What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire and Sexuality
This study of British imperial history has been aimed at those who are interested in exploring the underlying realities of British expansion on the world stage. This book deals specifically with sex and its effect on the Empire. The book discusses the differences between the private lives and public responsibilities of the men who ran the Empire. It examines the issues of marriage, celibacy and women, Victorian sexuality and sexual opportunity. It covers the variety of communities in the Empire - plantations, trading posts, mining compounds, convict settlements, mission stations and settler communities - and discusses sexual life in India with emphasis on promiscuity and the resulting levels of venereal disease in the Indian Army. The book also discusses the problems resulting from polygamy, the relationship between poverty and prostitution and the issue of white slavery. It examines the change in sexual attitudes during the Edwardian era and cites specific cases, tragedies and scandals, including the Silberrad case, the Crewe circular and the "Purity Campaign", resulting from sexual encounters. Finally, the author draws conclusions from the articles and essays included in the book and relates the issues of race, sex and the Empire, finally concluding that in his opinion a return to Victorian sexual values is the last thing the world needs.
248 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
3 people are currently reading
159 people want to read
About the author
Ronald Hyam
17 books6 followersDr. Ronald Hyam is an Emeritus Fellow, and a former President of Magdalene College. He is Emeritus Reader in British Imperial History in the University of Cambridge and Archivist Emeritus of the College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
February 20, 2020
This is a horribly dated book. I couldn't believe it was written as recently as 1990, and neither could the person who took it out before me, because they wrote things in the margins like "UBELIEVABLE!! 1990!" when the author writers that "At the moment, however, feminist studies remain of limited value to the general historian" and goes on about the "poverty of feminism" or when the author referes to a clitoridectomy as "comestic surgery." My annotator wrote, "IT IS MUTILATION." Honestly the notes, which are only in the edition I borrowed from the University of Chicago library, were the best thing about the book. There is actually some interesting material about trends in the British empire, but it's just a mess of outdated, sexist, racist assumptions.
December 13, 2022
The definitive account of how the British reacted sexually when they encountered the very different mores of their subject peoples. In summary, one might say that early reactions were largely receptive and positive for both rulers and ruled, but sadly gave way to the influence of the homegrown Social Purity Movement of the 1890s.
Most of my reading is historical and this riveting history by the leading expert on many aspects of the British Empire is the best I have read for many years. It is one of those rare books that, though extremely well-researched and argued with vigorous logic, are at the same time so well-written and fascinating that they should appeal to readers of both popular and academic history.
Homosexuality is a recurring topic, as it occasioned the most violent cultural clashes with British values. Hyam shows how in its traditional pederastic form it was very widely practised in Asia and Africa in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Most fascinating of all is his account of King Mwanga of Buganda and his enormous harem of pubescent boys presented to him by their noble parents in accordance with a Bugandan tradition valued for the bonds it fostered between the Kings and their nobilities. This should be compulsory reading for those African leaders who now claim that homosexuality is unafrican.
For me, the true mark of great historical writing is that one should not be able to tell when it was written, as to venture into the past encumbered with baggage from one’s own age is to be immediately susceptible to anachronism, the greatest sin of the historian. Empire and Sexuality lives fully up to this. This is history written to enlighten and entertain the reader, and anyone ready for the culture shock involved in any true voyage into the past will be delighted.
The drawback to this rather old-fashioned approach to writing history is that two groups of people may be upset. Readers who expect to be told what to think may be disconcerted by Professor Hyam’s non-judgmental approach, particularly where it concerns sexual behavior which has run foul of the new puritan order which arose in the 1980s and is brilliantly summarised in Professor Mackenzie’s foreward in words as succinct and accurate as they are heartfelt and damning.
Equally, I suspect that many of his colleagues will have been frustrated and irritated by his insistence on engaging the reader rather than them. Sadly, I find far too many modern academic historians allow themselves to be waylaid into a mutually glorifying and ephemeral debate on the correct theoretical approach.
Strongly recommended.
Edmund Marlowe, author of Alexander’s Choice, an Eton love story, https://www.amazon.com/dp/191457107X.
Most of my reading is historical and this riveting history by the leading expert on many aspects of the British Empire is the best I have read for many years. It is one of those rare books that, though extremely well-researched and argued with vigorous logic, are at the same time so well-written and fascinating that they should appeal to readers of both popular and academic history.
Homosexuality is a recurring topic, as it occasioned the most violent cultural clashes with British values. Hyam shows how in its traditional pederastic form it was very widely practised in Asia and Africa in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Most fascinating of all is his account of King Mwanga of Buganda and his enormous harem of pubescent boys presented to him by their noble parents in accordance with a Bugandan tradition valued for the bonds it fostered between the Kings and their nobilities. This should be compulsory reading for those African leaders who now claim that homosexuality is unafrican.
For me, the true mark of great historical writing is that one should not be able to tell when it was written, as to venture into the past encumbered with baggage from one’s own age is to be immediately susceptible to anachronism, the greatest sin of the historian. Empire and Sexuality lives fully up to this. This is history written to enlighten and entertain the reader, and anyone ready for the culture shock involved in any true voyage into the past will be delighted.
The drawback to this rather old-fashioned approach to writing history is that two groups of people may be upset. Readers who expect to be told what to think may be disconcerted by Professor Hyam’s non-judgmental approach, particularly where it concerns sexual behavior which has run foul of the new puritan order which arose in the 1980s and is brilliantly summarised in Professor Mackenzie’s foreward in words as succinct and accurate as they are heartfelt and damning.
Equally, I suspect that many of his colleagues will have been frustrated and irritated by his insistence on engaging the reader rather than them. Sadly, I find far too many modern academic historians allow themselves to be waylaid into a mutually glorifying and ephemeral debate on the correct theoretical approach.
Strongly recommended.
Edmund Marlowe, author of Alexander’s Choice, an Eton love story, https://www.amazon.com/dp/191457107X.
June 18, 2024
I can't remember when or where I first heard about this book. It certainly wasn't a personal recommendation. No one I know would even conceive that such a book exists at all! I'm fairly certain it was a reference I came across while reading something completely different online. It was probably mentioned in passing or as a citation. It is exactly the kind of thing that would stop me in my tracks, make me say "no way!" to myself and then go buy it on Amazon before then returning to whatever text it was I was reading in the first place. Yes, I am a sucker for shopping in this way (at least when it comes to off-the-wall books).
The book then sat on my (rather extensive) to-read pile for at least a couple of years. It was only after moving home and now having a place much more conducive for reading (and writing for that matter) that I decided to open the academic tome and get started.
The book describes itself as a "lively study of the sexual attitudes of the men who ran the British Empire" and aims to show that the Empire was built not just on religion and commerce but also the needs for sexual gratification among the British servants of the Empire. That such a book could be written at all was a surprise to me. I didn't think there would be much in the records of the private affairs of officials in strait-laced Victorian society; but I was wrong.
The first thing to note is that this book was published in 1991. A lot has changed in that time. It is still bizarre for me to think that a) I was twenty back then and b) it was 33 years ago. Both should be obvious but my brain makes me forget to save me from despair. When this book published I had not yet begun my professional career as a teacher and what I knew about the Empire you could write on the back of a stamp.
Like I say. A lot has changed since then.
Unfortunately, this means that Hyam's book has not aged too well. There is more than a strong hint of 'pro-Empire' about the way he phrases things and especially about the way he 'excuses' some of the exploits of British officers in service abroad that, today, we would call out for what they are: paedophilia and sexual abuse.
He's also not a fan of feminism, dismissing such analysis as, at best, 'primitive' and largely sees it as irrelevant because his work focuses 'on the attitudes and activities of the men who ran the empire'. That Hyam can't see the irony of this thinking says a lot about the mentality of the day. These men, who used and abused woman (as well as boys) throughout the empire, ruled with a paternalistic ideology that saw themselves as the gatekeepers to the civilised world and bearing 'the white man's burden'. If you can't see at least the interest in a feminist critique here, there's something very wrong. Hyam is clear that he doesn't value in a discipline he sees as automatically hostile towards one gender. To say this is blinkered is an understatement.
It is also a great pity. This book would have been so much better had space been given to any female perspective in any form. This is especially important considering how often Hyam justifies the actions of several men who were punished for their indiscretions, by claiming that they had followed 'honourable' traditions in villages and bought their concubines in perfectly acceptable ways. These 'honourable ways' turn out to be negotiating the temporary bride price with the fathers of the women of interest. Hyam more than suggests this meant all was perfectly fine from a contemporary point of view. It isn't, of course. What did the women themselves think? There is at least one case of a young woman who was pursued and repeatedly rejected the man's advances but was in the end made to become his concubine as a result of deals made with her father. While I know that things are done differently in many parts of the world, they weren't done like this in England even at that time (unless you were royalty, of course). That the woman usually had no say in the matter is repulsive. That Hyam makes no comment on this is almost equally so.
Instead, he picks up more on the reasons for some men being punished: defiling the Empire. It was believed that mixed race children would bear 'the worst traits of both races' and it was disgusting that white men should even consider having sexual relations with women of colour. To be fair, Hyam is not wrong to pick up on this. It is a ghastly thought that this was the common thinking of English people for so long. No wonder the vestiges are still here in society today. More worrying is that such thinking is beginning to make a come back.
Another crime of Hyam's, is that he consistently passes over, without comment, the activities themselves - of which there are many cited. While he details what men wrote in their diaries about conquests with young boys (including how many times climax was achieved etc.) he makes no comment at all about the fact that many sexual conquests were girls and boys who were not even in their teens. Again, I appreciate we lived in different times then and even in my lifetime I've seen a shift in society's views. When I was young, famous men having teenage girlfriends under the age of sixteen was just passed over in silence - if not admiration. The Prince Andrew scandals, et al, should not just be the condemnation of such men but also a tacit condemnation of society itself that approved of such things. But Hyam doesn't go there. If anything, there's whiffs of dislike that such men engaged in homosexual activities (also a bad thing!), but nothing at all about the rights and wrongs of taking boys against their will and having sex with them.
What Hyam does show, however, is that such activities were rife. When attempts were made to wipe out concubinage and prostitution across the empire, it was met with great resistance because it was so widespread, officials feared they'd lose men if licence wasn't given. Most of the time it had been a case of: as long as you don't bring scandal to the empire and you don't cause the natives to riot, what you do behind locked doors is up to you.
Perhaps the most fascinating idea presented though is this: Sex is at the very heart of racism - at least during the empire days. Hyam posits that racists views around the world were effectively ranked according to the attractiveness of native women. The idea that colonially racist views were graded according to the attractiveness of the women in any particular country is eye-opening to say the least.
It is an astonishing hypothesis but one I find difficult to fault. I can see great parallels to English racism today albeit that tastes have changed. In empire days, African women were seen as ugly but Japanese women were exquisite. Is it any coincidence that the western world continues to largely ignore Africa today while Japan became the best Asian friend of the west within years of the end of WWI despite Hiroshima and all that? Today though, the black woman is often seen as a goddess of beauty whereas the veiled Muslim woman (nothing but walking letterboxes, as Boris Johnson famously jibed) is derided and feared.
Another eye-opener was the idea that race relations in the Empire deteriorated according to the size the subjugated cock. The smaller statured Asian man, it seems, was better liked for being no rival for the affections of white women. However, the African man, with his reputation (deserved or otherwise) of great physical prowess in that region, was very much not liked by the British Imperial. Again, there is much mileage in this hypothesis. Outside of the Islamic terrorist rhetoric that is a fairly recent invention, Asian men have generally been seen as harmless and feeble by blinkered western minds. But the stats that a black man in London is nine times more likely to be stopped by Police and searched for weapons is well known. Why do we fear the black male community so much? Can such racism come down to the White man's shame of his supposed cock size?
It is definitely a thought-provoking theory and for that reason, Hyam's book is redeemed a little for its omissions and blinkered outlooks. There's material of use here even if the author tells us as much about his own views as he does about empire history. I suspect this book will remain in the canon of academic material as I doubt there are many books on this subject out there. If there are others, I'm not sure I need to read them. I was fascinated by the concept of such a book and wanted to know what written archival material exists, but my thirst for such knowledge is quenched. Anything further would surely just be the equivalent of a peeping tom. And I find myself coming back to the fact that maybe these boys, girls, men and women who were the subjects of the British Empire have suffered more than enough. Time to leave them in silence.
The book then sat on my (rather extensive) to-read pile for at least a couple of years. It was only after moving home and now having a place much more conducive for reading (and writing for that matter) that I decided to open the academic tome and get started.
The book describes itself as a "lively study of the sexual attitudes of the men who ran the British Empire" and aims to show that the Empire was built not just on religion and commerce but also the needs for sexual gratification among the British servants of the Empire. That such a book could be written at all was a surprise to me. I didn't think there would be much in the records of the private affairs of officials in strait-laced Victorian society; but I was wrong.
The first thing to note is that this book was published in 1991. A lot has changed in that time. It is still bizarre for me to think that a) I was twenty back then and b) it was 33 years ago. Both should be obvious but my brain makes me forget to save me from despair. When this book published I had not yet begun my professional career as a teacher and what I knew about the Empire you could write on the back of a stamp.
Like I say. A lot has changed since then.
Unfortunately, this means that Hyam's book has not aged too well. There is more than a strong hint of 'pro-Empire' about the way he phrases things and especially about the way he 'excuses' some of the exploits of British officers in service abroad that, today, we would call out for what they are: paedophilia and sexual abuse.
He's also not a fan of feminism, dismissing such analysis as, at best, 'primitive' and largely sees it as irrelevant because his work focuses 'on the attitudes and activities of the men who ran the empire'. That Hyam can't see the irony of this thinking says a lot about the mentality of the day. These men, who used and abused woman (as well as boys) throughout the empire, ruled with a paternalistic ideology that saw themselves as the gatekeepers to the civilised world and bearing 'the white man's burden'. If you can't see at least the interest in a feminist critique here, there's something very wrong. Hyam is clear that he doesn't value in a discipline he sees as automatically hostile towards one gender. To say this is blinkered is an understatement.
It is also a great pity. This book would have been so much better had space been given to any female perspective in any form. This is especially important considering how often Hyam justifies the actions of several men who were punished for their indiscretions, by claiming that they had followed 'honourable' traditions in villages and bought their concubines in perfectly acceptable ways. These 'honourable ways' turn out to be negotiating the temporary bride price with the fathers of the women of interest. Hyam more than suggests this meant all was perfectly fine from a contemporary point of view. It isn't, of course. What did the women themselves think? There is at least one case of a young woman who was pursued and repeatedly rejected the man's advances but was in the end made to become his concubine as a result of deals made with her father. While I know that things are done differently in many parts of the world, they weren't done like this in England even at that time (unless you were royalty, of course). That the woman usually had no say in the matter is repulsive. That Hyam makes no comment on this is almost equally so.
Instead, he picks up more on the reasons for some men being punished: defiling the Empire. It was believed that mixed race children would bear 'the worst traits of both races' and it was disgusting that white men should even consider having sexual relations with women of colour. To be fair, Hyam is not wrong to pick up on this. It is a ghastly thought that this was the common thinking of English people for so long. No wonder the vestiges are still here in society today. More worrying is that such thinking is beginning to make a come back.
Another crime of Hyam's, is that he consistently passes over, without comment, the activities themselves - of which there are many cited. While he details what men wrote in their diaries about conquests with young boys (including how many times climax was achieved etc.) he makes no comment at all about the fact that many sexual conquests were girls and boys who were not even in their teens. Again, I appreciate we lived in different times then and even in my lifetime I've seen a shift in society's views. When I was young, famous men having teenage girlfriends under the age of sixteen was just passed over in silence - if not admiration. The Prince Andrew scandals, et al, should not just be the condemnation of such men but also a tacit condemnation of society itself that approved of such things. But Hyam doesn't go there. If anything, there's whiffs of dislike that such men engaged in homosexual activities (also a bad thing!), but nothing at all about the rights and wrongs of taking boys against their will and having sex with them.
What Hyam does show, however, is that such activities were rife. When attempts were made to wipe out concubinage and prostitution across the empire, it was met with great resistance because it was so widespread, officials feared they'd lose men if licence wasn't given. Most of the time it had been a case of: as long as you don't bring scandal to the empire and you don't cause the natives to riot, what you do behind locked doors is up to you.
Perhaps the most fascinating idea presented though is this: Sex is at the very heart of racism - at least during the empire days. Hyam posits that racists views around the world were effectively ranked according to the attractiveness of native women. The idea that colonially racist views were graded according to the attractiveness of the women in any particular country is eye-opening to say the least.
It is an astonishing hypothesis but one I find difficult to fault. I can see great parallels to English racism today albeit that tastes have changed. In empire days, African women were seen as ugly but Japanese women were exquisite. Is it any coincidence that the western world continues to largely ignore Africa today while Japan became the best Asian friend of the west within years of the end of WWI despite Hiroshima and all that? Today though, the black woman is often seen as a goddess of beauty whereas the veiled Muslim woman (nothing but walking letterboxes, as Boris Johnson famously jibed) is derided and feared.
Another eye-opener was the idea that race relations in the Empire deteriorated according to the size the subjugated cock. The smaller statured Asian man, it seems, was better liked for being no rival for the affections of white women. However, the African man, with his reputation (deserved or otherwise) of great physical prowess in that region, was very much not liked by the British Imperial. Again, there is much mileage in this hypothesis. Outside of the Islamic terrorist rhetoric that is a fairly recent invention, Asian men have generally been seen as harmless and feeble by blinkered western minds. But the stats that a black man in London is nine times more likely to be stopped by Police and searched for weapons is well known. Why do we fear the black male community so much? Can such racism come down to the White man's shame of his supposed cock size?
It is definitely a thought-provoking theory and for that reason, Hyam's book is redeemed a little for its omissions and blinkered outlooks. There's material of use here even if the author tells us as much about his own views as he does about empire history. I suspect this book will remain in the canon of academic material as I doubt there are many books on this subject out there. If there are others, I'm not sure I need to read them. I was fascinated by the concept of such a book and wanted to know what written archival material exists, but my thirst for such knowledge is quenched. Anything further would surely just be the equivalent of a peeping tom. And I find myself coming back to the fact that maybe these boys, girls, men and women who were the subjects of the British Empire have suffered more than enough. Time to leave them in silence.
February 1, 2011
Let me remind everyone, all these books about sex in England are for a class I have. If you didn't know that it may look weird. Anyway,
Not sure what to do with this book. It is very direct and thorough in its investigation, and the research is very extensive. Certainly not for the faint of heart. But it has certainly really opened my eyes to a whole subject they obviously don't talk about in high school but is extremely important and pervasive. I know a lot about brothels now.
The author is interesting too. It's hard to write a reference book like this and keep people interested but I never got bored of this book. Perhaps because if was full of scandals that were interesting. He is also pretty funny, and his British humor makes reading enjoyable sometimes.
That said, he is obviously one of these super research types who really hates any sort of literary or social theory, and goes very much out of his way to attack feminism. That put me off a bit.
So in the end, it was good but I had a few problems. Not like any of you are going to read it right?
Not sure what to do with this book. It is very direct and thorough in its investigation, and the research is very extensive. Certainly not for the faint of heart. But it has certainly really opened my eyes to a whole subject they obviously don't talk about in high school but is extremely important and pervasive. I know a lot about brothels now.
The author is interesting too. It's hard to write a reference book like this and keep people interested but I never got bored of this book. Perhaps because if was full of scandals that were interesting. He is also pretty funny, and his British humor makes reading enjoyable sometimes.
That said, he is obviously one of these super research types who really hates any sort of literary or social theory, and goes very much out of his way to attack feminism. That put me off a bit.
So in the end, it was good but I had a few problems. Not like any of you are going to read it right?
March 16, 2022
a terrible book that should really be removed from shelves. if I could give it negative stars I would.
Hyam goes out of his way to demonise + infantilise feminist ideologies while simultaneously reinforcing the importance of these movements- his refusal to focus on any aspect of sexuality that don't wholly pertain to the White British male is astounding, for a book dedicated to the impact of colonialism on sexuality. furthermore his ambiguous amorality on the atrocities of the British pillaging and violent colonisation of India and subsequent countries is jarring to a modern reader, a true testament to the absolute impenetrability of the White Male ego.
He echoes extremely antiquated views, likening himself to the typical Edwardian anti-feminist at the moment of womens suffrage; while reading, you half expect him to assume a stance of pro-lobotimization, or institutionalisation of any woman who dares suggest her own human rights. This of course is natural to a writer who so obviously sees Humanity as a synonym for Man. The fact that this text ever got through to be commercially published will haunt me forever, especially since it was wRITTEN IN THE 1990S!!! A book this laughably misinformed would be hard pressed to be respected in the 1960s, let alone the year of our lord 1900 and 90. There is so much more I could say about this excuse for a history book, however I wont assault your sensibilities any longer. Just dont read it. please
PS Feminism, Imperialism and Race: a dialogue between India and Britain by BARBARA N. RAMUSACK is a good essay to read instead of this book, a more well-informed perspective on the subject.
Hyam goes out of his way to demonise + infantilise feminist ideologies while simultaneously reinforcing the importance of these movements- his refusal to focus on any aspect of sexuality that don't wholly pertain to the White British male is astounding, for a book dedicated to the impact of colonialism on sexuality. furthermore his ambiguous amorality on the atrocities of the British pillaging and violent colonisation of India and subsequent countries is jarring to a modern reader, a true testament to the absolute impenetrability of the White Male ego.
He echoes extremely antiquated views, likening himself to the typical Edwardian anti-feminist at the moment of womens suffrage; while reading, you half expect him to assume a stance of pro-lobotimization, or institutionalisation of any woman who dares suggest her own human rights. This of course is natural to a writer who so obviously sees Humanity as a synonym for Man. The fact that this text ever got through to be commercially published will haunt me forever, especially since it was wRITTEN IN THE 1990S!!! A book this laughably misinformed would be hard pressed to be respected in the 1960s, let alone the year of our lord 1900 and 90. There is so much more I could say about this excuse for a history book, however I wont assault your sensibilities any longer. Just dont read it. please
PS Feminism, Imperialism and Race: a dialogue between India and Britain by BARBARA N. RAMUSACK is a good essay to read instead of this book, a more well-informed perspective on the subject.
January 24, 2021
A book which contains extensive and detailed research on those topics it touches upon. Other reviewers have pointed out that the author unfortunately takes up a very hostile stance towards feminist scholarship in the text. If this was a matter of one short tirade somewhere in the text, it wouldn't be all so bad. But I get the impression that his overall research and analysis suffer from his stance. For a book on "empire and sexuality," it seemed to me surprisingly silent on anything but British male sexuality. Detailed descriptions of the sexual lives, writings, etc. of various famous British men follow each other, but the author rarely moves away from this to examine other things. I came to the book looking for information on British women's sexuality/relationships in British India and found very little. In many respects, his attitude against feminist scholarship also seems to entail an unwillingness to question and move beyond sexist (and possibly racist) perspectives (as becomes apparent when the author deals with topics such as sexual violence, genital mutilation etc.). Its focus on white men (and their perspective) and its refusal to move away from the "history of great men" (for the most part) made the book appear so dated that I was surprised to find out it was written in the 90s.
read-bits-and-pieces
February 17, 2014Only had time to browse few of the most interesting chapters.
One piece of information that particularly stuck in my mind:
The common "knowledge" is that in the Victorian era the vast majority of British women who offered sex services did so out of having no other real means to support them financially.
Not quite so it seems.
The truth - well, according to some research at least - is that most of "fallen ladies" actually plunged into prostitution voluntarily (relatively speaking of course) because it paid better (sometimes much better) as opposed to remaining as, say, a maid even in a relatively well-to-do household.
No doubt the "good folks" (who were responsible in the first place for the demand of these "ladies of the night") still considered prostitution a wretched and filthy thing to be doing, and these largely young women had to face being ostracized and being treated - particularly by various "relief" organizations I'm sure - as essentially wayward children who simply didn't know any better.
Facts rather seem to point in the direction that it was indeed a conscious choice, and particularly younger women were often tempted to view prostitution as more or less a glamorous occupation as they saw their "fallen" friends wearing smart clothes and expensive perfumes.
All of a sudden, the potential perks seemed to outweigh the less rosy realities of the job. After all, for a young and beautiful woman there was always the chance that someone will buy you expensive clothes and jewelry, take you out to dine in a fancy restaurant or catch the occasional theater show.
Hell, someone nice (again, it's a relative thing) or at least half-decent man might even take you up as their wife - or at least spoil you as their very own private mistress.
Of course for something like that to happen one surely had to possess both the looks and the demeanor to attract real "gentlemen".
Put into that equation the all too common scenario where a housemaid essentially "offered" (= was coaxed or forced) the same services as a proper prostitute (by one or more males, either by masters or servants, who lived in the same quarters or merely frequented the house in question).
Odds were high that you were basically treated as a whore anyways - then it begs the question, why not make some real money out of it if it must be so in any case?
If you were underpaid, under appreciated, sexually abused and likely going nowhere fast if in fact anywhere at all, then it was indeed actually a wiser choice to try one's luck in prostitution instead.
And it didn't necessarily have to mean going out on the streets either.
There were relatively respectable and relatively safe brothels, I'm sure. Some were actually managed by madams who most likely knew from their own experiences that in order to really run a thriving business is to treat your employees well so that they will please their clients better and make them come again (pun intended).
I'm sure there were some madams - and some masters - and of course some clients who actually helped some ladies to get out of the jam. For whatever reasons.
Just because someone works in a sex business doesn't automagically mean they don't have a heart. Now, I don't know this from a personal experience but I assume they are still humans like you and me and not some creatures from the abyss.
So, in conclusion, sometimes (even often times) the only difference between being a maid and being a "legit" prostitute was that the former was so much cheaper and likely much safer choice (= lower risk of catching venereal diseases, PLUS much smaller risk of getting caught as opposed to visiting whorehouses, let alone alleys, where someone might recognize you, try to blackmail you to keep it a secret, or simply getting arrested) - for a "gentleman", that is.
Happy, happy, joy, joy. I'd hate to be the one to point this out but I believe those same young women are worse off today because it's become a global industry with global reach with ties to organized crime, and frequently involves elements of human- and drug trafficking.
Even in the worst case Victorian scenario - which meant hustling on the streets - at least there was a chance to be your own master.
I'm sure in many parts of the world today a prostitute today can consider herself being "lucky" if she gets a penny here and penny there rather than a smack in the face (either from a client or a pimp or both).
More often than not these women are drugged into submission, they will never see their passports again, and they are discarded like a pack of empty cigarettes in the gutter if not shot to death then and there when they start to cost more to their masters than they have usable value.
Believe me, even 16th century slaves as a whole got a better treatment than these modern days' painted women and child-women do. They are less than slaves, they are (barely) living zombies.
1) Don't ever draw parallels between spoiled college kids who exchange sexual favors for the latest iShit because they are insecure attention whores who will always insist on getting what they want with beaten and drugged-up 15-year-old naive girls who were promised lucrative modeling jobs or work as an au pair in well-to-do families in some random affluent OECD-country.
2) The next time a male you know says he's heading down to Thailand or Mexico for some "down time" all by himself, there's more than a slim chance that he's unwittingly telling you the actual truth…
One piece of information that particularly stuck in my mind:
The common "knowledge" is that in the Victorian era the vast majority of British women who offered sex services did so out of having no other real means to support them financially.
Not quite so it seems.
The truth - well, according to some research at least - is that most of "fallen ladies" actually plunged into prostitution voluntarily (relatively speaking of course) because it paid better (sometimes much better) as opposed to remaining as, say, a maid even in a relatively well-to-do household.
No doubt the "good folks" (who were responsible in the first place for the demand of these "ladies of the night") still considered prostitution a wretched and filthy thing to be doing, and these largely young women had to face being ostracized and being treated - particularly by various "relief" organizations I'm sure - as essentially wayward children who simply didn't know any better.
Facts rather seem to point in the direction that it was indeed a conscious choice, and particularly younger women were often tempted to view prostitution as more or less a glamorous occupation as they saw their "fallen" friends wearing smart clothes and expensive perfumes.
All of a sudden, the potential perks seemed to outweigh the less rosy realities of the job. After all, for a young and beautiful woman there was always the chance that someone will buy you expensive clothes and jewelry, take you out to dine in a fancy restaurant or catch the occasional theater show.
Hell, someone nice (again, it's a relative thing) or at least half-decent man might even take you up as their wife - or at least spoil you as their very own private mistress.
Of course for something like that to happen one surely had to possess both the looks and the demeanor to attract real "gentlemen".
Put into that equation the all too common scenario where a housemaid essentially "offered" (= was coaxed or forced) the same services as a proper prostitute (by one or more males, either by masters or servants, who lived in the same quarters or merely frequented the house in question).
Odds were high that you were basically treated as a whore anyways - then it begs the question, why not make some real money out of it if it must be so in any case?
If you were underpaid, under appreciated, sexually abused and likely going nowhere fast if in fact anywhere at all, then it was indeed actually a wiser choice to try one's luck in prostitution instead.
And it didn't necessarily have to mean going out on the streets either.
There were relatively respectable and relatively safe brothels, I'm sure. Some were actually managed by madams who most likely knew from their own experiences that in order to really run a thriving business is to treat your employees well so that they will please their clients better and make them come again (pun intended).
I'm sure there were some madams - and some masters - and of course some clients who actually helped some ladies to get out of the jam. For whatever reasons.
Just because someone works in a sex business doesn't automagically mean they don't have a heart. Now, I don't know this from a personal experience but I assume they are still humans like you and me and not some creatures from the abyss.
So, in conclusion, sometimes (even often times) the only difference between being a maid and being a "legit" prostitute was that the former was so much cheaper and likely much safer choice (= lower risk of catching venereal diseases, PLUS much smaller risk of getting caught as opposed to visiting whorehouses, let alone alleys, where someone might recognize you, try to blackmail you to keep it a secret, or simply getting arrested) - for a "gentleman", that is.
Happy, happy, joy, joy. I'd hate to be the one to point this out but I believe those same young women are worse off today because it's become a global industry with global reach with ties to organized crime, and frequently involves elements of human- and drug trafficking.
Even in the worst case Victorian scenario - which meant hustling on the streets - at least there was a chance to be your own master.
I'm sure in many parts of the world today a prostitute today can consider herself being "lucky" if she gets a penny here and penny there rather than a smack in the face (either from a client or a pimp or both).
More often than not these women are drugged into submission, they will never see their passports again, and they are discarded like a pack of empty cigarettes in the gutter if not shot to death then and there when they start to cost more to their masters than they have usable value.
Believe me, even 16th century slaves as a whole got a better treatment than these modern days' painted women and child-women do. They are less than slaves, they are (barely) living zombies.
1) Don't ever draw parallels between spoiled college kids who exchange sexual favors for the latest iShit because they are insecure attention whores who will always insist on getting what they want with beaten and drugged-up 15-year-old naive girls who were promised lucrative modeling jobs or work as an au pair in well-to-do families in some random affluent OECD-country.
2) The next time a male you know says he's heading down to Thailand or Mexico for some "down time" all by himself, there's more than a slim chance that he's unwittingly telling you the actual truth…
January 24, 2023
Absolutely fascinating.
November 1, 2020
pioneering work with gems of information – those excerpts of roger casement's diaries were so salacious as to shock even me – but incredibly dated, and anti-feminist in parts.
March 30, 2024
This was a book I had wanted to read for a long time because it was mentioned in many other books I had read but, unfortunately, it took far longer than you might imagine to get a copy from a library. Unfortunately I have to admit I was disappointed - primarily because while ground breaking in 1990, it has now been superseded. Of course this is a tribute to the ground breaking work it did which others have built on. What is harder to understand or excuse is the author's blind spots, while feminist theory can be argued over it is ridiculous not to accept the importance of women in forging all aspects of the Imperial experience. His referring to female genital mutilation as no more than a bit of cosmetic surgery was disgraceful even in 1990.
This is not a totally useless book, but it's time has passed and, while necessary material for students it is not a book for more general readers who will find hopeless out of date.
This is not a totally useless book, but it's time has passed and, while necessary material for students it is not a book for more general readers who will find hopeless out of date.
August 5, 2007
This is one of those books that you have to both love and hate. Most people I know hate it. That is partly because the author -- an old fashioned British historian type -- goes out of his way to mock feminism.
Not only that, but he actually supports a theory that suggests that (a) the one good thing to come out of colonialism was what sexual desire created, (b) the the future health of the world depends on more sexual intimacy between and across different "races" and "ethnicities".
He takes a completely amoral or non-judgmental attitude towards this aspect of colonial history. The benefit of this attitude is that it allows him to record some very vivid details -- snapshots around the world of sexual desire.
Hard to know what to do with this book.
Not only that, but he actually supports a theory that suggests that (a) the one good thing to come out of colonialism was what sexual desire created, (b) the the future health of the world depends on more sexual intimacy between and across different "races" and "ethnicities".
He takes a completely amoral or non-judgmental attitude towards this aspect of colonial history. The benefit of this attitude is that it allows him to record some very vivid details -- snapshots around the world of sexual desire.
Hard to know what to do with this book.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews