Ship of Fools: Mary Magdalene

Thread: Mary Magdalene Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020387

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Next year, there will be a movie about Mary Magdalene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi46nLoIo6E

I will be interested in seeing if they depict Mary as a repentant prostitute, or if they are going to be Biblically correct.

But in thinking about a relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus reminded me of a conversation in seminary when one friend expressed frustration that the problem with talking about their relationship is that we seem to be incapable of talking about a deep friendship between a man and a woman that doesn't involve sexual relations, which is why talking about Jesus and Mary Magdalene becomes difficult. For some reason, she claims, it is hard for some western Christians to accept Mary Magdalene as a fully-fledged disciple of Jesus without either minimalizing her ("She of course, wasn't one of the 'Twelve') or exaggerating her relationship ala Dan Brown and Holy Grail nonsense.

I like the emphasis in the East on Mary as the witness to the Resurrection, and can call her a Prophet in her own right.

How do you understand Mary Magdalene?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

She was a respected woman of substance (she helped support Jesus and the disciples) from whom Jesus cast seven demons. Nothing in Scripture suggests that she was a woman of negotiable virtue; that's a medieval construct, and frankly unforgivable. She's the apostle to the apostles.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I’m not sure why she is always considered to have been (for want of a better phrase) a possible “love interest” for Jesus. AFAIK the Gospels are silent about her age. She could easily have been his mother’s age, for example.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I'm very much with the idea of an apostle to the apostles. I think she was probably a hugely important figure to have been given that role in the NT.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, the first to see Our Lord on the morning of His Resurrection, and certainly an Apostle to the rest of the timid crew....

FWIW, I reckon the meeting between Jesus and Mary on Resurrection Morning is one of the most beautiful and haunting scenes in the whole Bible.

IJ

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

While the male Apostles may have done great things after the resurrection, in many instances in the Gospels they serve the function of not getting the point; setting up Jesus for reemphasizing the point.

Mary, fully an Apostle as far as I am concerned, is the one who acted out her faith. She is, for me, the role model of how it should be done.

The prostitute stuff is more a reflection on the men who claimed that stuff than on Mary, or the Gospels.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Why should we be so worried if she had been a sex worker anyway?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Her alleged status as a sex worker is not a problem as far as I am concerned. My issue is with who claimed that and why they claimed that.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Her alleged status as a sex worker is not a problem as far as I am concerned. My issue is with who claimed that and why they claimed that.

I did read an article where they interviewed a group of sex workers in Italy who complained that the Church's claim that she wasn't a sex worker meant that they were robbed of a patron saint who understood what they were going through.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Here's a question (although I know a Dead Horse is just around the corner with this one): Why didn't Jesus name Mary Magdalene as one of the apostles? She seems to have been a much more important leader among the early disciples than many of the Twelve. Jesus also didn't seem to be one that cared much about the restrictions of gender roles at the time if they got in the way of his ministry. So why not then?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
<snip>The prostitute stuff is more a reflection on the men who claimed that stuff than on Mary, or the Gospels.

Maybe. But also the consequence of a rather simplistic harmonisation of Gospel material Matthew 26.6-13, Mark 14.3-9, Luke 7.36-50, and John 12.1-8.

Matthew and Mark are surely recounting the same incident, but is Luke? Luke's anointing occurs much earlier in his telling than Matthew and Mark's - although he more or less follows the same structure as they do. The Pharisee in his account is named as Simon, but it is not indicated that he was a leper cp Matthew and Mark. The woman in Luke's account is described as having lived a sinful life.

In Matthew and Mark's accounts the house is located in Bethany, the house is named as that of Simon the Leper, although it is not clear from that that it is the same house in Bethany as that which included Mary Martha and Lazarus.

Both Luke and the longer ending of Mark describe Mary Magdalene (or Mary of Mandala) as one from whom seven demons have been driven out. Luke's reference to Mary Magdalene comes immediately after the anointing story, without him making any connection between them.

It's easy to see why conflating these accounts was attractive (and it is not (just) a matter of male prejudice), but it is also easy to see that it is a jigsaw piece which doesn't really fit, and how it plays into a madonna or prostitute binary view of women.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

That question really should be "why didn't any of the Evangelists name Mary Magdalene as an apostle?" We really have no idea what Jesus did or didn't say on the matter. We have the record as presented by the authors of the gospels, as well as the author of Luke-Acts.

X-post - response to stonespring

[ 04. December 2017, 13:24: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Next year, there will be a movie about Mary Magdalene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi46nLoIo6E

I will be interested in seeing if they depict Mary as a repentant prostitute, or if they are going to be Biblically correct.

A Hollywood movie? Then yes, she'll have been a prostitute. You can't expect them to pass that up.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Her alleged status as a sex worker is not a problem as far as I am concerned. My issue is with who claimed that and why they claimed that.
I did read an article where they interviewed a group of sex workers in Italy who complained that the Church's claim that she wasn't a sex worker meant that they were robbed of a patron saint who understood what they were going through.

They always have S Mary of Egypt as a backup patron.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The trailer gives a foretaste of what might turn out to be a powerful film, though the chap playing Jesus looks a bit older than 33....

Doubtless there will be the usual cries of 'Blasphemy!' from the Usual Suspects.

[Two face]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Said "chap" is Joaquin Phoenix. Although I think he is a fine actor, he seems too crazy to be Jesus somehow. OTOH, maybe that is perfect. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

You may be right.... [Paranoid]

I see that Phoenix (River Phoenix's brother) is 43 years old, so not too far off. I daresay Our Lord, by the time he was ending his ministry, was in any case looking somewhat careworn.

BTW, the lady playing Mary (Our Lord's mother, that is) looks exactly how I'd pictured her at that stage of her life (late 40s-50ish?).

All very interesting, but I guess further comment and analysis might best wait until after we've seen the fillum!

FWIW, I don't have any problem with the idea that Our Lord might have had normal, healthy, sexual feelings for Mary Magdalene (or any other woman). The point surely is that, even if he did, he put them to one side for the sake of completing his ministry.

Please don't burn me...

IJ

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Yes, Jesus is being played by Joaquin Phoenix, while Mags is being played by Rooney Mara...who has been living with Joaquin for the last year or so. While certainly not conclusive, that does makes me nervous as to how the relationship between Jesus & Mags will be portrayed.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Yes, Jesus is being played by Joaquin Phoenix, while Mags is being played by Rooney Mara...who has been living with Joaquin for the last year or so. While certainly not conclusive, that does makes me nervous as to how the relationship between Jesus & Mags will be portrayed.

If Mary Magdalene tells Jesus "I love you", would we necessarily see it as a sexual thing?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
They always have S Mary of Egypt as a backup patron.

Or Thais, who also has a pretty decent opera based on her story.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Yes, Jesus is being played by Joaquin Phoenix, while Mags is being played by Rooney Mara...who has been living with Joaquin for the last year or so. While certainly not conclusive, that does makes me nervous as to how the relationship between Jesus & Mags will be portrayed.
If Mary Magdalene tells Jesus "I love you", would we necessarily see it as a sexual thing?

Of course not. And even if Jesus replies that he loves her, too, it would not necessarily suggest a romantic relationship. It would depend on how the words are said and what body language and gestures are used at the time. In other words, context.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If this film hopes to acquire a mainstream audience then I imagine it has to hint at some sexual attraction between the two main characters. The story is too reverential and pious otherwise. And since when has Hollywood ignored the potential sexual angle in anything??

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Was the demonic possession Mary Magdalene suffered before encountering Jesus linked to mental illness or seizures as has been conjectured with other possessed people healed in the gospels? Or did it have something to do with having been possessed by demons for having gone down an evil path? What exactly does demonic possession, unspecified, mean in the Gospels? Does it mean something that the most important female disciple (aside from the Virgin Mary) is mentioned as having had demons cast out of her, before her ministry, whereas (I think) all the 12 Apostles were not?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It has always seemed a pity that the 4 gospels are written in the names of 4 men and not anything from the perspective or in the name of a woman. I'd hope this flick would do the story from her perspective and forget about the boy version "biblically correct" in that regard. Otherwise we don't need a movie.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

It was Pope Gregory I that claimed Mary of Magdala was a sex worker, some 450 years after her death. That was the time when the priesthood came under all male control. Also, the pope did not want Mary of Magdala to have the same status as the Virgin Mary.

In fact, I think she was the beloved disciple of Jesus. I am open to her married to Jesus, since in Jesus time only married men could be rabbis.

Look up the Gospel of Mary. We only have two fragments, but you can get a feel for how some people felt about her shortly after the Resurrection.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Her alleged status as a sex worker is not a problem as far as I am concerned. My issue is with who claimed that and why they claimed that.
I did read an article where they interviewed a group of sex workers in Italy who complained that the Church's claim that she wasn't a sex worker meant that they were robbed of a patron saint who understood what they were going through.

Yes, I've wondered about that. There's nothing in the Bible that even suggests she was a sex worker. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. I do firmly believe that she got that label from men who couldn't accept a woman apostle/disciple. Christianity might now be much more healthy, if they hadn't libeled her. Many, many generations of women and girls might have suffered less, been allowed to live, been valued for who they were.

But I hesitate to unreservedly wipe away the label, because it's been helpful to some women.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gramps--

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In fact, I think she was the beloved disciple of Jesus. I am open to her married to Jesus, since in Jesus time only married men could be rabbis.

Way back when the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" came out, I was incensed at the idea of Jesus and Mary Magdalene being an item. However, I've gradually come to a place where I'd actually be happy for them, if they'd had that. I don't know if they *did*, and I'm not pushing it, but I think it could be a good thing.

I have more difficulty with the idea of them having kids. Would the kids be demi-deities? Would they be ok in this world? How should they be treated? Would their descendants be demi-deities, too?

As to Mary Mag being the Beloved Disciple: I'd be ok with that. I wonder if da Vinci was, too? John in "The Last Supper" looks awfully feminine.

quote:
Look up the Gospel of Mary. We only have two fragments, but you can get a feel for how some people felt about her shortly after the Resurrection.

Thanks for this. [Smile]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Her alleged status as a sex worker is not a problem as far as I am concerned. My issue is with who claimed that and why they claimed that.
I did read an article where they interviewed a group of sex workers in Italy who complained that the Church's claim that she wasn't a sex worker meant that they were robbed of a patron saint who understood what they were going through.

They still have St Mary of Egypt.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Her alleged status as a sex worker is not a problem as far as I am concerned. My issue is with who claimed that and why they claimed that.
I did read an article where they interviewed a group of sex workers in Italy who complained that the Church's claim that she wasn't a sex worker meant that they were robbed of a patron saint who understood what they were going through.
They always have S Mary of Egypt as a backup patron.

A lesson to read the whole thread before responding to what I've read so far.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The film world has never had much respect for either history or the original text in making other films. And controversy sells seats. So it's reasonable to expect the worst of them on this one.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Since church people including popes and painters working for church patrons have felt so free to interpret Mary, shouldn’t a new film be welcomed, the more so if it is creative and original? My anxiety is that the film will be timidly reverential and miss the chance to be theologically thought provoking.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

What hatless said.

The problem I had with the whole Dan Brown nonsense was not the suggestion that MM and Jesus were lovers. I frankly don't care whether or not they were lovers. One cannot reach this conclusion from the text as it stands, but the text as it stands has been heavily redacted, so God alone (quite literally, in this case) knows what really happened.

No, my problem with the Da Vinci Code bullshit was how bad the execution was. The book was terrible. And the premise not much better - why would anyone think it reasonable that the apparently monolithic entity the "church" ( [Roll Eyes]

) would engage in an enormous conspiracy to conceal actual evidence of a relationship between Jesus and MM? Who gives a shit?

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
<snip>The prostitute stuff is more a reflection on the men who claimed that stuff than on Mary, or the Gospels.
Maybe. But also the consequence of a rather simplistic harmonisation of Gospel material Matthew 26.6-13, Mark 14.3-9, Luke 7.36-50, and John 12.1-8.

Matthew and Mark are surely recounting the same incident, but is Luke? Luke's anointing occurs much earlier in his telling than Matthew and Mark's - although he more or less follows the same structure as they do. The Pharisee in his account is named as Simon, but it is not indicated that he was a leper cp Matthew and Mark. The woman in Luke's account is described as having lived a sinful life.

In Matthew and Mark's accounts the house is located in Bethany, the house is named as that of Simon the Leper, although it is not clear from that that it is the same house in Bethany as that which included Mary Martha and Lazarus.

Both Luke and the longer ending of Mark describe Mary Magdalene (or Mary of Mandala) as one from whom seven demons have been driven out. Luke's reference to Mary Magdalene comes immediately after the anointing story, without him making any connection between them.

It's easy to see why conflating these accounts was attractive (and it is not (just) a matter of male prejudice), but it is also easy to see that it is a jigsaw piece which doesn't really fit, and how it plays into a madonna or prostitute binary view of women.

Thank you for the clarity here, BroJames.

This thread has spurred me to begin reading The Gospel of Mary Magdalene by Fr Seraphim Leloup (who is published under his secular name). It arrived a few weeks ago but I just haven't made the time.

I'm only as far as the preface but have learnt already that, even if the conflation of St Mary of Magdala with the unnamed repentant woman in St Luke's gospel is in fact correct, there is still nothing to make us think that she was ever a sex worker.

It seems that the term used to describe the sinful woman doesn't specifically indicate sexual sin, and is elsewhere used to refer to people who engaged in various types of sin. The word commonly used to denote a prostitute is not used of the unnamed sinful woman.

Which makes me think all the more that there really is no foundation for the idea of the Magdalene as a sex worker.

[ 05. December 2017, 08:48: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Gramps49 wrote:

quote:
In fact, I think she was the beloved disciple of Jesus. I am open to her married to Jesus, since in Jesus time only married men could be rabbis.

Celibate rabbis are attested to in this period by Josephus, Pliny and Philo. There is also the prophetic tradition of living a celibate life as a declarative act (e.g. Jeremiah). Don't forget first century Judaism was far more diverse than it became subsequently.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
No, my problem with the Da Vinci Code bullshit was how bad the execution was. The book was terrible. And the premise not much better - why would anyone think it reasonable that the apparently monolithic entity the "church" ( ) would engage in an enormous conspiracy to conceal actual evidence of a relationship between Jesus and MM? Who gives a shit?

Oh, I absolutely agree.

The DaVinci Code is theology fiction in the same way that Star Trek is science fiction. On its face it's fairly innocuous at worst, and entertaining at best.

The difference is that most members of the general public are either sufficiently scientifically educated or else aware of the shortcomings of their own scientific knowledge to recognise Star Trek as nothing more than fiction with a foundation in scientific themes, while I'm afraid that the present culture of suspicion and lack of knowledge of traditional faith means that many people are ill-equipped to recognise the fiction of such works as Mr Brown's.

These are the people whom one overhears on public transport speaking with an air of authority about "the church" having too much money, when in reality they have probably not only never served as a church treasurer or on any church council, but likely hardly ever darken the doorway of a church at all, and have no possible way of knowing what church finances look like. They just regurgitate what they heard someone bitter about religion say one time and decide it must be true.

It may seem completely impossible to you, and to me, and to most people reading this thread, and to most people with even the most rudimentary knowledge of Christian history, that such a well-orchestrated cover-up as the one proposed by The DaVinci Code could be constructed and sustained for two millennia by opposing factions of Christianity that could not even agree which way to face at a urinal. However, beyond belief, this is precisely what many people accept without question.

[ 05. December 2017, 09:28: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

Hang on a minute.................

This is a film not Scripture; films are fiction (even when they pretend to be based on life)! You know what Hollywood is like, anything to make a sexy story. You can bet too the script is written by a man!

There is simply not enough info in the Bible bout MM. The rest is conjecture = fiction.

Watch the film if you like but don't base you beliefs on Hollywood tinsel.

Weinstein should have taught us that, if nothing else. Hollywood seems to thrive on sex and doing women down.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Hollywood seems to thrive on...doing women down.

Have you seen this?

I hadn't realised until I saw this that Gone Girl is her work. Awesomeness.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Since church people including popes and painters working for church patrons have felt so free to interpret Mary, shouldn’t a new film be welcomed, the more so if it is creative and original? My anxiety is that the film will be timidly reverential and miss the chance to be theologically thought provoking.

If this was going to be an art house film then it might risk being 'theologically thought provoking', but theology isn't what gives a film mass-market appeal.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Her alleged status as a sex worker is not a problem as far as I am concerned. My issue is with who claimed that and why they claimed that.
I did read an article where they interviewed a group of sex workers in Italy who complained that the Church's claim that she wasn't a sex worker meant that they were robbed of a patron saint who understood what they were going through.
They always have S Mary of Egypt as a backup patron.
A lesson to read the whole thread before responding to what I've read so far.

Not at all. I had read the whole thread (some posts twice!) but I wanted to make a comment which I thought might be of interest. One of the lovely (or fearful-- take your pick) aspects of discussion boards is the opportunity it provides for digression.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Her alleged status as a sex worker is not a problem as far as I am concerned. My issue is with who claimed that and why they claimed that.
I did read an article where they interviewed a group of sex workers in Italy who complained that the Church's claim that she wasn't a sex worker meant that they were robbed of a patron saint who understood what they were going through.
They always have S Mary of Egypt as a backup patron.
A lesson to read the whole thread before responding to what I've read so far.
Not at all. I had read the whole thread (some posts twice!) but I wanted to make a comment which I thought might be of interest. One of the lovely (or fearful-- take your pick) aspects of discussion boards is the opportunity it provides for digression.

I'm sorry for my lack of clarity: I meant that it was a lesson for me.

I accidentally repeated what you had already said.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Was the demonic possession Mary Magdalene suffered before encountering Jesus linked to mental illness or seizures as has been conjectured with other possessed people healed in the gospels? Or did it have something to do with having been possessed by demons for having gone down an evil path? What exactly does demonic possession, unspecified, mean in the Gospels?

IIRC, no where in the Bible is there the suggestion that demonic possession leads to sexual promiscuity. In all the situations I can recall, the demon-possessed person could not manage to take care of himself or engaged in self-destructive behavior.

Moo

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
You can bet too the script is written by a man!

Well, not entirely. The attribution for "writer" is given to Helen Edmundson and Phillipa Goslett, neither of whom is a man AFAIK. But, of course, every film has revisions and edits and bridging scenes, etc. etc. etc. that can be written by a small army of people and I imagine some of them will turn out to be men.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Some of the illnesses suffered by people healed by Jesus certainly seem to be what we would term epilepsy* or schizophrenia.

We, of course, can't see these incidents through the eyes or minds of those present at the time.

IJ

*I know whereof I speak. Seizures cause one to lose control, and feel as though something - or someone - else has taken over.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

As an aside, inspired by Golden Key's use of the word "libelled", I'll chime in with a defence of sex workers. GK is undoubtedly correct that the men who propagated the story of Mary Magdalene's career sought to besmirch her; but having known a few sex workers and, on one occasion being assisted by one after my being bashed, I find them no less, and often more, caring than the general run of humanity. If St MM was a prostitute once or always, I experience no discomfort. How Hollywood treats the issue may prove a different matter.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Is it just me or is the term "sex worker" problematic. Does anyone really want this as a job? Does anyone start selling sex except if in duress and feeling there is no other way? Certainly the word "prostitute" isn't neutral, and "whore" and "hooker" may be worse, but "sex worker" does not work.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Does anyone really want this as a job? Does anyone start selling sex except if in duress and feeling there is no other way?

Yes and yes. It may not be the more normal situation, but there are those who want to do this.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it just me or is the term "sex worker" problematic. Does anyone really want this as a job? Does anyone start selling sex except if in duress and feeling there is no other way?

What Nick Tamen said.

Many people go into the pornography industry and various forms of escort work because it's something they enjoy and want to do. Additionally, the latter in particular can be very lucrative without having to put much effort into finding work. Far from being something they resort to out of desperation, it's something many people do because it pays much better than your standard 9-5 job. With the right client base, they could easily be earning £1500 per week.

In the past I have had friends in just that situation and today I have friends who look back on their pasts in the sex industry with nostalgia now that age has robbed them of their desirability for the role and replaced it with other life responsibilities.

I'm not trying to glorify it, and it's something I would struggle to engage in, but I am aware that we can't look at sex workers and automatically assume that pity and remedial action is what they desire. It might be the case for some but others find the suggestion alien and offensive.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Her alleged status as a sex worker is not a problem as far as I am concerned. My issue is with who claimed that and why they claimed that.

As somebody mentioned above MM was one of the women who supported Jesus financially and I do have a problem with portraying Jesus as a pimp.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it just me or is the term "sex worker" problematic. Does anyone really want this as a job? Does anyone start selling sex except if in duress and feeling there is no other way? Certainly the word "prostitute" isn't neutral, and "whore" and "hooker" may be worse, but "sex worker" does not work.

I have a suspicion that one knows more people in the Oldest Profession than one is aware of. Of the three in my acquaintance, one fell into it to pay for her habit--- with much heroism, she is out of it and in a more regular profession. Of the other two, it was a professional choice for one, and a lark for the other. I find the phenomenon quite bizarre, but they do not. For statistical purposes, two of the three are confirmed Anglicans.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

In the US, AIUI, sex workers wind up in that work because they're trafficked (bought, deceived, threatened (e.g., school girls, because their families are threatened) etc.)); desperate for money (survival, college); survivors of childhood sexual abuse (acting out, because they were already treated like sex workers, or running away from the abuser), etc.

There may well be some who think it's somehow going to be fun and glamorous. I doubt they think that for long.

FYI: there's a lot of trafficking here in the SF Bay Area.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In the US, AIUI, sex workers wind up in that work because they're trafficked (bought, deceived, threatened (e.g., school girls, because their families are threatened) etc.)); desperate for money (survival, college); survivors of childhood sexual abuse (acting out, because they were already treated like sex workers, or running away from the abuser), etc.

Again, this is true in many, many cases. As a blanket statement, however, it is not accurate.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Was the demonic possession Mary Magdalene suffered before encountering Jesus linked to mental illness or seizures as has been conjectured with other possessed people healed in the gospels? Or did it have something to do with having been possessed by demons for having gone down an evil path?

That's a popular idea amongst charismatics these days, or at least it was when I was one. There was always lots of talk about giving demons a "foothold" or "permission" by engaging in disapproved of behaviours (fantasy RPGs, Yoga, anything "occult") but the Bible is pretty silent on how demonic possession, whatever it might be, actually occurs.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In the US, AIUI, sex workers wind up in that work because they're trafficked (bought, deceived, threatened (e.g., school girls, because their families are threatened) etc.)); desperate for money (survival, college); survivors of childhood sexual abuse (acting out, because they were already treated like sex workers, or running away from the abuser), etc.

There may well be some who think it's somehow going to be fun and glamorous. I doubt they think that for long.

FYI: there's a lot of trafficking here in the SF Bay Area.

The majority of sex workers I know/have known have been young men who have gone into that line of work because they enjoy sex and look forward to making the large amounts of money that they can earn from the experience.

That said, I do volunteer work with a local charity supporting queer, homeless, young people and I know that sex work is often something engaged in by homeless young cis men in particular, and also young trans women and men, not primarily because of the money it brings in (although I'm sure they find this useful), but because it often means the difference between sleeping in a bed and sleeping on the street.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In the US, AIUI, sex workers wind up in that work because they're trafficked (bought, deceived, threatened (e.g., school girls, because their families are threatened) etc.)); desperate for money (survival, college); survivors of childhood sexual abuse (acting out, because they were already treated like sex workers, or running away from the abuser), etc.
Again, this is true in many, many cases. As a blanket statement, however, it is not accurate.

I tried to find some statistics re the sexual abuse piece underlying prostition. This seems to be a popular idea, though the data aren't presented much.

Another popular idea seems to be that prostitution is just a career, you can make a lot of money, have fun etc. I am skeptical of such claims, and also skeptical of the claims that it is the illegality of the activity which has made it troublesome - it isn't illegal in all places, and still the discussion occurs about the social and personal health/mental health issues involved.

Until proved otherwise - probably showing that certain personalities or aptitudes do well as prostitutes and others are not suited to it (lie accountants or engineers may have particular attributes more than a general sample of people) - I am not likely to accept the premise that humans can engage in such activities without effects on their psychology and social relationships. (There are moral arguments and positions I;m leaving out just now)

The term "cis" is used above in one of the posts above. I presume this refers to something about same-gender sexual oriented; I am not in a position to look up words in the internet just now. Is it a term that means something else? I'd prefer to avoid jargon if it's possible.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Not sure this is of any use but I found some Prostitution Statistics. I would like more detail of where each was obtained as they are clearly collated (i.e. gathered from multiple sources) but it does not appear to be by a pressure group.

Jengie

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

no prophet - the fact that you don't know what a word means does not make it "jargon" [Roll Eyes]

Cisgender refers to someone whose gender identity aligns with their biological sex at birth. It does not refer to sexuality. A cisgender man, for example, would be someone whose birth sex and gender identity align as male, but who may also identify as gay, bi, asexual or something else.

This is very common language in gender studies, and is becoming part of common parlance. Catch up.

[ 06. December 2017, 20:44: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

What Dark Knight said.

It really isn't jargon. It's just commonplace.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Putting in my unnecessary oar -- "cis" is not jargon, it is a term invented out of necessity. In other words we needed a word to use for a certain phenomenon, so one was coined, ganked from a known Latin prefix (cisalpine, cislunar, cismontane, cispontine, etc.) that is used as an opposite of "trans".

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

The point I think isn't that prostitution is a career just as desirable as any other. It's that many people, often in very difficult situations, do engage in prostitution, and that society and the law should not condemn them for doing so (as for their customers and any pimps, traffickers, or other people who exploit them, that is another question).

The term "sex worker" was coined to recognize that prostitutes perform real work and deserve the rights of other workers - even if society and the law also tries to prevent the economic and societal causes that lead people to become sex workers, help sex workers to transition into other careers, and crack down on all sexual slavery and child prostitution.

Some people believe that if a person can make a decent living in safe conditions as a sex worker, government should not try to persuade them to leave that line of work, whereas others believe that government should try to encourage people to leave sex work. Both kinds of people use the term sex worker to respect human dignity and help fight a stigma that often follows a sex worker long after they stop that line of work.

How ironic that in a post about how Mary Magdalene should not be portrayed as a prostitute, we wind up talking mainly about prostitution.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
What Dark Knight said.

It really isn't jargon. It's just commonplace.

I have encountered this term only here. Last I checked this isn't a gender studies department.

[ 06. December 2017, 23:05: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
What Dark Knight said.

It really isn't jargon. It's just commonplace.

Putting on my formerly-paid-to-write hat, the term is commonplace among some circles; in most circles, it is jargon. I think one can argue it is transitioning, but at this point I would hold to the Talking Points rule (i.e., if it needs explaining for any part of a general audience, don't use it) and avoid it outside specialist settings (such as a bulletin board).

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Put on whatever hat you like, and read mousethief's post again. Not only is it not jargon, it is a necessary expression.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
What Dark Knight said.

It really isn't jargon. It's just commonplace.
I have encountered this term only here. Last I checked this isn't a gender studies department.

I've heard "cis" occasionally. My understanding was that it basically refers to someone who generally conforms to what's expected of their gender, and isn't LGBTQ.

I saw a more concise definition upthread. Thx.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Growing up in the 60's, I remember the TV show Gunsmoke. It actually was a radio program from the 40's. I remember the saloon owner was Kate. It was pretty clear that Kate was a Madam of a Brothel. The TV stage showed stairs leading up to the bedrooms over the bar. While it was never said on screen, the implications were there.

Fact is. Prostitution helped the settle the Western United States. See this video.

There is an old mining town about 100 miles from where I live. Wallace, ID. Prostitution was still legal there in the early 1980's.

And if you ever go through Nevada, they still have legalized brothels.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Put on whatever hat you like, and read mousethief's post again. Not only is it not jargon, it is a necessary expression.

I suppose that you and I will continue to differ on this, but perhaps I should explain my position.

I had read mousethief's post (twice, actually, and the second time with care) before posting. Using a definition of "Potentially confusing words and phrases used in an occupation, trade, or field of study," I see that it still fits. Jargon is not a pejorative term; that cis- is perhaps a necessary or useful expression does not mean that it is not specialized language.

If I were preparing speaking points for public use, or speech notes, I would avoid it, even if it would be easily understood in my circle of friends. I took the occasion to refer the question to a professional speechwriter of my acquaintance-- he said that it fails the bar bar which, he explained, is that the term would not be understood in most bars, although the concept would be. He would, however, put it in a speech to academics or legal specialists, as it is part of their common language.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Right. How would you avoid it?

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Putting on my formerly-paid-to-write hat, the term is commonplace among some circles; in most circles, it is jargon. I think one can argue it is transitioning, but at this point I would hold to the Talking Points rule (i.e., if it needs explaining for any part of a general audience, don't use it) and avoid it outside specialist settings (such as a bulletin board).

Wearing my still-paid-to-write hat, I agree. Most people outside certain academic and political circles are going to look at "cis" and say, "What?!?" I certainly couldn't use it in a daily newspaper without devoting a graf to its meaning and etomology.

As sympathetic as I am to trans people, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the population is not trans. Therefore, I don't think we need a special prefix for what is (conservatively) 95% of the people. (Your mileage may vary.)

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Certainly not. Unless we are keen not to enforce heteronormativity.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Right. How would you avoid it?

If preparing remarks to be made in public, I would refer to the importance of diversity and how we should respect how individuals freely choose their identities. Having established that as a principle in our discourse, I would then get into specifics, as relevant.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would then get into specifics, as relevant.

They are relevant here. Go ahead. How would you avoid using this language, without inferring that one is "normal" and one is a deviation from the norm, as Rossweise has (I hope inadvertently) done?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

"Heteronormal" is also jargon but the form of the term allows decoding and at least presumption of meaning. Though the context is important. I might think it refers to sexual orientation or gender identity depending on circumstance.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

As a fairly common term has now been clearly explained to you, perhaps you won't have to guess about its meaning anymore.

Seriously, are we done here?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would then get into specifics, as relevant.
They are relevant here. Go ahead. How would you avoid using this language, without inferring that one is "normal" and one is a deviation from the norm, as Rossweise has (I hope inadvertently) done?

Depends entirely on the situation and the subject matter. The only time I could think of having to do so (aside from chairing meetings of people from other offices and having to give them information on the washrooms- e.g., down the corridor there are two washrooms, one indicated for those who identify as male, another for those who identify as women, and a third around the corner which can be used by persons who do not, or who are in wheelchairs) would be in discussions around benefits. In that situation, I would outline that sex or gender is not relevant to eligibility, and that gender choice is up to the individual. Or, perhaps, that proposed changes to the Indian Act will remove any need to identify as male or female in forms.

When running meetings, I have to be conscious that a third to two-thirds of participants do not have English as their first language and that many will have done their degrees in French or other other languages. Plain language, where terms do not need deconstruction, is essential.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Are you taking the piss?

The subject matter is this thread. This is not about some hypothetical event.

How would you, in the context in which cisgender came up in this thread, explain the idea it conveys?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Are you taking the piss?

The subject matter is this thread. This is not about some hypothetical event.

How would you, in the context in which cisgender came up in this thread, explain the idea it conveys?

Dark Knight- your language suggests that you may wish to take this to Hell. I am no longer convinced you want a dialogue on this.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Are you taking the piss?

The subject matter is this thread. This is not about some hypothetical event.

How would you, in the context in which cisgender came up in this thread, explain the idea it conveys?

Actually the word that came up in this thread and raised the initial query was not 'cisgender' but 'cis'. I'm very familiar with 'cis' as a prefix - including in cisgender. I also believe it has a meaning in chemistry. Like no prophet, I don't think I've ever come across it used as a word on its own. Unlike no prophet I was in a position to look the word up online.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I had to resort to Google to find out what 'cis' and/or 'cisgender' meant (and also how to pronounce it - I gather it's 'sis').

Fairy nuff - now I know. But please, peeps, do bear in mind that, for many of us (especially of an older generation), this whole gender definition thing is summink rather new....and it's not always that easy to understand the various terms used.

IJ

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

'cis', i understand, is latin for 'this side of'. Cisalpine Gaul, for example, was Gaul on the Roman side of the alps. What I'd like to know is what is this side of gender or sex as against the otherside of the same. Maybe it's both sides of the same coin, or does it depend on which side you are in the first place? Or maybe just a cissy- No offence! No Offence! Anyway, Mary Magdalene, I guess, was cisalpine but not a Gaul. How that affected her sex/gender identity I know not.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think the flap about "cis" is a side issue. There are always new words coming along and we often need to learn them. (I am still irritated by the use of "proactive" but I will get over it.)

We could have a separate (and interesting) thread about the development and introduction of new vocabulary.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

cis- is a prefix, not a word. Those who work in fields where it is used regularly (such as chemistry and gender studies) are likely to use it as if it were, but they are usually talking to those who understand what they are on about.

Kwesi wrote:

quote:
What I'd like to know is what is this side of gender or sex as against the otherside of the same. Maybe it's both sides of the same coin, or does it depend on which side you are in the first place?

It's really only used in connection with one's gender "being on the same side" as one's sex. As opposed to trans- referring to being a person whose gender is "across from" the biological sex they were born with. It's a bit clunky but I'm not aware of a more elegant alternative.

(I'm referring to the original Latin mening of the prefixes. It works better in chemistry!)

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Are you taking the piss?

The subject matter is this thread. This is not about some hypothetical event.

How would you, in the context in which cisgender came up in this thread, explain the idea it conveys?
Dark Knight- your language suggests that you may wish to take this to Hell. I am no longer convinced you want a dialogue on this.

If you want to call me to Hell, go ahead. If the hosts are unhappy with the way I am talking here, they will let me know. That isn't your call, anymore than deciding what terms can and can't be used on a bulletin board you aren't hosting is your call.

And you are not engaging in dialogue here. You are avoiding it.

Bishop's Finger - I don't see your issue. I provided a very clear definition upthread.

As someone else has suggested, this cisgender business (and that was clearly what the shorthand prefix use was in reference to) is a detour from the main point of the thread. So I won't derail this further. Mary Magdalene deserves her own thread.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I don't have an issue - I merely pointed out that much of the current discussion on gender issues is something of which I personally don't have a lot of knowledge or experience. I think the same may well apply to others.

Point taken about your previous post, which I must have missed.

IJ

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
They are relevant here. Go ahead. How would you avoid using this language, without inferring that one is "normal" and one is a deviation from the norm, as Rossweise has (I hope inadvertently) done?

Well, it was inadvertent, but I'm going to stick with it. Saying that one thing is normal is not at all the same as declaring that something else is wrong.

Back when I discovered that I could deliver children only via caesarian section, there were people urging that vaginal births not be referred to as "normal," for fear of making people like me feel bad. But that never bothered me; vaginal births are normal. I was just grateful to be alive, with a healthy baby. And I am glad that my transgender colleagues and acquaintances now live in a time and place where they can be themselves.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
cis- is a prefix, not a word.

In origin, yes, that is true. However, it is also a common abbreviation for the word cisgender, in much the same way that trans, as well as being a prefix with many applications, is also a commonly-used abbreviation for transgender.

quote:
Those who work in fields where it is used regularly (such as chemistry and gender studies) are likely to use it as if it were, but they are usually talking to those who understand what they are on about.

I'm sure that's the case, but both of those contexts are alien to my experience. I have no background in chemistry or gender studies, and would likely be out of my depth in either or both.

This is simply an everyday word that is used among my friends and peers, pops up in blog posts that I read, and appears regularly in my Facebook feed, among other places. It really isn't the great mystery that is has been portrayed here to be, and until catching up just now on the unfolding exchange above, it never even occurred to me that my using it above in passing might be anything remarkable, with the exception that I am aware that some people object to its use on the ground that Rosseweisse has posited above.

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
What Dark Knight said.

It really isn't jargon. It's just commonplace.
Putting on my formerly-paid-to-write hat, the term is commonplace among some circles; in most circles, it is jargon. I think one can argue it is transitioning, but at this point I would hold to the Talking Points rule (i.e., if it needs explaining for any part of a general audience, don't use it) and avoid it outside specialist settings (such as a bulletin board).

Last Sunday I sang at an Advent carol service in the local Catholic cathedral. It was with a small choir that was formed independently by some members of a larger choral society to which I belong. They sing for this service every year but they were short of a tenor this year and they asked me to help, which I was happy to do.

Most of the members of this choir are lifelong Catholics - many of them heavily involved in the worship in their parishes - and none of them knew the final hymn in the service. It was Lo, He comes With Clouds Descending, and a number of them expressed upset that the service closed with a virtually unknown hymn that they had to sight-read off the cuff.

I have long been aware that Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, &c. will have their own general repertoire of hymns within certain regions of the world, and that a hymn being included by the editors of the hymnals of a given church doesn't necessarily mean that regular churchgoers will know it or have ever heard of it.

Despite this awareness, as somebody raised Anglican, I was still completely flummoxed by the notion of Lo, He Comes... being described as something obscure and unknown.

I am experiencing a similar feeling while reading this thread. I am not denying that cisgender and its usual abbreviation may be new words in some readers' vocabulary, but some of the reaction here still comes as a surprise to me.

In my experience, it is not a specialist term used exclusively or predominantly in a particular field of study or work (which is my understanding of jargon) but rather is just an everyday word that people use, so I used it here without a second thought. I don't see what else I could have said to convey my intended meaning that wouldn't have been unnecessarily wordy and tedious.

I suppose this is a reminder for all of us that our perceptions of normal - even touching on something like the use of language - are very much coloured by our own experiences and expectations, and that others may perceive our normal as strange and vice versa, based on their own experiences.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Well said, Scrumpmeister. [Overused]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

My initial reaction, the one which seems to given impetus to this thread, was merely one of non-comprehension. The thread seems to have devolved to the comprehensibility of terms and when we should be patient with each other when we don't share the lingo.

On the other issue, the use of the terms, I've had a bit of a think about cis and cisgender, and I can see where the idea about the words is coming from. No real quarrel with the idea behind the words. But I'm not sure they'll stick, mainly because the group they describe probably won't agree to adopt them. It is the normative (most statistically frequent or most frequently encountered) which is the basis of comparison for most things we conceptualize, which I don't know that we can blame individuals for, I think it's human nature. I am equally unlikely to describe my Christianity as non-atheist or using another word to reference nonbelief first rather than second.

[ 08. December 2017, 02:30: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I've had a bit of a think about cis and cisgender, and I can see where the idea about the words is coming from. No real quarrel with the idea behind the words. But I'm not sure they'll stick, mainly because the group they describe probably won't agree to adopt them.

Non-gay people seem generally comfortable with describing themselves as "straight" if asked. Expecting "cis" to be similarly adopted doesn't seem too far-fetched.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I think transgender and cisgender describe something different from straight and gay. Straight and gay (and bi(sexual)) are about sexual orientation. Cisgender/transgender is (in simple terms) about what gender a person feels/believes themself to be rather than about who they are attracted to.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

How does any of this really matter?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

It's a tangent. They happen when something peripheral needs clarifying, Eirenist.

But yes... Mary Magdalene...

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
How does any of this really matter?

It matters because we are discussing it. This is a discussion board. No one is forcing you to read it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0