“If any Person, being the Owner or Occupier of any House… to which this Act applies,,, having reasonable Cause to believe any Woman to be a common Prostitue and to be affected with a contagious Disease… he shall be guilt of an Offence against this Act…” (pg 275)
I find it interesting but not surprising that there are specifics against prostitution. I have a feeling that some women who were not a “common prostitute” were falsely accused, maybe even kicked out of where she was staying if the man of the house did not want her there. I’m sure people would be more inclined to believe a man, along with the perception of prostitution as dirty and wrong, and with a disease in the equation doesn’t help either. Prostitutes were held at a different standard, not only socially but on a personal level. Being disloyal or uncommitted made a woman lesser than those around her and the law.
I wonder if there was any violence towards women deemed prostitutes because of this part of the act. Having a contagious disease could have been used as another reason to justify mistreating uncommitted women. When people get defensive, some tend to get aggressive. If a prostitute were the reason for someone to be punished by the law, especially one so important, did they ever turn to violence to retaliate?
