The book of Hosea offers a vivid example. Here, Israel is a capricious teenager whose sexual allure so intoxicates God, he falls to scheming obsessively and possessively to make her his wife.

The second adverbial phrase, which modifies the verb ‘she shall call out’, adds the information that the metaphoric first honeymoon was the exodus from Egypt and the glorious time spent by God and Israel together in the desert, to which God in Hos. 2:16 wants to take his wife back for a second honeymoon. Moreover, Hos. 2:17; Jer. 2:2; and Ezek. 16:60 share the memory of Israel personified as a bride celebrating her honeymoon with God during the sojourn in the wilderness. Another clear example of the root ny meaning ‘cry, sing’ is Exod. 32 wayyōmer ên qōl ănōt gěbûrâ wě ên qōl ănōt ḥălûšâ qōl annōt ānokî šōmēa, which probably means ‘But he [Moses] answered [Joshua], “It is not the sound of singing about victory, and it is not the sound of singing about defeat; it is the sound of engaging in a sexual orgy that I hear” ’. The rendering of annōt ‘engaging in a sexual orgy’ in the final clause of Exod. 32:18 not only confirms my understanding of the root ny in both Hos. 2:17 and 2:23–24.

By penetrating the girl’s body that YHWH ‘enters into’ a binding covenant with her – an unequal power relationship in which the forging of the deity’s exclusive and proprietary claim to Israel is presented as the sexual consummation of a man’s possession of a bride: ‘you became mine’. DijkHemmes labels this as ‘pornography’. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1519350

https://brill.com/view/journals/bi/8/3/article-p205_1.xml

Ezekiel 16 presents the narration of a man’s relationship with his woman as an extended metaphor of Yhwh’s relationship with Jerusalem. In consideration of its rhetoric, we discover that the speaking voice is exclusively male. The man Yhwh focuses upon sexual possession of the woman Jerusalem, uses shaming tactics, mandates voyeurism, and exhibits faulty logic in his condemnation of her. On a second level, when we compare the incident presented in the text with situations of domestic violence, we find that the textual interaction exhibits charac47 teristics similar to those of men who physically abuse women. Ezekiel 16 reflects a situation of woman battering in its content and progression. Its male speaker, Yhwh, exhibits those traits of a woman abuser: jealousy, possessiveness, and censuring. As batterers tend to wrongly suspect their women of affairs, this comparison serves to question the veracity of the male speaker in this text. On a third level, one finds that many who have interpreted this passage have overwhelmingly tended to believe the statements of the man Yhwh that the woman Jerusalem deserves the abuse. These male readers have taken a perspective similar to that of a battered woman before she leaves the relationship; they speak with a female voice.

Van Dijk-Hemmes (1993: 173). Kamionkowski (2003: 119) echoes: ‘the sexual act describe here is not consensual sex, it is rape’; ‘The woman oVers nothing; she is taken, and this is her crime’ (p. 143). Cf. Washington (1997: 355), Exum (1996: 109). Yee (2003: 123) speaks of ‘the Egyptians sexually molesting the sisters as children’. 171 Ortlund (1996) seems to recognize the ‘childhood’ of these ‘girls’, but nevertheless appears to suggest that they enjoyed this abuse, speaking of ‘their Wrst experiences with harlotry and their unresisting loss of virginity’ (p. 119 n. 50): ‘Israel learned early the pleasures to be had in seductive approaches by foreigners . . . as girls they began their careers of easy availability for casual sex. They had always hankered after debased and debasing pleasures. But still, Yahweh graciously took the sisters to be his wives’ (p. 119). Incongruously, Ortlund is more concerned with the idea that YHWH may have taken two wives than with the suggestion of sexual abuse, which he does not touch on, instead insisting, ‘It would be unfair to the author for the reader to pour every conceivable entailment into the author’s language. . . . Rather than corrupt the biblical vision of Yahweh, this language enhances one’s sense of his personal love and generous care for his people’ (pp. 120–1 n. 51).

Ezekiel 16 & 23

Imagery here:

Aaron Koller argues convincly that YHWH engaged in some sort of pornography.

G maintains the address by an explicatory insertion of “like you”; it stumbles over ta/J,at (“from”), but at the verse end reads ‘tnnym. G’s Vorlage seems to have read, “The woman who commits adultery while married to her husband takes hires,” and may be regarded as an alternative to vs. 33a. Was there also a reading in vs. 33b of ‘tnnyk for present ‘t ndnyk? As vs. 33a is (quite properly) in the third person, so is this hypothetical Vorlage wbich eventually was confiated with it. The corruption of ‘tnnm to ‘t uym may have been facilitated by misunderstanding ta/J,at as “instead of” (e.g., Num 3:12, 45, where laqah X tahat Y = “take X instead of Y”); that is indeed how Kara interprets our passage: “You are like [cf. Gl] an adulterous woman who forsakes the mate of her youth and instead of her husband takes strangers.” The multiple apt connotations of zarim, noted above, assured its survival as an enrichment of the text.

36. your juice was poured out. A reference to female genital “distillation” produced by sexual arousal. nelJ,ustek-the versional renderings “your copper” guarantee the graph-is evidently the cognate of Akkadian nabsati “morbid genital outflow [of a woman],” from nbJ “be abundant, overflowing” (M. Greenberg, in Essays . .. in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, pp. 85f.). Medieval guesses connected it with an obscure Mishnaic tenn nel;zusto seWtannur “the bottom of an oven,” which A. Geiger adopted (Urschrift und Obersetzungen der Bibel, 2te Auflage [Frankfurt: Madda, 1928], pp. 391ft [Hebrew translation, Ha-miqra ve-targumav (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1949), pp. 25lf.]). Citing T S, Geiger emended the preceding word to I;zospek and the following to watt”galli, arriving at “you exposed your nether parts and uncovered your nakedness.” Modems generally follow suit, but the Akkadian cognate above-mentioned opens the possibility of interpreting the text as it stands. (T “your pudendum was exposed and your shame revealed” repeats itself at vs. 37 and 23: 18 as the stock rendering of several like expressions, regardless of their precise wording; it cannot therefore be relied upon for emending our passage.) This may be the earliest instance of what became a motif of hypersexuality in erotic literature.

expose nakedness . . . they shall gaze. The public degradation of a harlot by exhibiting her naked is mentioned in Hos 2: 12; Nahum 3: 5; Jer 13:22, 26. A modified fonn appears in Mishnah Sotah 1.5, inflicted on a suspected adulteress before her trial (as here); the rationale expressed there–“She exposed herself for sin, God therefore exposes her” -fits our case, for this humiliation corresponds to the indictment of vs. 36a. Such uncovering of nakedness or turning back clothing is distinct from the stripping of the adulteress, which occurs after her conviction (vs. 39).

https://www.academia.edu/6073566/Gender_Reversal_and_Cosmic_Chaos_A_Study_in_the_Book_of_Ezekiel