List the items available for sale in this 19th-century magazine.
“Rubber Goods” (condoms/diaphragms), “French secrets,”
erotic novels
“Female Pills” (abortifacients).
How is language used to sell these items without being too open and frank about what they are?
advertisers used euphemisms.
Abortifacients were sold as cures for “suppressed menstruation” or “obstructions,”
- warning pregnant women not to take them (a wink-and-nod that they caused miscarriages).
Abortifacients were openly sold in newspapers and pharmacies. An example is in the previous document. What kinds of publications sold these?
Newspapers: These were a common source where advertisements for such products were placed.
19th-century magazines: These publications featured a variety of items for sale, including “Female Pills” or other products that served as abortifacients.
Shadow markets in mainstream print: Mainstream publications often contained a “shadow market” where these products were sold alongside other health items.
What does Dr. Ely Van De Warker see as the real dangers behind these drugs?
He argued these drugs were dangerous because they were often toxic (mercury/lead-based) and “ineffectual,” causing permanent physical harm or death to the mother rather than a “clean” abortion.
How do these ads get around various obscenity laws?
By framing these products as general health remedies or “regulators,” advertisers could argue they were providing medical assistance
Ultimately, why should these drugs be banned?
Critics argued they should be banned to protect the “sanctity of life” and the health of women, but also to stop “immorality” from being commercially accessible.
- –How does Anthony Comstock distinguish between “good reading” and “evil reading”?
“Good reading” ennobles the soul and prepares one for a godly life.
“Evil reading” (novels, sex ed, erotica) acts as a “slow poison” that corrupts the imagination.
How does Comstock view children? What impact does “evil reading” have on such children?
Comstock viewed children as “pure vessels” easily corrupted.
He believed one “dirty” book could lead a child down a path of “self-abuse” (masturbation), criminal behavior, and eventual damnation.
What does comstock mean that this obscene literature “is the constant companion of all other crimes”?
He argued that obscene literature didn’t just exist in a vacuum; it fueled lust, which led to rape, prostitution, and the breakdown of the family unit.
-See a discussion of Comstock’s ideas about “dirty words” in the first essay, pg. 261 especially.
Weaponization of Shame: Comstock and other social moralists sought to “inculcate a sense of shame” regarding sexual language.
They believed that formal, proper speech was a necessary barrier against the “poison” of obscenity.
Contrast with Free Lovers: While Comstock wanted to censor these words to protect public order, radicals like Angela Heywood intentionally used frank sexual language (such as “cock, cunt, and fuck”) to “democratize” the language and challenge the class-based power of the elite who controlled “proper” speech.
When YOU hear the words “sex slavery,” what comes to mind? Is this Woodhull’s interpretation?
Modern View: Typically, we think of human trafficking or forced prostitution.
Woodhull’s View: No, her interpretation was much broader. She defined legal marriage as “sex slavery” if the woman did not have the right to refuse her husband. She argued that being legally bound to perform sexual acts without desire was the essence of slavery.
-Woodhull couches her attack on people like Comstock in terms of “freedom” vs. “despotism.” Outline how she views both terms.
Freedom: The absolute right of individual self-ownership. To Woodhull, freedom meant that every person has the exclusive right to control their own body, their sexual choices, and their reproductive destiny without government or church interference.
Despotism: She used this to describe the Comstock Laws and state-enforced morality. She viewed it as a “tyranny” where the state reaches into the private bedroom to force people into loveless, coerced unions.
How does she respond to those who object to her ideas that mutual sexual freedom will be liberating to both men and women?
She argued that true morality cannot be forced by law; it can only grow in an environment of choice.
She believed that when women were no longer forced to submit, men would also be liberated from the role of “legalized rapist,” leading to relationships built on genuine affection and mutual respect rather than “ownership.”
-Why is 19th century American marriage as bad as (even worse than) slavery for women?
She argued it was worse because it was a “slavery of the soul” disguised as a sacred bond.
How would the ideas of female passionlessness, purity, and lack of interest in sex contribute to this interpretation of American Marriage in the 19th century?
The Purity Paradox: The Victorian era taught that “pure” women had no sexual passion. Woodhull argued this belief was used to justify the “duty” of submission. Since women were expected to have no interest in sex, their consent wasn’t seen as necessary—they were simply expected to “endure” it as a legal obligation, which she likened to the condition of a chattel slave.
What does she advocate that wives do (or actually not do)? Until when?
The Action: She advocated for a “sexual strike.” She urged wives to refuse to have sex with their husbands entirely.
The Duration: She told them to withhold sex until women were recognized as the sole owners of their own bodies, possessing the legal and social right to grant or deny consent at any time.
Does Ezra Heywood believe that men and women need external constraints (religious prohibitions, government laws, etc.) to control individuals?
No. Heywood rejected the idea that people need the “threat of the jail” or religious dogma to stay moral. He believed in self-government. His philosophy was that if individuals are free from state interference and properly educated, they will naturally exercise self-control and act responsibly.
What does the idea of sexual purity rest upon, according to Heywood?
To Heywood, sexual purity does not rest on a marriage license or abstinence.
Instead, it rests on mutual desire and individual consent. A sexual act is “pure” if both people want to be there; it is “impure” (even inside a marriage) if it is coerced, forced, or done out of a sense of legal “duty.”
-What is the basis for Free Love?
The Basis: The basis is individual sovereignty—the idea that the government has no more right to regulate the bedroom than it does to regulate what you think or say.
Does Free Love mean complete sexual freedom whereby people can do what they want with whomever they want as frequently as they want wherever they want? Why or why not?
Does it mean total “license”?: No. Heywood explicitly distinguished “Free Love” from “Free Lust.”
Why not?: It was not an “anything goes” policy. He argued that “Free Love” actually made people more selective. It meant the freedom to not have sex if you didn’t love the person. It was about the right to use birth control and the right to end a relationship that was no longer healthy, rather than pursuing random, frequent sexual encounters.
-How are Heywood’s goals similar to Comstock’s? How is the route to those goals so very different?
Both wanted a “pure” society. However, Comstock wanted to achieve it through fear and jails, while Heywood wanted to achieve it through education and freedom.
What was the larger context of language battles in which we find debates about “sex talk”?
During the Gilded Age, the American elite used “refined” language as a tool to distinguish the “civilized” upper class from the “vulgar” working class and immigrants.
Language was a battlefield for defining social status and moral fitness.
How did conservatives and Social Purists distinguish between proper and formal speech vs. slang?
Conservatives viewed formal, Latinate speech (e.g., using “copulation” instead of “fuck”) as a sign of discipline and spiritual elevation.
Slang and “low” language were seen as chaotic, impulsive, and characteristic of the “dangerous classes” who lacked the self-control necessary for a stable republic.
Why did these social moralists want to “inculcate a sense of shame” with regard to words?
They believed that if a word was too shameful to speak, the act it described would become unthinkable.
By enforcing silence and “linguistic modesty,” they hoped to repress sexual desire itself and maintain a strict Victorian moral order through internalized psychological control.
-
Columbus Meets Pocahontas in the American South19
-
Interracial Unions in French Louisiana12
-
Father Lafitau & the Iroquois2
-
Baron & Hurons7
-
Fr. Jayme & Spanish Colonial Sexual Violence3
-
Native Peoples of North Carolina7
-
Module 2 essays54
-
Module 3 essays64
-
Module 453
-
Module 5 essays56
-
Module 6 Essays48
-
Module 746
-
Module 851
-
Kinsey21
