What about the pimps?

[C. F. Leon]

Just a thought- Could this be the root of the Schwartz incident? BSM was the local "pimp" and saw Stride on "his" territory. Whether or not she was ACTIVELY soliciting or not, he may have perceived she was, or perhaps even recognized her. Therefore... yada, yada.

I still think it's possible that Pipeman could have been Stride's "date" and she was waiting for him to get off work (the pub?) or he popped into the doorway to "relieve" himself. This leads to BSM's error and that's what IS observes. Pipeman, finishing his "business" panics and remembers that dinner's waiting for him and clears out.

[c.d.]

Hi Sean, thanks for your response. It was definitely interesting.

Is "sex trafficking" the same thing as prostitution or is it a much wider catch all term?

Here is the problem I have. My understanding (thanks to Trevor) is that the common price for enjoying the favors of a woman on the street was basically the same price as a drink. In other words, not much. Now if you have pimps/or organized prostitution I would have to imagine they would want at least a third of the woman's earnings. So would the typical Whitechapel prostitute want to stand in the cold or rain for hours, risking being roughed up and/or harrassed by clients or police, not to mention the wear and tear on her body for two thirds of the price of a drink? And could the pimps sustain themselves on one third of those earings? I can't see how the math works out. It seems to me like a losing deal for both parties. Maybe someone can help me put this in perspective.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Oh my God. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha a-ha ha ha ha ha ha.

How did we ever get a state where someone could make a statement this? Blimey!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha a-ha ha ha ha ha ha. How did we ever get into a state where levels of comprehension were so piss-poor that someone could misread what I (correctly) stated as meaning the "non-existence of organised sex work in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century". I said no such thing.

It certainly existed, but not in the same manner or extent that popular portrayals might have us believe. It certainly didn't mean that Spitalfields (specifically) was thronged with brothels staffed by comely wenches. In terms the social status of actual and potential Ripper victims, we're largely talking about middle-aged beggars, down-and-outs or bag-ladies, rather than prostitutes in an organised or "pimped" sense.

In point of fact, there were more "brothels" in Poplar than Spitalfields. I know as much because I've been reading scholarly books and articles about these things for decades. So less of the "ha ha ha" please.

[John Wheat]

Oh my God. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha a-ha ha ha ha ha ha.

How did we ever get a state where someone could make a statement this? Blimey!

I wouldn't claim to be an expert in sex work in the 19th Century but this seems rude and I expect Sam Flynn knows what he's talking about in this matter. In fact I'd put money on it.

[c.d.]

We also have to define "brothel." Would a saloon in the Old West qualify as a brothel? There were saloons where some ladies would take you upstairs but were they saloons or brothels? So yes, there might have been some pubs where prostitutes hung out or you could slip the bartender a little something to hook you up but is that technically a brothel?

And if there were brothels in Whitechapel/Spitafields who would their clientele be? I can't see the average resident in those areas being able to afford it. Would the clientele come from more affluent areas?

c.d.

[Indian Harry]

These women were at at the bottom of the pile....The fourpenny pittence they earned from a shag covered their drink or bed but would not keep a pimp. No pimp would tolerate such lazy habits.

I agree, no pimp would take a look at these women and ever think they would get good return on investment.

[Karen Butterfill]

Too answer this post you need to stop just looking at the Bully Boys, and start to understand the workings of the gangs such as the Bassarabian etc….‘Bully Boys’ were in themselves….organised.

[seanr]

Too answer this post you need to stop just looking at the Bully Boys, and start to understand the workings of the gangs such as the Bassarabian etc….‘Bully Boys’ were in themselves….organised.

A very erudite post...

[seanr]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha a-ha ha ha ha ha ha. How did we ever get into a state where levels of comprehension were so piss-poor that someone could misread what I (correctly) stated as meaning the "non-existence of organised sex work in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century". I said no such thing.

It certainly existed, but not in the same manner or extent that popular portrayals might have us believe. It certainly didn't mean that Spitalfields (specifically) was thronged with brothels staffed by comely wenches. In terms the social status of actual and potential Ripper victims, we're largely talking about middle-aged beggars, down-and-outs or bag-ladies, rather than prostitutes in an organised or "pimped" sense.

I feel like I must explain the ‘Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha a-ha ha ha ha ha ha’. It was in no way directed at any individual poster. But take a look at the thread as a whole from another point of view.

Quite a few years ago, a new-ish poster named Frank asked a question about pimps, hinting at the potential of pimps to be in some way involved in the area of or the investigation into these crimes.

Another poster Blue Wizzard inquires about territorial claims which any individuals or groups of pimps may have felt they had. These are entirely reasonable questions. It may be difficult or even impossible to get reasonable answers, but they are reasonable questions.

Yet heavy-hitters who have been reading scholarly books and articles about these things for decades, beat down the entire line of inquiry, with mocking allusions to ‘fly guys riding around in pink hansoms with fur trim’ and they are told that they need to ‘steep in some period social history rather than applying your 21st C conceptions’. Perhaps some irony there.

And the whole line of reasoning seems to end on the conclusion there was little in the way of organised prostitution in Spitalfields’, the posters who asked the questions have been humbled into silence.

Then imagine stumbling on this thread at all because one is following up on organised sex work and human trafficking networks, which may have thrived in the Aldgate, Whitechapel and Spitalfields areas.

In point of fact, there were more "brothels" in Poplar than Spitalfields. I know as much because I've been reading scholarly books and articles about these things for decades. So less of the "ha ha ha" please.

I’m aware of what the current scholarly consensus is. It is that consensus, and how absurdly distorted and misleading it appears to be, that elicits laughter. Laughter which in itself arises from a profound discomfort.