BBC TV "WDYTYA?" Series 8 Episode #2: Rupert Everett

[Rena]

I skimmed over something I found on google which was a study of Prostitution at that time- can't find it again    However, I think the point was made that there were many trades which were linked - mainly because of the reasons already stated here- poverty/young women etc. Also, I think, piece work was growing so again young women were employed in the home, sewing for a factory owner.
For some of these, the fact that you were in your own home must have made it easier to have this other trade to supplement their meagre earnings.
One way of identifying possibly,would be the area.  It would be of little use working in the middle of nowhere, so perhaps some dressmakers or similar homeworkers, who were living in ports/inner cities etc may have been prostitutes too or using the word as a cover.
It must have been an awful life for many.
(thanks Rupert for the diversion).

Yes, I realise that in a recession or a slump when work has dried up, there's nothing left to pawn and family or church poor box or Salvation Army can't or won't help then another course of action other than suicide needs to be taken.

[Sloe Gin]

Before we get back on track discussing WDYTYA an Rupert Everett - can anyone tell me where this "dressmaker" thing came from.  This assertion pops up every now and then on Rootschat - (if you search dressmaker + prostitution you find quite a few threads.  I've had a look through some of them but they just seem to state this as a fact  without saying where the fact originally came from.

is it true? if so how do we know? or is it just a genealogical urban myth?

No, it's not a "fact".  It seems to be a confusion bred from the fact that some women in low-paid occupations resorted to prostitution in order to earn a living.  Most, if not all of them, would not regard prostitution as their principal occupation, hence their description of themselves as dressmakers, milliners etc was legitimate.

[heywood]

I was just looking 1881 up for someone and decided to check re occupation- 425 women are classed as prostitutes and although I haven't looked at the census entries, it looks as though the majority are 'inmate'; 'pauper' and 'prisoner'.
Interestingly, there are 122 people with occupation of 'thief'.
There are some occupations that you are not going to declare and therefore use an alternative. However, as has been said, one was not always the other.
If you have a dressmaker ancestor this is informative:
http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/ugoretz1.html
This is the other report I was reading (skimming over really  )
http://www.rootschat.com/links/09cy/
(I did the 'shrink link' for the above report and have tried to connect via this link and it doesn't work for me!) For anyone intersted, perhaps 'Prostitution, prevention and reform' might get you there in your browser.

Sorry-
heywood

[singingsusie]

I have learned something new.  Certainly had not considered that for example a dressmaker might have implied something different.  I have a lot to learn about this family history lark.

[RJ_Paton]

I have learned something new.  Certainly had not considered that for example a dressmaker might have implied something different.  I have a lot to learn about this family history lark.

Unfortunately that is exactly what some of us are questioning.

Where and when did this "fact" come to light - prostitution was not illegal for much of the time period in question and while it may have been seen as socially inferior to other occupations it did not stop it being recorded as their occupation in census records.

Is it an "urban myth" ?

[heywood]

I don't think it is an urban myth - there is serious research about it. However,I don't think it was confined to dressmakers so perhaps the repetition of dressmaker= prostitute is the problem.
It may not have been illegal but there was criminality surrounding it - soliciting/brothels etc and also the social and moral views surrounding it would not encourage publication of one's occupation.

[RJ_Paton]

It may not have been illegal but there was criminality surrounding it - soliciting/brothels etc and also the social and moral views surrounding it would not encourage publication of one's occupation.

For much of the Victorian period there was no legislation making activity involved with sex illegal whether as prostitute or brothel keeper - the first major piece of legislation in this respect was a requirement for the women involved to be subjected to a severe medical exam. In some respects this legislation set the benchmark for later pieces of the law which made it illegal to sell or offer for sale any sexual activity while at the same time basically exempting the male customers.

As to serious research - can anyone point out an actual source for this ?

PS if wikipedia is to be believed it is not dressmaker which is the euphemism but seamstress - but again no source is attributed for this claim.

[Nick29]

Something didn't need to be illegal in Victorian society to make people outcasts.  If someone could keep the immoral source of their income secret, I'm sure that they would.  It's as simple as that.

[Sloe Gin]

If dressmaker=prostitute, who made all the dresses then?