A History of Prostitution from Antiquity to the Present Day

by George Ryley Scott

This survey of the history of prostitution from antiquity to the twentieth century is one of the first comprehensive studies of this phenomenon. George Ryley Scott writes this treatise in reaction to the lack of literature on the subject at his time, dismissing the only volumes available as outdated, fragmentary, or prejudiced, as they were often sponsored by reformist groups. Thus, Scott presents us with a refreshingly honest and nonbiased view of prostitution.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

239 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1936

Reviews

[Chelsea · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting exposé on the history of prostitution throughout the world. While dated (it was written in the 1960's) there is something refreshing about its lack of political correctness in dealing with the issues. Nonetheless, the author clearly has compassion for his subject. His main point elaborates on why prostitution is a byproduct of the institution of marital monogamy. While this is not an earth shattering thesis, it does differ from other post/feminist perspectives on the history of prostitution, and was probably pretty forward-thinking at the time. He also covers the range of female experience cross-culturally and within different classes.

[Ahsan Butt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have translated this book from English into Urdu for Nigarshat Publishers, Lahore, Pakistan. The title of Urdu translation is Jism Faroshi Ki Tareekh جسم فروشی کی تاریخ.

[Kareninfolsom · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a bunch of garbage! Short on facts, long on pomposity.

Page 179 pretty much sums it up: men should be able to have sex whenever their "needs" demand, regardless of whether or not their insensitive wives want to. Of course, there are also those times when a wife is on her period or pregnant and therefore unavailable for sex. As long as men have 'virility' there's no getting rid of prostitution. So there.

The author glosses over the horrors of abuse and slavery, and distinguishes between girls of gentle birth and those of the lower classes in a way that makes my skin crawl.

Sorely tempted to drop this copy in the garbage can; I may.

[Mandy Partridge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oh dear.
Written in 1938, Scott gives a decent history of prostitution, from Biblical times, through ancient Greece and Rome, to modern Europe, Asia, to the colonies of America and Australia.
His main thesis seems to be that sexwork is dreadful for ruling class women and men, but quite alright for the working classes who are used to it, and lesser humans in his opinion.
He is surprisingly not homophobic, given his time, and discusses gay and straight sexwork.
Still, Scott's pomposity makes me feel like retching.

[Robert Beveridge · Rating 2 out of 5]

George Ryley Scott, The History of Prostitution (Senate, 1968)

Scott was certainly on the right track with his study of the prostitute, but unfortunately, he went quite wrong in a number of places and undercut his thesis. Scott, it seems, was trying to present a clearheaded call for the re-evaluation of the attitude towards prostitution in America and Britain, with the ultimate goal of legalization and regulation. In doing so, he covered the historical changes in attitudes towards prostitution, its reasons for existence, various results of its outlawing at various times, etc. Overall, his argument is clearheaded and lucid, and his heart is certainly in the right place; all the arguments he makes for the legalization of prostitution are solid ones, and most have been discussed into the ground by reasonable non-sex-obsessed people for decades. Where Scott goes wrong every time is in his citations. Some of his citations are worthwhile, from official reports and the like. However, the rest of them are from supposedly-eyewitness works like Slaves to Sin: The Trade in Women's Flesh and Walter: My Secret Life, the very titles of which lead to speculation about how much of the stuff Scott is citing as fact was exaggeration in the first place, and how much of it deserved much, much closer scrutiny before being used as the basis for an argument. The use of such sources here is likely to lend the finders of prurience in everything they see all the ammunition necessary to deride Scott's whole work as unreliable. And, in truth, such a position probably has legs. Scott ended up doing more to defeat his cause than to defend it. Which is unfortunate, because it's a righteous cause with far too few defenders. ** ½

[Henri Moreaux · Rating 3 out of 5]

Originally written in 1936 GR Scott's A History of Prostitution certainly is not your average history book.

I read the September 1940 T. Werner Laurie Ltd second impression edition which came complete with a restricted sale warning which was of interest in itself: "The sale of this book is restricted to members of the Medical and Legal Professions, Scientists, Anthropologists, Psychologists, Sociologists, Criminologists, and Social Workers." So it's clear this wasn't your average night time reading back in the day either.

As the title gives away, this book gives an overview of the history of prostitution as well as prostitution as it currently* stands in England, France, America & Queensland, Australia (*Currently being 1936-1940).

As with most historical reference books there are some errors and oversights based on established ideas of the time which have been corrected in the last 78 years since it was written. One of the largest of such being the recognition that homosexuality is not a choice, or a "perversion".

Nonetheless, despite a few errors founded on the ideas of the time this book still provides a reasonable history outline which is still relevant to today's reader. It is in my eyes the most accessible and earliest examples of scientific / critical enquiry into prostitution which has not been tainted by a moralist / reformist / puritanical outlook.

[Yuliya]

have bought this book in a second hand store. a little to scientific for the topic like that. but i hope i will finish it one day.

[Stephanie Molnar]

A lot of old-fashioned opinions which, of course, I do not agree with and find offensive. Over all, though, it wasn't a difficult read and I'm not sorry I read it.