all of the nastiness of real life has been whisked away by fiat. This is dangerous because people very easily fall into the same illusion, ignoring the harm to focus on the (largely imagined) weal.
Completely ignoring the fact that such organizations have existed in the past.
|
I don't get it at all.
A priestess of Calistria who offers sexual companionship in exchange of (money, favors, informations, etc.) is quite difficult to be described as under an enslavement, or being forcefully exploited to have an undesirable phisical intercourse.
Quite the contrary, most of the time I can envision her being the one who has the control of the situation, often manipulating the partner - but not by using forceful means.
In the in-depth article describing Calistria's faith, I seem to remember that any kind of sexual abuse is frowned upon (and falls squarely under the area of influence of at least a couple of demon princes).
So a priestess of Calistria (and the quite rare male priest) freely and willingly offers sex, maybe adding a kink or two for added spice, and asks for something - again, not necessarily money - which is a fact well known and understood by most people.
And... so?
i lol'ed at this thread.
First sex priestess were very common. It was quite an honor to be a priestess of say a Aphrodite.
they were not exploited or enslaved, and in general one had to have high breeding to become. I think what has happened is that people keep trying to view somthing from the past with modern lenes instead of viewing the situation as it existed then.
Ok, but we are talking about an institution here right? Your offense comes not from the fact that prostituion exists, or that there are good people who are involved or had been involved in it. But that there is a church of a specific god that promotes it as a positive thing correct? From your comments about your problem with the description of the potential behavior of 'good' churches of Caelistra that is what I gathered.I'm offended that the people who are involved in it are presented as doing good work by being involved in it. I'm not offended by people doing evil things or by impersonal social evils which are a fact of life, but I am offended by a fictional world constructed so that a real-world objective social evil is presented as an unvarnished good act.
I'm not offended by the LE church practicing slavery because it's efficient and effective. I'm not offended by the LN church practicing slavery because it's necessary. I'm not offended by the LG church tolerating slavery because of the harm overthrowing it would cause, although that is a pretty grimdark setting. I am offended by the LG church promoting slavery as long as the slaves are treated extra nice (if it was presented completely seriously; in the case of slavery it'd be hard to not come off as a joke even presented straightfaced).
Completely ignoring the fact that such organizations have existed in the past.Understandable, but that's the past. This is an entertainment product being sold in 2010. Even if nice people did [now-reprehensible act] a long time ago, that doesn't mean I want people who do [now-reprehensible act] to be treated sympathetically outside of a strictly historical work.
You see, your problem is that you are assuming that prostitution is an objective moral evil. I, many people I know, and many people I am reading on this board, disagree with you. Obviously, it isn't as objective as you think it is.
OF course it is! Rabblerabblerabblerabble!
*shrugs* I, in real life would support anyone who chose to be a sacred prostitute for their religion. You think it's morally reprehensible. I do not. Neither does my girlfriend, who agrees with me.
Obviously, if it's his belief, and he feels it is, then it must be objectively true.
i lol'ed at this thread.
First sex priestess were very common. It was quite an honor to be a priestess of say a Aphrodite.
they were not exploited or enslaved, and in general one had to have high breeding to become. I think what has happened is that people keep trying to view somthing from the past with modern lenes instead of viewing the situation as it existed then.
You should probably talk to a historian about that. According to the best scientific knowledge of history today, scared prostitutes didn't exist in the way you seem to imagine. While there is of course evidence of slaves donated as prostitutes to temples, I doubt this has the positive connotation you seem to refer to. Modern scientific views are something like this:
No longer seeing sacred prostitution as an historical reality, it now becomes feasible to study supposed references to this institution in a different light, dealing with issues of symbolic language rather than historical accuracy. In my paper, I discuss two of the earliest perceived references to sacred prostitution in the Classical corpus -- Herodotos 1.199 and Pindar frag. 122. The former relates how all Babylonian women, once in their lives, must have sex with a foreigner in honour of the goddess Mylitta. The latter describes the “donation” of a group of prostitutes to the goddess Aphrodite. A dominant theme in both passages is the conflation of religion and rape, how the manipulation of women’s sexuality in the name of a deity is used to express defeat on the part of the feminine or effeminized characters, divinization on the part of the masculine.
In the end, I argue that, contrary to many modern perceptions, sacred prostitution does not extol sexuality or fertility as expressions of religious devotion. Rather, the religio-sexual subjugation of the “prostitutes” serves as a metaphor for human hubris at best and tragedy at worst.
Obviously, this realistic view doesn't hold the allure that the romanticized view seems to have on many posters here.
|
|
I sorta understand AMiB's issue. It's like why don't Paizo just put in a trait that allow that character to be good at keeping slaves. And it's done for the slaves sake (a good act). You provide shelter amd sustenance. Why slaves should be LUCKY to have a slave owner like yourself.
Since Paizo is willing to be direct, why don't we have that? And promote it as a good thing for society?
I don't agree with his belief, but I see where AMiB is coming from.
This thread should be locked however, since most people aren't reading what he's saying and just yell out "don't use it then!" He ISN'T using it. Read the damn thread.
i lol'ed at this thread.
First sex priestess were very common. It was quite an honor to be a priestess of say a Aphrodite.
they were not exploited or enslaved, and in general one had to have high breeding to become. I think what has happened is that people keep trying to view somthing from the past with modern lenes instead of viewing the situation as it existed then.You should probably talk to a historian about that. According to the best scientific knowledge of history today, scared prostitutes didn't exist in the way you seem to imagine. While there is of course evidence of slaves donated as prostitutes to temples, I doubt this has the positive connotation you seem to refer to. Modern scientific views are something like this:
Obviously, this realistic view doesn't hold the allure...No longer seeing sacred prostitution as an historical reality, it now becomes feasible to study supposed references to this institution in a different light, dealing with issues of symbolic language rather than historical accuracy. In my paper, I discuss two of the earliest perceived references to sacred prostitution in the Classical corpus -- Herodotos 1.199 and Pindar frag. 122. The former relates how all Babylonian women, once in their lives, must have sex with a foreigner in honour of the goddess Mylitta. The latter describes the “donation” of a group of prostitutes to the goddess Aphrodite. A dominant theme in both passages is the conflation of religion and rape, how the manipulation of women’s sexuality in the name of a deity is used to express defeat on the part of the feminine or effeminized characters, divinization on the part of the masculine.
In the end, I argue that, contrary to many modern perceptions, sacred prostitution does not extol sexuality or fertility as expressions of religious devotion. Rather, the religio-sexual subjugation of the “prostitutes” serves as a metaphor for human hubris at best and tragedy at worst.
Know your source.
student reviews of Stephanie Budin, PhDMore than 1 "worste teacher ever," at least a half dozen people calling her a nut. Hardly a reliable source on the topic.
Know your source.
student reviews of Stephanie Budin, PhD
More than 1 "worste teacher ever," at least a half dozen people calling her a nut. Hardly a reliable source on the topic.
So she's not a good teacher. Does this makes her scientific research void? Did you ever work at a university? Many of the best researchers are hated by the students, because being a good educator and being a good scientist don't necessarily correlate.
Obviously, this realistic view doesn't hold the allure...
Like scholarly diatribes are the be all end all. Nancy Qualls-Corbett, PhD, disagrees with your source.
Like scholarly diatribes are the be all end all. Nancy Qualls-Corbett, PhD, disagrees with your source.
Obviously, this realistic view doesn't hold the allure...
Yes, but then, Mrs. Qualls-Corbett is a psychologist, not a historian.
You see, your problem is that you are assuming that prostitution is an objective moral evil. I, many people I know, and many people I am reading on this board, disagree with you. Obviously, it isn't as objective as you think it is.I believe that prostitution is an objective moral evil. There is an important distinction between assuming and believing.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I sorta understand AMiB's issue. It's like why don't Paizo just put in a trait that allow that character to be good at keeping slaves. And it's done for the slaves sake (a good act). You provide shelter amd sustenance. Why slaves should be LUCKY to have a slave owner like yourself.
Since Paizo is willing to be direct, why don't we have that? And promote it as a good thing for society?
I don't agree with his belief, but I see where AMiB is coming from.
This thread should be locked however, since most people aren't reading what he's saying and just yell out "don't use it then!" He ISN'T using it. Read the damn thread.
But what I don't understand is that both of you seem to be conflating the fact that its an option for players with something saying that taking the trait would prove that prostitution is good.
I think the point is, from the standpoint of the setting, is that prostitution "is." Its not good or evil, its a possible background. Good clerics of Calistria aren't good because they are prostitutes, its just that prostitution isn't automatically evil, and as such, it doesn't preclude a good person from being a temple prostitute.
Heck, there are traits in some of the AP, such as the Legacy of Fire campaign, that give you benefits for being a Pesh addict or dealer, without saying that that is a good or a bad thing . . . its just a "thing" in your background in that case.
Yes, but then, Mrs. Qualls-Corbett is a psychologist, not a historian.Like scholarly diatribes are the be all end all. Nancy Qualls-Corbett, PhD, disagrees with your source.
Obviously, this realistic view doesn't hold the allure...
And what will be the effective difference here? They will both have the same evidence and are just applying their analysis thereof. Unless you are asserting Mrs Budin has the ability to pull new information out of thin air.
|
|
And what will be the effective difference here? They will both have the same evidence and are just applying their analysis thereof. Unless you are asserting Mrs Budin has the ability to pull new information out of thin air.Yes, but then, Mrs. Qualls-Corbett is a psychologist, not a historian.Like scholarly diatribes are the be all end all. Nancy Qualls-Corbett, PhD, disagrees with your source.
Obviously, this realistic view doesn't hold the allure...
It might change who considers which method of analysis is more valid or pertinent. Qualls-Corbett for instance, is a Jungian which carries certain social and academic connotations for people while Budin is an employee of Temple and published by Cambridge which also carries certain social and academic connotations for people.
I make no assertions that either is better than the other in my own view, I only point it out to say that their method of analysis plays a very large role in perceived relevance.
To everybody else still posting here, I recommend finding your life preservers as this ship is sinking fast and unless you want to be pulled further into this ocean of pointless debate and dribble you should see yourself to the nearest lifeboat.
An EXCELLENT idea! I think the best course here is for all of us to just drop out of the thread altogether and let MIB howl and complain by himself. Every new post we make just encourages his behavior and gets him all excited because he then gets to post a new inflammatory response. It's probably time to jump off now - it's only a matter of time before the thread is locked anyway.
Hear hear.
|
|
So she's not a good teacher. Does this makes her scientific research void? Did you ever work at a university? Many of the best researchers are hated by the students, because being a good educator and being a good scientist don't necessarily correlate.
Know your source.
student reviews of Stephanie Budin, PhD
More than 1 "worste teacher ever," at least a half dozen people calling her a nut. Hardly a reliable source on the topic.
The actual question is whether she has an agenda or not. I would be interested in her opinion on a host of issues before I took anything she said to heart.
My college experience left a bad taste in my mouth for professors and "historians" who allowed personal prejudices to cloud their conclusions.
And, um, she isn't a scientist.
I was wondering where you were. :PSorry, trying to write some Smnrf haiku, but it seems we were already visited.
We should start a cult to Haiku Monster.
No cult is needed
Only to know I amuseat least one person
So she's not a good teacher. Does this makes her scientific research void? Did you ever work at a university? Many of the best researchers are hated by the students, because being a good educator and being a good scientist don't necessarily correlate.
Know your source.
student reviews of Stephanie Budin, PhD
More than 1 "worste teacher ever," at least a half dozen people calling her a nut. Hardly a reliable source on the topic.
I've had published history phds espouse the scientific and historical evidence of ley lines. The phd doesn't make them any less b%%#~~$ insane. There may be truth in her writting; there may not be. She is no more or less likely to be biased by her views than others. Some of the things that get by peer review are laughable, and since you only linked to 1 small portion of her writting which does not show how she came to her conclusion, it must be taken with a grain of salt.
Bring me hookers!
And I mean that literally. They're late. Is this like the pizza deal? If they don't come within 30 minutes, I don't have to pay?
Understandable, but that's the past. This is an entertainment product being sold in 2010. Even if nice people did [now-reprehensible act] a long time ago, that doesn't mean I want people who do [now-reprehensible act] to be treated sympathetically outside of a strictly historical work.
Ok I am done, MIB, i have a fair amount of respect for your relentless logic. I also respect your passion for your positions. But you have entered crazy town here. How a high fantasy setting in terms of culture is not historical is beyond me. I again regret that you are offended, and though there is more i might wish to say, I will let it lie. I sincerely hope that you find a way to let this particular aspect of the base setting not stop you from enjoying what is likely a very solid product in the APG.
And what will be the effective difference here? They will both have the same evidence and are just applying their analysis thereof. Unless you are asserting Mrs Budin has the ability to pull new information out of thin air.
S. Budin is researching the historical sources and evidence for sacred prostitution, while N. Qualls-Corbett focuses on the mythological image of the sacred prostitute as a symbol for a holistic sexuality, a union of spirituality and sexuality, with the goal of improving the lives of people living right now. The goals of their research are very different.
And yes, I do believe that in general someone who is specialized in ancient history is a more credible source for historical information than someone who is specialized on jungian analysis.
|
|
You see, your problem is that you are assuming that prostitution is an objective moral evil. I, many people I know, and many people I am reading on this board, disagree with you. Obviously, it isn't as objective as you think it is.I believe that prostitution is an objective moral evil. There is an important distinction between assuming and believing.
That distinction aside, you are expecting your beliefs to be assuaged in Paizo's material. This isn't likely to happen. Paizo's material, in general not just Golarion, is not PG. That is the way it is. It is not likely to change.
Aside from that, why should your belief(simplified while not meaning to be disrespectful), that it is wrong and should be avoided in the game's material, trump my belief that there is nothing inherently wrong with it and it should therefore be given a place in the game, no less prominent than any other minor aside piece. In short, Why is you belief more important, in this context, than mine?
Graywulfe