We all know the Victorians were notorious prudes about sex, right? But was that really true? Well, yes and no. The truth is, they were both prudish and prurient. The age of Victoria was bursting at the seams with variety as people coped with a new, massively urbanized world. Much of the consternation about sex was a reaction to the changes brought about by the that urbanization.
This episode is sponsored by MANSCAPED.
Don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and review. Support the show on Patreon at www.patreon.com/btnewberg. Research, writing, editing, and production by B. T. Newberg. Logo Design by Rachel Westhoff. Animation by Maxeem Konrardy. Additional credits, references, and more at www.historyofsexpod.com.
In 1837, the same year Queen Victoria ascended to the throne,
one Thomas Saverland brought a lawsuit against a certain Miss Caroline Newton.
Apparently he had tried to steal a kiss from her,
[“Give us a kiss, luv”]
and she was so affronted that she bit his nose off.
The court acquitted Miss Newton, declaring:
“When a man kisses a woman against her will, she is fully entitled to bite his nose off, if she so pleases.”
“And eat it up!” a barrister added (Wannan, p. 50-51)
[“Here, here!” applause]
Wow. I have so many questions.
First of all, how awesome is it that the court ruled in the woman’s favor instead of blaming the victim? I mean, how often do you see that in history?
But more importantly, what does this say about sex in the Victorian era? I mean, we all know the Victorians were notorious prudes about sex, right? But was that really true?
Well, yes and no. The truth is, they were both prudish and prurient. The age of Victoria was bursting at the seams with variety as people coped with a new, massively urbanized world. Much of the consternation about sex was a reaction to the changes brought about by the that urbanization.
Today, we’re going to hear all about both the prudery and the lewdery as we explore vice in the Victorian Era.
That’s what we’re talking about in today’s episode. I’m B. T. Newberg, and this is The History of Sex.
I’d like to thank our new patron Angus Keen for making this episode possible.
I’d also like to thank our new sponsor, Manscaped.
Hey folks, this is an extended version of the talk I gave last month at the Intelligent Speech conference. If you were there, thanks – you’ll find a lot more to your liking today, and I’m gonna try to more fully answer some of the questions you asked. If you missed it, well, here’s all that and more. If you’d like to hear from the others that were on our Vice in the Victorian Era panel, including Chris of the Age of Victoria podcast, Eugene of the History of Drugs in Society, and our moderator Bry of Pontifacts, check out their awesome podcasts, and visit IntelligentSpeechConference.com for a recording of our talk to be posted soon.
And now, let’s get to the show. We’re talking vice in the Victorian era.
Ah, that great diversion of humankind, the so-called “vice” of sex! (or certain kinds of sex at least). And here we can’t be more clear that the word “vice” belongs in air quotes, because what was considered vice then may not be at all what we would consider vice now.
So, the Victorian period covers the reign of Queen Victoria, which lasted from 1837 to 1901, spanning the latter 2/3 of the 19th century.
The Victorians are renowned for being prudes. Now, that’s not the whole story, but it’s not entirely off the mark either. They certainly did talk a lot about sex with great fluster and consternation in literature and newspapers and medical journals and religious sermons and reformer gatherings. And many of the views expressed were quite, uh… shall we say “quaint”, by today’s standards? Here are a few colorful examples:
Lord Acton, a highly respected gynecologist of the era, wrote “The majority of women (happily for them) are not very much troubled by sexual feeling of any kind” (Acton, 1862).
Then there was Queen Victoria, who supposedly declined to include lesbians in the 1885 act criminalizing same-sex love because she couldn’t imagine how women “did such things.” This is most likely apocryphal, but not that far off the mark for the times. A Scottish judge in 1811, one Lord Meadowbank, hearing the case of two girls accused of fornicating together, declared it “equally imaginary with witchcraft, sorcery, or carnal copulation with the devil” (The Scotsman, 2009; Friedman, 2005). I apologize for that horrendous Scottish accent. But the opinions? Yeah, not that far off the mark.
Finally, across the pond, corn flakes were invented when one William Harvey Kellogg insisted a bland breakfast cereal was needed to avoid arousing the passions (apparently ham and eggs were making folks far too randy). Graham crackers were invented for the same reason by the Reverend Sylvester Graham.
So, in short, yes, there was plenty of prudery.
However, that was not the whole story. There was prudery, but also its opposite. This was in fact a time when people began to explore sexuality like never before.
So, what gave rise to this new interest in sexuality then? Well, it turns out all this exploration, and the whole bugaboo over sex, was driven in large part by… massive urbanization. That might not be the first thing you would have thought to consider (I certainly wouldn’t have), but in fact urbanization almost couldn’t help but impact attitudes, including those around sexuality – it was that massive. Check it out:
According to data from Our World In Data, the population of Britain nearly quadrupled over the course of the 19th century, from a little over 10 million to nearly 40 million. Meanwhile, a study by Zinkina, et al (2017) found the percent of the population in cities went from about 20% to 60% in Britain – gadzooks! That’s some urbanization. And get this: over this period, the population of London grew seven-fold. Seven! Put all that together, and that’s bound to shake things up. So, the density of cities reached a critical mass such that new attitudes toward sex could not help but emerge.
What did that look like? Well, we’re going to dive into three hullabaloos over so-called “vice” that emerged out of that ginormous urbanization shake-up: unwed motherhood, prostitution, and same-sex love.
First, there was something considered quite the vice at the time: a rise in unwed motherhood (or rather a perceived rise; actually the ratio of illegitimate births declined throughout the period (Clark, p. 124), but commentators at the time saw all these unwed mothers concentrated in cities, and their monacles popped right out of their eye sockets.
[broken glass sound]
Now, this faux-phenomenon of rising unwed motherhood did not actually result from people having more premarital sex, but rather from new urban circumstances. In the previous century, as many as a third to a half of all brides had been pregnant when they took their vows, according to historian Anna Clark (p .125). So, they weren’t having more premarital sex; they were having the same premarital sex they’d always had. But see, previously, they’d had established customs for dealing with it. Nosy neighbors could enforce shotgun weddings in rural 18th-century villages, but in anonymous 19th-century cities they could not. When a Tess of the d’Urbervilles found a bun in the oven, there was no one to stop her Angel from slipping away into the night (that’s some inside baseball for lit nerds, but you get my point). Old customs to prevent this no longer functioned.
And even if the couple wanted to marry, as they often did, they might not be able to afford it. Indeed, as Clark reports, in industrial towns where women could earn relatively high wages by tending power looms, the rate of illegitimacy was actually less than in towns where wages were lower, showing people did often marry when they could afford it (Clark, p. 126). When they couldn’t, they tended rather to cohabitate, and start families as they otherwise would have, just outside the law. So, it was not so much a rise in premarital sex but a change in circumstance, created by urban living, which led to a bugaboo over unwed motherhood.
Nevertheless, Victorian society reacted to reports of illegitimacy rates with great bluster, and the stigma came down like a ton of bricks on the mothers themselves. Many found themselves fired from their jobs as soon as pregnancy became apparent. After the baby was born, the search for a new job was hampered by the stain of illegitimacy. Thus, giving birth outside of marriage risked joblessness, social censure, alienation from friends and family, and ultimately starvation for both mother and child.
So, that was the bugaboo over unwed motherhood, driven by urbanization undercutting the traditional customs and living wages that previously supported marriage.
And the stigmatization of unwed motherhood doomed many to a downward spiral leading to prostitution, which we’re going to hear about in just a moment. But first, we’re gonna take a short break, and be back after this.
Hey guys, facial hair is in these days, but I want to talk to you about that other hair, you know… down there. If you’re looking like Darwin on a bad day in the Galapogas, you might want to check out our new sponsor… MANSCAPED™. MANSCAPED™ offers precision-engineered tools… for your family jewels. And now you can get 20% Off + Free Shipping, with the code historyofsex at Manscaped.com
MANSCAPED™ just launched their fourth generation trimmer, The Lawn Mower® 4.0. That’s right.. The 4.0! People are camping out overnight to get it. Wait, what? That line’s for the new iPhone? Oh right, well this is even better, because there’s no app for what this baby can do:
Full disclosure, they sent me one of these babies to try, and this was my first time trimming the bushes. But now? Clean where I want it, grisly where I want it, and shaped to perfection. There’s even a spotlight that turns on so you can see what you’re doing, and their 4th generation trimmer features a cutting-edge ceramic blade to reduce grooming accidents thanks to their Advanced SkinSafe™Technology.
Get 20% Off and Free Shipping with the code historyofsex at Manscaped.com. That’s 20% off with free shipping at manscaped.com and use code historyofsex (all one word). Unlock your confidence and always use the right tools for the job with MANSCAPED™.
[skit – Sherlock and the Case of the Unwed Mother]
Watson: Mr. Holmes, Sherlock, come quick, this woman is big with child. She needs our help!
Holmes: Indubitably, Miss Watson. A crime!
Watson: Not really a crime…
Holmes: And I have already solved it!
Watson: But that’s not the help she…
Holmes: Observe, Miss Watson. For I have all the facts before me. It is elementary.
Watson: Okay, here we go.
Holmes: We may deduce from the rising rate of illegitimacy…
Watson: It’s actually going down.
Holmes: …and the fact that the victim was clearly prostituting herself…
Watson: They’re cohabitating.
Holmes: …scorning the fine institution Christian marriage…
Watson: Because they can’t afford it.
Holmes: …we may therefore conclude, that the perpetrator of the crime was none other than…
Watson: Was her?
Holmes: No, dear Miss Watson, the perpetrator was none other than…
Watson: You were gonna say it was her, weren’t you?
Holmes: Er… yes.
Watson: Aha. Right. Come on, dear. Let’s get you something to eat.
Holmes: Teach her some needle work! She can learn a trade, you know. Hello? Right. Another case closed. Ahem.
Alright, we’re back.
Next, let’s talk about sex work. Believe it or not, prostitution was actually seen as less scandalous than some of the other things we’re talking about today, but it was nevertheless seen very much as “vice.” It was called the “great sin of great cities” (Greg, 1855). And boy, did this “sin” boom in the Victorian era. Estimating the exact number and comparing it to previous centuries is notoriously difficult, because it’s hard to know where to draw the line and because so many went unreported. However, just to give you some idea, a contemporary estimate from 1817 claimed there were some 80,000 prostitutes in London alone (Flanders, 2014). Many of those may have been unwed women cohabitating with common-law spouses. But even if we cut that figure in half, that still leaves 40,000. To put that in perspective, according to the UK Office of National Statistics, today there are only about 60,000 sex workers across the entire U.K. (Fogg, 2014), so 40,000 just in London in the 19th century – that’s a lot of prostitutes! And that number would only climb as the Victorian period went on.
So, what gave rise to this explosion of sex work? Well, two things, and they’re both features of, you guessed it, urbanization. First, the more people there are in your service area, the more potential clients. So, the denser the city, the denser the client base. Simple business. Second, cities allowed anonymity. You could move to the city, turn a few tricks, and make some cold cash without necessarily having your family and everyone you grew up with know about it. Cities equaled opportunity.
Of course, that is not to say that all sex workers were opportunists taking up the trade voluntarily. Certainly, some were forced into it by coercion or circumstance. Rent was high, wages were low, especially for women’s occupations, so some had little choice. Some were unwed mothers whose reputations had been stained and could find no better work. Others were actually kidnapped and forced into it. But a great many others, perhaps even the majority, took up the trade by choice.
Consequently, the efforts of reformers generally didn’t turn out so well. Philanthropists established institutions for “fallen” women to teach them trades. The idea was to provide some other means to support themselves. Seems reasonable enough. But what trades did they teach them? Laundry, domestic service, needlework – the very same low-paying women’s occupations that had driven them to prostitution in the first place. So, even those who wanted to get out of the sex trade found themselves trapped in a vicious circle (Clark, p. 130).
Meanwhile, police focused on getting prostitutes off the streets and into brothels. Why? Because it was easier to keep track of them and inspect for venereal disease. Medical inspections were a lot easier to manage if the patients were all in one place. Ironically, the inspections actually spread the diseases they were meant to curb, since modern sanitary measures had not yet become widespread and doctors were not especially caring toward these particular patients (Bullough and Bullough, p. 191).
In the end, reform efforts by police didn’t go so well either. The effort to funnel sex workers into brothels only led to craftier and craftier ways to avoid the police. By the end of the century, independent prostitution boomed to such a degree that brothels had to advertise more and more exotic services to compete.
By the way, at this time, the most exotic service you could procure was oral sex. Far from being foreplay, it was the pinnacle of the evening for the truly profligate client. In Britain and America it could often only be obtained at specialized establishments with French-sounding names (DePierre, 2017). It was to this sort of specialized marketing that brothels turned in the wake of the absolutely booming independent industry, which thrived in the newly-dense urban Victorian environment.
Now, one question asked by a conference attendee was how prostitutes at this time avoided pregnancy. It’s difficult to know what prostitutes in particular used because, being marginalized, they left little record of their practices. But women in general have always had access to traditional contraceptive methods, effective or otherwise, often passed from woman to woman or from traditional keepers of women’s knowledge like midwives, nuns, and prostitutes.
However, in this period, there was a decline in knowledge about such things, for several reasons. First, new laws against pornography passed in the 19th century swept contraceptive pamphlets up in its wake, so it was much harder to gain access to such literature. Second, the professionalization of doctors, a largely male profession, increasingly edged midwives out of work, and with them went centuries upon centuries of traditional knowledge. For these reasons, there was significantly more ignorance about contraceptive methods in this period.
Nevertheless, Victorian women did seek out contraceptives. Historians Vern and Bonnie Bullough note salves, fluids, powders, tablets, and pessaries, some partly effective, others totally ineffective (Bullough and Bullough, p. 251)
Other methods included douching with an antiseptic solution, or inserting a sponge, about the size of a walnut, into the vagina like a diaphragm. There was also an early condom of India rubber called the baudruche, meaning “balloon.” But at this time condoms were generally expensive, thick, uncomfortable, and of questionable effectiveness, so not exactly popular.
So, to answer the attendee’s question, any of these methods might have been used by prostitutes.
However, the “respectable” lady had to be quite discrete because, according to Bullough and Bullough, contraception was actually deemed worse than prostitution by many authorities of the day (p. 199-200). Thus, the method least dangerous, socially-speaking, was moderation or abstinence. This contributed to women gaining a rap as having low sexual desire, not because they actually desired sex less but because they refused it more, having more to lose if they got caught holding the bag.
In short, many women in this period took control of their lives by asserting control over their bodies, either by selling sex or refusing it, as the case may be, in response to the new conditions of the massively dense Victorian cities.
Subcultures of Same-sex Love
Last but not least, this same density also enabled people to come together who could not have done so before. This is nowhere more clear than in the emergence of subcultures of same-sex love. There had always been those who loved others of the same sex, but finding each other was difficult. It was urbanization that allowed a critical mass to be reached where finally you could go to a certain club on a certain street and encounter folk just like you, and start to feel like maybe just maybe this was something perfectly normal and not “vice” at all.
Now, it was the male-male subculture that emerged first, possibly because men were more able to live independently as bachelors without stigma, but a subculture of women who loved other women did also get going in this period.
One of the ways things changed was the overtness of “flagging”, or signaling one’s preference to others in the know. In the previous century, flags had been quite surreptitious indeed, as in the Netherlands one might step on the other’s foot, or in Paris you might strike a tree twice with a cane to signal you were interested in others of the same sex (Clark, p. 134). This became more overt in this period, with Oscar Wilde for example promoting wearing a green carnation as identifier, considerably more brazen (Clark, p. 154).
Meanwhile, the subculture also developed through hosting regular events. Manchester men formed a network that put on dress balls, for example. At the door you were met by a man dressed as a nun, and you had to give the password, “Sister” (Clark, p. 137). A blind accordionist played as the masqueraders danced.
This subculture developed shared mannerisms as well. For example, in 19th-century Paris, effeminacy in men, which had always been a sign of dominant or passive sexual role, came to be seen as a mark of homosexuality in general, marking one as part of the in-group (Clark, p. 135). An identity was forming.
Now, another great question asked by a conference attendee was what about transgender folk in this period?
Well, the first medical recognition of transgender folk came in the late 19th century from the budding science of sexology, particularly in the writings of the German Magnus Hirschfield and the British Havelock Ellis. They didn’t use the same terms, but it was the same essential concept.
As for known individuals who may have been what we call transgender, there were those about which we might wonder. For example, one possibility was Dr. James Barry, Inspector General of Hospitals. This accomplished Victorian gentleman, a hot-tempered teetoller and vegetarian with a reputation as a “ladykiller”, was born Margaret Ann Bulkley. His secret was only discovered when he died in 1865.
Another possibility was the pair Fanny Park and Stella Bolton. In 1870, these two middle-upper class ladies were arrested coming out of a theater in evening gowns. Why? Because they had been born Frederick Park and Ernest Bolton. They were brought to trial in 1870 on charges of conspiring to commit sodomy, which was never proved, and both were quickly acquitted.
The papers treated the event as a laughable farce, but there was a darker side to the story. Member of Parliament Lord Arthur Clinton died mysteriously the day after receiving a subpoena to testify at the trial. Clinton had been involved in a relationship with Bolton, who called herself his “wife” and had cards printed listing her as “Lady Arthur Clinton.” The cause of the Member of Parliament’s death was recorded as scarlet fever, but it was more likely either suicide or a fake death followed by fleeing abroad. Furthermore, despite the hopeful note of Park and Bolton’s swift acquittal, society took a harder stance after this, and in 1885 a law was passed criminalizing gross indecency between men, enabling convictions even where sodomy could not be proven.
Whether any of these people would identify as transgender today is of course very much open to debate. They didn’t have that concept available to them at the time, and even if they did, nothing here suggests an open-shut case. Cross-dressing does not always overlap with transgender identity, and sexual orientation is an entirely separate question as well. But these things can and do overlap in some individuals, and one wonders if perhaps they did in James Barry, Fanny Park, or Stella Bolton.
Meanwhile, those desiring surgical confirmation of their gender would have to wait, though not for too much longer. 19th century anaesthesia and medical procedures was still pretty iffy, but it was advancing rapidly, and soon a person could go under the knife with a reasonable expectation of waking up from it afterward. The first gender confirmation surgery was undergone only a few decades after the Victorian period, in the 1920s in Germany by one Dora Richtor.
Germany was also the place that saw the first gay rights organizations founded at the close of the Victorian period in 1897. The Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, founded by Magnus Hirschfield, fought for the repeal of paragraph 175, which criminalized male homosexuality. That same year in Britain, a secret society called The Order of Chaeronea was formed, morbidly named after the battle where the male lovers of the Theban Band were slaughtered in 338 BCE. Oscar Wilde was likely an early member. So, for some at least, organizations were forming. A new subculture was arising.
But one did still have to be wary of the law. While Park and Bolton got off easily, the renowned poet and playwright Oscar Wilde did not. He was convicted in 1895 for gross indecency – that was the new charge that ratcheted up the heat against homosexuals. Wilde was sentenced to 2 years hard labor. This was better than the death penalty which had been on the books until repealed in 1861, but it was still a harsh punishment that left Wilde’s health in poor shape. Upon release, he sailed for France, and never returned to Britain again. Three years later, he died in poverty. Same-sex lovers of the time still had to be wary of the law.
I’m tempted to say that Wilde’s true crime was daring to think that the time had come when alternative orientations, genders, and sexual practices could finally break out into the open. As we can see in hindsight, he was ahead of his time. However, he did have good reason for his optimism. Times were changing. Despite all the prudery, the Victorian period was an era of unprecedented exploration. The bugaboos over unwed motherhood and prostitution, though oppressive, brought new practices to light and forced people to question whether what was considered “vice” was really vice at all. Medicine began to study sexuality in earnest for the first time, beginning to recognize a garden of variety beyond the traditional norm of straight male-female cisgendered unions. And lovers of the same sex, despite continuing dangers, could and did meet each other in sufficient numbers to develop subcultures of their own.
All of this was enabled by massive urbanization, which broke down old customs, enabled folk of alternative persuasions to find each other, and demanded new attitudes toward sex and gender.
Now, to close out this episode, let’s return to where we began, with the curious case of Miss Caroline Newton, acquitted for biting the nose off of Thomas Saverland, who had tried to steal a kiss. It sounds quaint and quite Victorian indeed in its huffpuffery over something so mildly sexual as a smooch, but it actually carries a stronger significance, that casts Victorian attitudes in an entirely different light.
Now, FYI, I feel compelled to report that historians have found no actual court case record of this incident, only newspaper reports after the fact. Make of that what you will, but here’s the story.
Apparently it was the day after Christmas in a tap room…
when Saverland first stole a kiss from a different young miss. She had stated that her husband was away in Birmingham, and she’d promised no man would kiss her while he was gone. Saverland took this as a challenge and planted a wet one right on her lips.
The young miss was embarrassed but took it without protest, “in good part, as a joke” as the news article says. However, to her aid came her sister, Miss Caroline Newton, who confronted Saverland over the impropriety. At that point, Saverland became angry and said he’d kiss her too, and the two fell to brawling. Yes, brawling! They fell to the ground in a scuffle, parted, then back at it again, and finally, Saverland was heard to call out:
“Ahhh! She has got my nose in her mouth!”
Then, as the article records:
“When they parted he was bleeding profusely from the nose, and a portion of it, which defendant had bitten off, she was seen to spit out of her mouth upon the ground.”
[sound of spitting and something hitting ground]
The jury quickly acquitted Miss Newton, and the Chairman of the trial told the prosecutor he was sorry for the loss of the complainant’s nose, but:
“if he would play with cats, he must expect to get scratched.” (“The Law of Kissing”, 1837)
This anecdote shows Victorian so-called prudery in an entirely different light. As seen here, it wasn’t just that the Victorians were all fluster-blustery about sex. Rather, they were working out a new attitude toward it. Women began to assert their right to control their own bodies, as seen here in the bold Miss Caroline Newton. CNN has even called this case “the kiss that proved no means no” (Koerth-Baker, 2009).
Victorian women, far from the innocent angels of stereotype, were beginning to boldly assert their rights. We think of the sexual revolution as a phenomenon of the 1960s, but it really began in the 1800s. Women, and mothers, and prostitutes, and lovers of the same sex, and transgender folk, along with so many others traditionally marginalized, sowed seeds in the 19th century that would bear fruit in the 20th.
How’s that for Victorian monacle-popping prudery, huh?
Ee gads, man!
[sound of glass breaking]
Well, that’s all I have for you on that today. I want to thank the Intelligent Speech conference and the attendees who asked many smart questions.
Folks, if you like what we’re doing here on this show, you can support us by subscribing, rating, and reviewing. You can also pledge on Patreon where $5 per month gets you a portrait drawn in the time period and culture of your choosing. I will draw you as a fine upstanding citizen or a delightfully “fallen” fright, bow-tied or bustled as you darn well please. Or whatever you like, I’ll make you look awesome, I promise. Just go to www.patreon.com/btnewberg. That’s patreon.com/btnewberg.
Next month is Pride month, and we’ve got an interview slated with the author of a new book coming out on the Sacred Band of Thebes, a corps of ancient Greek crack troops entirely comprised of gay lovers. Then after that, we’ll pick up on part of two of our Viking Gender Benders series. Lots of great stuff coming your way.
Alright, folks, I’ll see you next time. I’m B. T. Newberg, and this is The History of Sex.
Acton, William. The Functions and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs in Childhood, Youth, Adult Age, and Advanced Life: Considered in their Physiological, Social, and Moral Implications, 3rd Ed. London: Churchill, 1862.
Brown, Mark. “Secret Transgender Victorian Surgeon Feted by Historic England.” The Guardian. 2017, Jul 25. Retrieved May 1, from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/25/secret-transgender-victorian-surgeon-feted-by-heritage-england
Bullough, Vern, and Bullough, Bonnie. Women and Prostitution: A Social History. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1987.
Clark, Anna. Desire: A History of European Sexuality. New York: Routledge, 2008.
DePierre, David. A Brief History of Oral Sex. Jefferson, NC: Exposit, 2017.
Donaghue, Emma. We Are Michael Field. Absolute Press, 1998.
Evans, Richard J. “The Victorians: Gender and Sexuality.” Lecture. Gresham College. 2011, Feb 14. Retrieved Apr 17, 2021, from: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-victorians-gender-and-sexuality
Friedman, Geraldine. “School for Scandal: Sexuality, Race, and National Vice and Virtue in Miss Marianne Woods and Miss Jane Pirie Against Lady Helen Cumming Gordon. Nineteenth Century Contexts, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2005: pp. 53-76.
Flanders, Judith. “Prostitution.” The British Library. 2014, May 15. Retrieved Apr 23, 2021, from: https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/prostitution#
Greenwood, James. The Seven Curses of London. 1869. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from: https://www.victorianlondon.org/publications/seven3.htm
Greg, William Rathbone. “The Great Sin of Great Cities.” Lancet. 1855, Jan 20, quoted in Bullough and Bullough, 1987.
Haller, Dorothy. “Bastardy and Baby Farming in Victorian England.” Student Historical Journal, 1989-1990. Winner, 1990 Loyola University History Writing Award. Retrieved Apr 22, 2021, from: http://people.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1989-0/haller.htm
Koerth-Baker, Maggie. “Ten Important Kisses in History.” CNN. 2009, May 20. Retrieved May, 2021, from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/05/20/mf.ten.important.kisses/index.html
McKenna, Neil. Fanny and Stella: The Young Men Who Shocked Victorian England. Faber & Faber, 2014.
McVeigh, Tracy. “Fanny and Stella, the Pioneer Transvestites Who Fought Victorian Anti-gay Laws.” The Guardian. 2015, May 9. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2015/may/09/fanny-and-stella-pioneer-transvestites-victorian-anti-gay-laws
Newsroom, The. “Drumsheugh: Lesbian Sex Row Rocked Society.” The Scotsman. 2009, Feb. 25. Retrieved Apr 24, 2021, from: https://www.scotsman.com/news/drumsheugh-lesbian-sex-row-rocked-society-2444136
“Population, 1800-2019.” Our World In Data. Retrieved April 22, 2021, from: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population
“The Law of Kissing.” Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser.” 1837, Sep 9. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/2212851/502650
Zinkina, Julia, Ilyin, Ilya, and Koratayev, Andrey. “The Nineteenth-Century Urbanization Transition in the First World.” Globalistics and Globalization Studies, 2017: pp. 164-172.
“Sherlock and the Case of the Unwed Mother” Skit mixed from: “Victorian London Street Background Noise” from Harrison Mcarther.
Other music from: “PALLADIO Karl Jenkins” from Giovanni Battaglia, “Heavenly Music Contact With Los Angels” from Transcending Sounds, “Sound Effect Gavel Hit Call to Order” from SoundEffects HD Indie Studios, “Applause (Sound Effect)” from Sound Effects, “Broken Glass Sound Effects Pack” from Everything Copyright Free.
All narration and voice acting by B. T. Newberg
Victorian Lady from Pixabay