Inasmuch as one of the many letters addressed to the Committee favoured
the adoption of the Continental system of licensed houses of
prostitution, with medical inspection of the inmates, it seems desirable
to examine the arguments for and against such a proposal. Those who
support it contend that so long as human nature remains as it is
prostitution will continue, therefore it is better that it should be
regulated with a view to controlling the spread of disease. It is also
urged that the system acts as a safeguard against sexual perversion by
providing an outlet for the unrestricted appetites of men; that in its
absence clandestine prostitution increases, and innocent girls are more
likely to be led astray or become the victims of sexual violence. Apart
from the moral aspect of the case, these arguments are entirely
fallacious; and even in the countries where the licensed-house system
prevails enlightened public opinion has come to that conclusion. In the
first place, the idea that the system tends to lessen disease is a
dangerous delusion. Owing to the fact, already referred to, that
venereal disease in the early stages is difficult to detect in women,
even by skilled experts working with the best methods and with
practically unlimited time at their disposal, the routine inspection
given, for example, in the French and German houses is no guarantee of
the inmates being free from communicable disease even at the time of
inspection.
Flexner, who spent two years in making inquiries and writing his classic
work on "Prostitution in Europe," is most emphatic on this point. The
experience of the American troops in the Great War is further strong
confirmation. The following is an extract from an article published by
the American Red Cross in May, 1918: "During the months of August,
September, October, and the first half of November, the houses of
prostitution flourished and were half-filled with soldiers. On November
15th rigid orders were issued placing these houses out of bounds, and
the immediate result was a great reduction of sexual contacts. As a
result there was a steady decline in venereal infections, and the
monthly rate per 1,000, which in October reached 16.8, dropped in
January to 2.1 among the white troops. During the same period there was
an even more striking drop in the infections among the negro labourers,
the percentage dropping from 108.7 per 1,000 a month to 11 per 1,000. No
statistics could speak more eloquently for the doctrine of closing the
houses of prostitution. Our studies showed numerous infections coming
from houses 'inspected' three times a week."
In May, 1921, a conference (the North European Conference on Venereal
Diseases), in which England, Finland, Germany, Holland, Norway, Sweden,
and Denmark participated, passed the following resolution: "This
conference, having considered the general measures for the combating of
venereal diseases which have been adopted by the participating
countries, is unanimously of the opinion, so far as the experience of
these countries is concerned, that the legal and official toleration of
professional prostitution has been found to be medically useless as a
check on the spread of venereal diseases, and may even prove positively
harmful, tending as it does to give official sanction to a vicious
trade."
On the same point Flexner says: "It is a truism that physicians
requiring to equip themselves as specialists in venereal disease resort
to the crowded clinics of Paris, Vienna, and Berlin, all regulated
towns, because there disease is found in greatest abundance and richest
variety--a strange comment on the alleged efficacy of regulation."
Dr. Clarkson, in "The Venereal Clinic," already quoted, says, in
reference to the fancied security of licensed houses, "It may strengthen
the hands of practitioners to be able to tell interrogators in this
subject that in the opinion of leading venereologists, &c., no
foundation exists for any such feeling of confidence or security. In
other words, the system of licensed houses is a failure, and the 'red
light' of lust shines out as the lurid signal of disease and death."
It is surely hardly necessary to urge the moral objections to the
proposal. The United States Public Health Service not long ago sent out
a _questionnaire_ to representative citizens in various walks of life
asking for opinion in regard to open houses of prostitution. There was
an overwhelming preponderance of replies against the system on moral as
well as hygienic grounds. One Illinois miner answered: "The life of a
prostitute is short, and her place must be filled when she dies, and,
being the father of two girls, I would not want mine to fill a vacancy,
and I think all parents think the same." A Colorado carpenter replied:
"The woman engaged in such business may not be my wife, mother, sister,
or daughter, but she is somebody's wife, mother, sister, or daughter. It
is a violation of all law." One Chief of Police wrote: "Open houses of
prostitution breed disease, crime, increase the number of prostitutes,
corrupt the morals of the community, and are a menace to the youth of
the country." Another replied: "The only reason I have ever heard
advanced in favour of houses of prostitution is that they protect
innocent girls. I am opposed to sacrificing any woman to benefit
others."
If statistics could be obtained it would be probably found that the
system tends not only to increase disease, but the volume of sexual
immorality and crime. From the most materialistic point of view the
system is indefensible; while, looking at it from the moral aspect, it
is inconceivable that British people, who spent millions of money to
stop the traffic in black slaves, would ever officially countenance a
system which enslaves the souls as well as the bodies of its victims and
defiles the community in which it exists.