There was another group of women who exercised sexual independence within post-Revolutionary Philadelphiaā those who engaged in sex commerce. In many ways, their economic an sexual independence was the most obvious manifestation of female autonomy. Prostitution enjoyed an enhanced position within the community because the world of nonmarital sexual behavior had expanded. Amid the permissive sexual culture of the city, the behavior of those who engaged in sex commerce was less distinct. Women who engaged in sex commerce were more public than in the late colonial era but also more integrated into the broader sexual culture. Evidence from Philadelphia suggests that during the transition between the sexual system of the late colonial period and that of the nineteenth century, prostitution took on its most fluid and least exploitative form.
[passage about historian who says sex work in New York at this time was not significant and mostly invisible]
Philadelphia could not have been more different. Sex commerce prospered during the 1790s as part of the expansive, permissive sexual culture and was well integrated into the public and semipublic leisure world of the city. It was neither geographically segregated nor isolated from the urban centers. Bawdy houses occupied all regions of the city. There were bawdyhouses on the cityās main streets and more modest establishments among its alleys. Sex commerce also took place in the backrooms of taverns, in the prison, and in the theater and often spilled into the streets. Women solicited men in the streets, mixing with the legitimate evening strollers, meeting men, and then retiring to rented rooms or bawdyhouses. Sometime they even engaged in sexual transactions in the cityās alleys and abandoned lots. Much of this activity took place within the public view. Women called to men from their doorways soliciting their business, and other strolled about the street in pairs to meet men. Prostitutes were known on sight when they were seen shopping, socializing about the town, or entering the almshouse. The identities of their clients were also often common knowledgeā many men were not concerned about secreting their behavior. Some demonstrated a striking disregard for being seen. OneĀ āwell known gentleman,ā Moreau de Saint-MĆ©ry tells us,Ā āleaves his horse tied to the post outside one of these houses, so that everyone knows when he is there and exactly how long he stays.ā
Bawdyhouses were not places for secret, anonymous sex, but social places where individuals encountered friends and associates. John Moore, for example, ran into two acquaintances when he spent the night in one. Men often socialized together with the women of the house before they retired to upstairs rooms, and eve then they were often still among company: illicit sex regularly took place in rooms shared by more than one couple. Even some wives were familiar with the bawdyhouses used by their husbands and sometimes retrieved them from the premises. Prostitution under these circumstances was a very social event. ā¦ā¦.
Sex commerce of the early national period was part of a continuum of illicit sex, and it was not always easy to distinguish which encounters crossed its fluid boundaries. Prostitution operated in many of the same social spaces as other forms of nonmarital sex, integrated into these worlds of socializing and public amusement. Women brought men to the same disorderly houses for prostitution that couples frequented for illicit sex. Taverns andĀ ānegroā houses accommodated those who sought socializing, drinking, gambling, andĀ ālewd companyā. Bawdyhouses themselves were not always highly organized. Women residents would come and go as their needs required. Some rented rooms by the night or the week, and other worked as operatives in houses run by other women. As such, prostitution was mixed up with the social and sexual activities of those engaging in noncommercial sexual ventures.
People from all walks of life had sexual encounters that were not markedly different from those of prostitutes and their clients. The woman who supplemented her income by periodically strolling the streets to meet a man who would pay for a sexual encounter had much in common with the woman who frequented taverns accepting food and drink from a gentleman with whom she later had sexual relations. Gifts of goods, food, or drink were part of the sexual exchange in many relationships. Prostitutes who worked the theater expected the gentlemen in the boxes to treat them to the wines and liquors served during performances. This custom was not that different from the gift giving that accompanied adulterous liaisons, where lovers presented gifts and sometimes cash to their partners. Like the women of the town, women who engaged in adultery were treated to gifts by their lovers.Ā
Authorās footnote: Alexander Hamilton [in the Reynolds Pamphlet] admitted giving such gifts to his mistress.
Excerpt from: Sex Among the Rabble: An Intimate History of Gender & Power in the Age of Revolution, Philadelphia, 1730-1830, by Clare A. Lyons.
I donāt think itās entirely correct to read Maria Reynolds as an abused woman who was forced into prostitution by her husband. Given what Iāve been reading in this book, it makes more sense to see her as a lower-class woman seeking happiness and fulfillment through sexual autonomy, as many women did at that time. If her husband was a way, she took lovers. Because her husband was basically a grifter, money wasnāt always arriving on schedule, and he was often away for periods of time. She supplemented her lifestyle by taking lovers and accepting, probably even requiring, gifts and money. Her husband, when he found out about her affairs, because he was a consummate sleazeball, was more than happy to cross the boundary from low-key, female determined, sex commerce to full-blown pimping of his wife. Iām also fully ready to believe that they were in it togetherā they set up a blackmail con together.
But I get really irritated with people who see Maria as this helpless victim. She was not. She exerted a lot of agency. I think itās likely that her husband was abusive, though at that time beating and verbal abuse were normalized to the extent that no one intervened unless things violated an unspoken community standard, or the woman herself was blameless andĀ āpureā. James was a disgusting lowlife and Iām sure he used Maria and treated her badly. She may have truly been hoping for a better life with Hamilton. I suspect she was aiming to be his kept mistress, and did not succeed. I feel for her regardless. She was typical of many lower class women of her time, for whom sexual autonomy and economic sufficiency were often intertwined.Ā
How do I see Hamilton in all this? Hamilton was clearly up for having the relationship of an adulterous lover to her. He was ready to give the gifts, money, and so forth. This was exceedingly common for men of all classes at that time, and he was in no way out line in this regard. But when James started blackmailing him, it threatened his marriage and his political career, and he kicked them both to the curb. When Callender published the details, he didnāt hesitate to throw Maria under the bus, but at the same time, he does own up to his own failings in the matter. I wish that Maria had published the pamphlet she wrote in her own defense. I really wish we had her side of the story.Ā
Mariaās divorce from James was neither exceptional nor uncommon, by 1790s standards. Women, especially lower class ones, got divorced all the time. Women were expected to endure a certain amount of cruel treatment, even abuse, but surely, being prostituted by oneās husband crossed the line. And, Ā if they *were* a couple of con artists in the whole thing together as equals from the get go, their con ended up in failure and, again, it makes all the sense that Maria would leave him. In this time period, it was still possible for aĀ ādisorderly womanā to go on to marry respectably and become a respectable woman. Maria chose this path, and succeeded eventually. Given the lack of her perspective, I think the fairest thing we can do is see her as a strong woman seeking emotional and sexual fulfillment, along with economic stability, who through her own efforts and in spite of hardship, eventually achieved her goal.Ā
I feel like this whole situation is best understood within the context of the times and without the over the top moral judgement it gets from all quarters of the fandom. No one here, except probably James, is horrible, no one at all is a helpless victim. In fact, the whole thing shows me a woman who was climbing tooth and claw to a better life, and in the end, she seems to have gotten it. We donāt know if she was happy in the end or not, but thereās no reason to see her as this helpless, innocent creature who is only victimized by men.Ā
dededos
kianamaiart
andulkaphoto
tangentwithtanner
annaxmalina
stormborns
turnnoffyourmind
pixelskylines
