The myth of sacred prostitution

Clearly we'd have to look at the evidence presented and its interpretation to make a proper decision. It's reported at MetaPagan: Exploding fallacies: "In this study, Stephanie Budin demonstrates that sacred prostitution, the sale of a person's body for sex in which some or all of the money earned was devoted to a deity or a temple, did not exist in the ancient world. Reconsidering the evidence from the ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman texts, and the Early Christian authors, Budin shows that the majority of sources that have traditionally been understood as pertaining to sacred prostitution actually have nothing to do with this institution. The few texts that are usually invoked on this subject are, moreover, terribly misunderstood. Furthermore, contrary to many current hypotheses, the creation of the myth of sacred prostitution has nothing to do with notions of accusation or the construction of a decadent, Oriental 'Other.' Instead, the myth has come into being as a result of more than 2,000 years of misinterpretations, false assumptions, and faulty methodology. The study of sacred prostitution is, effectively, a historiographical reckoning."
Why am I drawing attention to it? Well, interpreting some of the NT texts relating to homo-erotic behaviour turns in part, for some interpreters, on the idea that there was such a thing as sacred prostitution and that this is the real target of the denunciations in, for example, Romans 1. Now it could be that this reappraisal of the idea is more embedded in neo-pagan apologetics and so that will have to be taken into account as a reading strategy when looking at this book.