General Questions Not Yet Answered

[lynn cates]

Polly and Annie

Hello Karen. Well, we have good evidence that Polly and Annie were soliciting. Not such good evidence for the last 3.

The best.
LC

[karensa]

Not sure what the law would be back in the day and whether or not this would've been something considered prostitution, so toss it on the table anyway - it's a widely known secret of Woman that we don't necessarily need any money to get drinks - we have other assets that, when properly and strategically asserted, tend to inspire the male persuasion to produce all the alcohol we can drink down...due to the widely known brain malfunction that makes most males presume that if we're intoxicated enough we're easier to get in the sack...or wherever.

So could the solicitation have been more for alcohol in trade for sexual acts, if they considered "that counts" - and that's why they were drunk, and they weren't actually "on duty" or actively working. I agree with those who have suggested that it's an assumption that these women were actively engaged in prostitution and JtR was pretending to be a john so facilitate the attacks...and there could be any number of interactions between them that didn't have anything to do with hooking.

I'm a bartender...but to presume that any time I pour a shot of something, I'm on the job, is a stretch.

Maybe they were just out partying or looking to socialize or walking or whatever and encountered him in some other circumstance?

[Nell Lance]

I've re-read the victim reports in the past couple days. According to the police records, the victims were picked up as drunk. It may have been standard police procedure to book the women as "prostitutes" because nothing of their circumstances were known. According to the victims themselves they spent money on alcohol. It could have been because the victims were destitute they didn't have the money to spend on food so they drank. At least some of the C5 didn't have the money to pay for a bed. And it's possible they spent nights drinking with their pick-ups and not engaged in any sex act. From what I understand of the history, many people were caught in a vicious cycle of drink and poverty.
And many were victims of abuse and gang violence.

Nell Lance

[belinda]

I wish people would stop talking about "prostitutes". We're mainly talking about superannuated casual prostitutes - not young professional hookers - for whom prostitution wasn't the only means of getting a little bit of money. They were just as likely to have begged, accepted a charitable donation, sold trinkets for a few coppers, as they were to have sold sexual services.

The obsession with "prostitution" - created and fed by some books and most of the visual media over the years, and exacerbated by modern perceptions of the sex trade - is a major stumbling block that we must get over if we are to understand the social dynamics of the Victorian slums.

This is exactly my point.

There was no Welfare State in 1888

I think John raises a good point earlier when he mentioned about John Kellys reflections on his life with Kate....which is in essence all that we have to get some idea of how they were together and what their life was like. The way he paints it they were in bed together most nights before midnight.....thats not the traditional life of an Unfortunate in that area at that time. I read once that there were no verfiable instances when we know that Kate was talking with or engaged by a client for the purposes of solicitation....yet as John points out, somehow she drinks herself fire-engine red in the face without money.

Think of his story about the pawning, and the pawn ticket date. Think about his not seeking out Kate the very next day. Think about the fact that for all we know he may have had her out on the streets making money for the 2 of them. Think of Kates left hand turn out of jail.

Its hard to imagine that she was not a prostitute at least some of the time, but its hard to prove that she was one too.

All the best.

[babybird67]

hi Sam

what do you mean hilarious? Do you have any anecdotes? (i like a good anecdote!)

[Sam Flynn]

I’m sorry, but since prostitution entails an exchange of money for sexual favours, the Whitechapel victims were indeed prostitutes.

The danger with the term "prostitute" is that it is an over-simplification, which has led to some serious (and often unintentionally hilarious) misconceptions about what these women - and indeed Jack - were all about.

[lynn cates]

cart and horse

Hello All. Forgive my ignorance if I am mistaken, but didn't Polly and one or two of the other C5 get involved in massive quantities of alcohol BEFORE their hard times hit? If that it correct, it may not be altogether accurate to portray them as drinking to numb the pain of poverty. It may well be that the pain of poverty came about through the abuse of alcohol.

So, which is cart; which is horse?

The best.
LC

[jason_c]

Neither Kelly nor Chapman had any money. Both were on varying ends of the scale when it came to prostitution in the East End slums. I assume Kelly could be more demanding when it came to financial matters with clients, still she was found penniless.

Chapman, Stride and Eddowes were found at well known prostitution spots. What very little we know suggests they knew their business. Even part-time prostitutes could not expect to survive long on the streets with a naieve attitude.

"They were just as likely to have begged, accepted a charitable donation, sold trinkets for a few coppers, as they were to have sold sexual services".

Again, just like todays prostitutes. Many would rather have charitable/state donations or pass on stolen goods than sell sexual services to strangers.

Perhaps im guilty of looking at the victims only as prostitutes rather than rounded human beings. But when it comes to the prostitution trade i think the victims were well versed in the trade.

[John Bennett]

I’m sorry, but since prostitution entails an exchange of money for sexual favours, the Whitechapel victims were indeed prostitutes.

Perhaps to put the cat amongst the pigeons and this may have been debated before, but:

What about Catherine Eddowes? She lived with John Kelly in the same doss-house for about 7 years. He did not seem aware of her 'walking the streets' in the time he knew her. And yet she was deemed to be penniless on the last day of her life, was going to see her daughter to cadge some money (she never got there) but was so drunk by 8.30pm on the 29th Sept that she was taken into custody.

It does make me wonder where the booze money came from, unless she just blagged drinks off people for the night.

I think it's a good example of how we should'nt be so sure about how the 'destitute' women 'operated'.

[Suzi]

I don't think anyone was castigating anyone- It was, I imagine in most cases purely for survival as I posted below

Yes Garry you have a point there- the Government of the time did/does have a few questions to answer- too late now though!

Mind you- nothing's changed!

[Garry Wroe]

I’m sorry, but since prostitution entails an exchange of money for sexual favours, the Whitechapel victims were indeed prostitutes. What seems to be the case is that these women were casual prostitutes, resorting to commercial sex when all else failed rather than as a first resort. We know, for example, that they resorted to cleaning, needlecraft and charing when the opportunity arose. But the fact remains that, when circumstances dictated, they treated their bodies as a commodity.

As for the issue of self-respect, it is all too easy to judge these women and their compeers by today’s standards. But for them, it was a simple case of survival, of finding food to fill an empty belly, of securing warmth and a bed for the night, of staying out of the hated workhouse. Small wonder that so many of these women sought comfort in alcohol. Rather than castigating them, perhaps we should be looking towards the parliamentary indifference that created such living conditions in the first place.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Suzi]

Hi Jen

Yes I'd imagine the respectable residents occasionally 'drifted' into a bit of 'prostitution' when times were 'ard or the rent man was due -I mean who would suspect when you were just returning the odd plate or two!! (Ooops)

Who was going to make a point of the poor dabs 'work' when the census man came a calling- that's a point-

I wonder who did and who filled in those lines in the workhouse!.....

A man or a woman?? That's a thought....

- Hmmmmm don't even start me on Miller's Ct!!!

We can probably never know for sure the exact 'working practices' of individual women drawn to that particular 'profession'. There were probably all manner of ways and means.

"individual women"

"all manner of ways and means"

Very well stated, John!

[babybird67]

this is a very interesting discussion

perhaps the tag 'prostitute' serves as a label which boxes up the women, and prevents us from, as Sam says, seeing the reality of what it was like for the poor, or poor women in particular, in Victorian slums.

I remember Stewart Evans kindly posting up some images of the death certificates in which 'profession' had been filled in as 'prostitute'...i can't remember if this was the case for all the victims, but going on my memory i think it was at least three.

My question in reference to this is, was there at that time any sense of public reaction management? Was there any attempt to perhaps portray the women as more than just casually falling into the occasional act of prostitution simply to allay the fears perhaps of more 'respectable' women at the time...a deliberate act of news management, of seeking to reduce any spreading of fear or of indicating to the 'respectable' that they weren't at risk? Or is this me speculating in my modern mind something which never would have occurred to the authorities at the time? If someone more knowledgeable than me (and there's a lot of you out there!) could address this point for me i'd be most grateful.