Venereal disease was a prominent cause for concern in the late-Victorian and early twentieth century, causing widespread fear within society regarding the causal factors and consequences of rising reports. Leading historians argue that the implementation of both legal and medical approaches were governed by notions of morality, with venereal disease representing the physical and moral decay of the country. Referred to as medico-moral discourse, morality became the focus of both medical and legal approaches to venereal disease by highlighting a perceived breakdown in social and sexual values. This urged the need to ‘restore the moral integrity of civil society as an essential adjunct of medical strategies of prevention towards venereal diseases’. However, it is my contention that this was not a morally motivated action, as medical and legal discourses sought to merely punish immorality in females and not males. The Government only applied measures to reduce venereal diseases to guarantee a healthy military throughout the time period, and I believe the legal and medical approaches were only implemented to ensure a strong frontline.
Due to the confines of the word limit, this essay will focus on the Contagious Diseases Act of 1864 and the 1918 Regulation 40D of the Defence of the Realm Act. As two key legal and medical approaches targeting venereal disease within the time frame, it is my contention that both were implemented due to the need to maintain the health of the soldiers protecting their country, and not the notion of morality.
The Contagious Diseases Act of 1864 emphasises that both legal and medical approaches were combined to treat venereal disease. Walkowitz argues that the increasing diagnosis of venereal disease in military men from 1823 meant it was imperative for the Government to implement measures to reduce the appearance of immorality within society. With the majority of Victorian-society associating prostitution with venereal disease alongside the Westminster review emphasising an increase in prostitutes from 50,000 to 386,000 across the nineteenth-century, Fleming maintains it was tantamount that increased male venereal disease correlated with increasing female immorality. However, I do not find these arguments convincing as prostitution had been considered an ‘inevitable attendant upon civilised’ society prior to the nineteenth century, and it was widely accepted that men could utilise ‘fallen’ women to fulfil their sexual appetites. Further, venereal disease was a prominent issue for males in the seventeenth century, accounting for twenty to thirty per cent of admissions at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, thus suggesting that venereal disease was not a new moral issue facing Britain.
Levine argues that the behaviour of females operating on the streets exaggerated concerns within Victorian-society that there was a perceived breakdown in moral standards. Similarly, Baker maintains that Victorian opinions contrasted the immorality of sex work with what was considered ‘appropriate’ female sexuality. The differences between the ‘immoral’ prostitute and the 'moral' female were deliberately constructed to maintain the image of the ‘perfect chaste wife and mother’. Women were expected to assume the role of mothers and wives, encouraging their sons and husbands to fulfil their duties as men to protect the country. Thus, the argument that politicians needed to govern morality to preserve gender expectations within society is convincing, but still flawed.
In 1871, the Royal Commission rejected the criminalisation of male clients of prostitutes on the grounds that for men, it was an ‘indulgence of a natural impulse’ whilst the females were committing the offence as a ‘matter of gain.’ With politicians targeting prostitutes, there was no examination of the causal factors as to why prostitutes were considered necessary for men, and no notion that these legal and medical approaches were governed by a need to restore morality. The Ladies National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts argued that both sexes should lead morally pure lives, wanting education for both genders on sexual abstinence before marriage to reduce the spread of venereal disease. Further, the forced treatment of prostitutes with venereal disease can be argued as encouraging immorality within society; women were treated so that they could continue their trade and serve the interests of the male populous, therefore condemning these women to remain immoral. There was no assistance to provide opportunities or education for prostitutes wanting to leave their lifestyle, emphasising a sexual double standard within society and ignoring the impact of state legislation on morality. If politicians were concerned about a breakdown in the morality of society, then legislation would have been implemented to punish any party associated with prostitutes, such as the clients and the women themselves.
Further, the Contagious Diseases Act of 1864 was only introduced following increased diagnoses in soldiers, suggesting that politicians were more concerned with the lost hours of forces requiring treatment than governing male immorality. The association that the armed forces would be more efficient as a consequence of decreasing cases of venereal diseases was to ensure the safety of the State, and not to govern morality. In 1913, a Royal Commission was established to make recommendations regarding the increase venereal disease diagnosis in soldiers. At the start of the First World War, incidences of venereal diseases increased dramatically, correlating with a rise in soldiers soliciting sex from prostitutes whilst abroad. This led to British Forces making French brothels out of bounds due to concerns for the health of the soldiers, and not in regard for morality.
I do not believe it was coincidental that both conscription and the decision to not report venereal diseases to the next of kin were both implemented in 1916. Low rates of soldiers initially signing up to the war effort, combined with a high death toll within the first two years of the war meant that the British Forces desperately needed to maintain the appearance of a strong front line. By not disclosing the increasing rate of venereal disease diagnosis in men on the front line, it enforced the notion that soldiers were at peak health, representing a strong fighting asset. The British Forces only implemented legal and medical approaches to counter ‘morality’ when more men needed treatment for venereal disease than wartime injuries. Ensuring a healthy front line meant there was little concern for the immorality of man by actively encouraging servicemen to utilise prostitutes to help fulfil a natural male function, thus ensuring a successful war effort.
This is further emphasised through the implementation of regulation 40D of the Defence of the Realm Act in March 1918, which legally authorised the compulsory medical examination and treatment of women suspected of having sex with military men whilst infected. The 1918 Regulation was only introduced due to growing anxieties regarding the transmission of venereal disease to soldiers, requiring government intervention to reduce the number of men infected. The ability to scapegoat the prostitutes as ‘exploiters and polluters’ of the armed forces was a fortunate coincidence with the growing association in society of venereal disease with immoral women. Bland supports this, suggesting that the rising prominence of ‘amateur’ prostitutes in wartime Britain meant they were easily culpable for the transmission of the disease. I maintain that there was no governance of morality involved in the legal and medical approaches to venereal disease, but rather that it was a happy coincidence for the British Forces that Social Purity groups in Britain were targeting the influx in so-called ‘Khaki Fever’.
Woollacott argues that ‘Khaki Fever’ represented a new era of amateur prostitution, with Social Purity groups fearing for women’s morality regarding their sexual and social independence over troops. By placing the blame of increasing military venereal disease cases on the rise of ‘flirtatious girls suffering from khaki fever,’ it meant that the Government could make the soldiers appear as victims at the hands of ‘immoral’ women. Further, open letters to newspapers highlighted the general attitude of men being seen as ‘objects to be pestered…by foolish young women,’ enforcing the notion that the soldiers were morally just and the fault lay with the girls. This encouraged Social Purity campaigners to actively seek females displaying ‘immoral’ behaviour, allowing the men to be treated privately in venereal ablution rooms without restricting their social activities, thus maintaining a strong and content front line in the final months of the First World War.
In conclusion, this essay seeks to argue that the implementation of legal and medical approaches to venereal disease were not governed by morality, but rather were a necessary intervention by politicians to maintain a healthy front line in wartime Britain. Although morality was involved in the notion of implementing these changes, it was merely a scapegoat for the Government to conceal the true motivations for the intervention. Venereal disease incidences prior to the introduction of these Acts were recognised and treated in Britain, and with it being deemed acceptable for men to utilise prostitutes prior to marriage, it stands that these approaches were not governed by morality. The need for a healthy front line was paramount; with high casualties and fatalities weakening the strength of the British Forces, it was imperative that the Government applied measures to minimise unnecessary losses.