playboy bunny history

Playboy bunnies, a subject you would never expect from me. Except that I started watching Drunk History and I was inspired by one that showcased Gloria Stienem doing an expose on 1960s Playboy clubs. What was it like to be a bunny for Hugh Hefner? Let's dive into that. 

The late Hugh Hefner and his wife Crystal Harris Hefner

Gloria Steinem wrote on the less-glamorous aspects of the Playboy club, such as sore feet, pay lower than promised, and crude comments from customers. According to Drunk History, the club members could date the bunnies if they held a membership key, though I can't find any reference to this anywhere else. I'm not saying that Drunk History has any reason to lie, but I can't find it in writing. I seriously doubt they'd advertise something so close to prostitution in their "Bunny Manual" if it happened.

A little bit of history on the Playboy Club is in order. Only 21 percent of members even came in the door, mostly because they only needed the key itself to boost their status in 1960. Nowadays that is not a bragging point, but instead counts as a skeleton in a closet. The bunny costume was designed by a woman and took some convincing to get Hefner's approval. While the costumes are, in fact, extremely revealing, the policy of "look, don't touch" has always been in place. In practice this is probably hard to monitor when men come in to lust after women over a drink. For some it is hard to respect a woman in a bunny tail and ears, especially while drunk and rich. The club closed in 1991. One thing to note on Hefner was he was not tolerant of racism. When a few of his clubs didn't let blacks in the front door he took them over and changed it. He gave Aretha Franklin her start at 18. 

Hugh Hefner died at age 91 in 2017. His family and Daren Metropoulos (owner of the Playboy Mansion) control his company. Hefner said he'd stop releasing nudes in 2016, but his son reversed this in 2017. The stream of internet porn makes Playboy look tame, by comparison. Playboy is very much alive today in the form of casinos and clubs, as well as jazz festivals. 

Playboy Bunny Rules

Starting with terms for the bunnies, a playboy model is a playmate. Playmates are not bunnies. A bunny is a waitress or bartender. They had bunny mothers as supervisors. Jet bunnies are stewardesses for Hefner's plane "the big bunny" or "hare force 1". There are door bunnies, cigarette bunnies, cocktail bunnies, and floor bunnies. I probably missed some, but I think you get the point. While working they are referred to as Bunny (name here). Bunnies can also refer to being a girlfriend of Hefner. These ladies get breast augmentation money, free hair care, a weekly allowance of 1000 dollars, and a room in the playboy mansion. 

Some of the rules included specific times and how to smoke, no gum chewing, and not being allowed to date customers, coworkers, and members. These members were not allowed to touch the women, in writing. They addressed men as Mr. (name here). To get this job you had to learn how to garnish 20 cocktails and identify 143 liquor brands. You can't be dim-witted to get this job. You even had to walk like a bunny, one leg over the other. To master the bunny stance, you put your legs together, arch your back, and tuck your hips under. You "bunny perched" on the back of chairs. There was a bunny bow to serve drinks elegantly. 

When it came to costumes, you could get demerits for certain things, including failing to "bunny bow". If your appearance was unkept, tail was dirty, lipstick too pale, worn shoes, or didn't look "bunny perfect" you were given demerits. Merits could cancel those out, like being good at service, but it was a little odd, to be sure. However, if you want to find an original costume, just to try it on (good luck - they were tailored to the women who wore them) you will have to break into a museum to do it. The bunnies turned them in afterward and only a handful of museums have the costumes from 1960. 

A 1960 uniform included cufflinks, a bow tie, a satin one-piece, tights (with pale tights under them so all looked like the same legs), a bunny tail, and bunny ears (which sometimes gave women headaches). It took an hour before work to put on the uniforms (and the hour before was not paid, sadly). They were measured and fitted for the uniforms and given two with choice of color. They were told if they arched their back during the fitting it would fit better. Colors varied and were matched to the women's skin tone and eye color. It included padding and some stuffed their bras to fit it.  The whole costume was also a tax deduction. The black costume was earned. Nowadays the bunnies are wearing two pieces and body paint, as of 2000s. 

Expose vs. Good Memories

As much of a sex symbol as these women are, Gloria Stienem's views are challenged by a book called The Bunny Years by Kathryn Leigh Scott. She claimed that they had flexible hours, paid more than average jobs in the area, and were given financial freedom. Scott claims plenty of women went on to intelligent careers in entertainment, science, and other areas because they could work and pursue education. 

Steinem, on the other hand, said they were not paid what they were promised, the costumes were uncomfortable, and customers were rude. She said it was awful, in direct contrast to Scott. She also claims there may have been a prostitution ring going on and the club members could do whatever they wanted and date the bunnies. 

What view was true? Well, historians have no reason to lie, and neither did Scott, so maybe both. It is possible different management did different things and, as mentioned before, "members can do anything" is not likely to be put in writing for the cops to find. I will not confirm or deny the possibility of prostitution. Given that bunny reunions are held even today, it may not have been awful for every bunny. To put it bluntly, a job is a job. If you were needing a job and that was the only one you could find it wasn't the worst job you could have. Not the best, honestly, but not the worst. What's worse - being a walking sex symbol or poverty (in the most extreme circumstances)? 

https://www.businessinsider.com/playboy-bunnies-history-2017-9

https://www.playboy.com/read/playboy-history

https://www.insider.com/how-playboy-bunnies-have-changed-2017-9

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4567816/this-is-the-real-reason-that-the-playboy-girls-were-called-bunnies/

http://www.explayboybunnies.com/history/

https://www.popsugar.com/love/Playboy-Bunny-History-11238583

Pictures:

Pinterest

E! Online

The Real West vs. The Movies

The old west has been used by Hollywood to show a wild time when gunfights were common and outlaws were rampant. From 1803 to 1890 is considered "the west". Let's dive into that and see what it really was. 

To be fair to Hollywood and various others in the film industry, there were gunfights. That wasn't a lie. What is a lie is that the gunfight at OK Corral happened at OK Corral with rifles. Truthfully, it happened with handguns, beside a photography studio, and lasted 30 seconds. They were all six feet from each other or closer. 

Westerns portraying the 1900s and violent times are significantly less accurate, too. The west was cleaned up far more by that time. It is around the first settlements that it was the roughest. Imagine single men with guns bought from the gold rush cash they acquired, all of them scarred from the Civil War and dealing with Native Americans defending their homes. Add the raiding parties and bandits, then we have a violent time. Most traveled with all their possessions, too. 

The other most prominent lie we hear in film is the term "cowboy" as positive. It was derogatory, actually, and the good cattlemen preferred "herder". Rivalry and scuffles came with being a cattleman. 

Billy the Kid most likely became an outlaw by being on the wrong side of a rivalry. It was possible to find yourself in that position if loyalties became strong enough. Forget the cowboy hats, too - they didn't wear them. 

The Civil War

From 1861 to 1865 the war over slavery was less prominent in the west, but make no mistake, it still existed there. That war churned out raiding parties and experienced killers that later wreaked havoc. Jesse and Frank James, whom the Pinkerton Detectives couldn't catch, began their experience with a pro-confederate raiding party led by Quantrill (William Quantrill). Quantrill was one of the worst raiding parties of the Civil War and ran through Missouri and Kansas recklessly. 

The other issues around the Civil War included PTSD that no one knew could exist, being desensitized to violence, and too many weapons out there. You can come home from war with your gun and your PTSD, in essence. No one wants that, but it happened. The training and trauma created outlaws and unhinged men in the process. Did everyone come back shooting up towns? No, but a few did and found friends to help. Most outlaws were opportunistic, driven by greed and alcohol, and lacked any restraining force.

Jesse and Frank James

Law and Order 

The Pinkerton Detective Agency took care of some of these outlaws. Their failure to get Jesse and Frank James was possibly their worst failure. Law had a hard time keeping track of everything, understandably, as more land was acquired. The Hole-In-The-Wall pass that several outlaw gangs used was never penetrated by the law. The Goldrush didn't help. The only outlets for social activity were saloons, brothels, and gambling houses. For the most part, each town had their own rules and sent posses for the outlaws around them. Vigilante justice and lynching were common. In 1851 the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance was created. This group consisted of 700 citizens and passed judgment immediately without a fair trial. Many were shot or hung. Similar groups began in several states and lasted for a long time. Some cities, like Tombstone, enforced the rule that no civilians can have guns in town. 

Railroads

Late 1860 brought railroads, and then the first transcontinental railroad. They combined the Central and Union Pacific Railroad. When you see buffalo hunters being paid to hunt the buffalo they are being paid by the railroad. Not only did it feed railway workers, but it also made it possible to keep laying track on land where wild bison got in the way. They nearly killed the buffalo and starved Native Americans, who were eventually forced into reservations. 

Camels

Did you just read the word "camel"? Yes, you did! The US Army ordered 75 of them to the tune of 30 grand. They were meant to help tame the west because of their durable constitution. They were originally only used in Texas for supply travel. They worked so well that they wanted more, but Congress killed that dream of getting more. Confederate Texas ended up letting the animals graze. One went to battle and died in battle, another was pushed off a cliff, and several were caught and sold. Some even ran around feral (wild). 

Sources:

https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/wild-west-how-lawless-was-american-frontier/

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/01/11/wild-west-myths/

https://www.allstays.com/content/history-of-the-old-west.htm

https://www.grunge.com/55202/untold-truth-old-west/

Pictures:

Society Pages

History

Men and visual minds

Men are visual. A phrase that most women have heard every time they wear short shorts at summer church camp. That phrase is not entirely understood unless you look at the situation from a man's point of view. Shall we dive in?

Based on the research I found, it is irrefutable and I have no doubts. Men are far more visually stimulated than women. Unfortunately, it is a fact used (sometimes) to make dress code violations one-sided. Men can control their actions. They are not animals. However, we should be as kind as possible to them in what we wear (and I'm not just saying this to be restrictive). To be entirely fair to men here, they can't just turn it off. There may not be much we can do, truthfully, to help when the advertising world is making it hard to avoid.

There was an experiment proving this done at Emery University Health Sciences Center. The men processed visual stimulation differently than women and you can read about the whole study by clicking my first source link. The basic concept is that men responded quicker to visual cues compared to women who saw the same visual cue. I highly suggest reading the study release. It is fascinating!

Going into more detail

Curiously enough, whether the men around you are gay or straight doesn't matter here. They are still responding quicker to visual cues whether they are dating women or men. They are triggered by the image both physically and psychologically, with no way to turn it off. Looking at advertisement images can tell you that advertisers take this and run with it. Sex sells. Images that have only body parts without faces reflect how much men can focus on parts of the body. These images don't always have to be connected to emotional intimacy - which can confuse women, most of whom connect emotional intimacy to a lot of things.

 To make things harder on men, this quick catching of visual cues is involuntary and isn't going to shut off, especially if they have been addicted to porn at some point. Women should probably think before lumping all men into the image of the lustful pig. Some women end up being hard on men for simply noticing other women, and mostly because they don't understand how men are wired. I am not saying a woman should tolerate a man that is actively flirting with every skirt. Let's be clear. I am saying that noticing a woman with less or tight clothing is a visual cue and thus an involuntary action. Actively staring or whistling, on the other hand, is a step past that.

I almost don't want to put this in here, but let's talk about sound and visual cues together. Understanding men is my overall goal in writing this post. If you are a married or sexually active person you know what sex sounds like. Not to be too crude, but take those sounds and pair those with an image of a seductive woman. This is even more powerful than an image alone. Ladies and gentlemen, I now present the porn industry taking advantage of men's wiring. I don't think I need to elaborate. It really messes with men's heads. 

Things to note: The man's smug smile, the woman's submissive pose, and how she's pressed against him. Basically, the man is the boss, and you are the boss if you wear these jeans.

I'm also going to acknowledge how the "perfect" man is represented in media. One of my primary sources mentioned something I never would have thought of before. Men's underwear ads have more, well, manhood represented. Again, not trying to be crude, but they are representing men as more than average. Not only that, but the six-pack abs of the models probably don't help the average man feel good about themselves. The underlying message here is that the perfect husband is attractive, muscular, and "packing". Marketing says that you wear it and you are a greek god. Subconsciously it affects men. I think this also applies, somewhat, to any pants ads you see for men. In both cases, some include women in them who are extremely attractive (thus playing off of visual cues) and imply that if you buy those jeans or underwear you get a woman. I don't want to show you an underwear ad, so here is a jean ad that shows a man who is clearly the boss (because power makes anyone feel good) based on his facial expression. (On a comical note, I hope he doesn't move because that lady will fall when he does.) I'll let you analyze the rest of it yourself. 

Different men - different sensitivity

Christian culture, as a whole, advocates staying pure until marriage. Christian men tend to have a harder time doing that when media parades women in bikinis and tight clothing over social media, billboards, comic books, and TV. It is hard to find a film, especially when aimed at men, that doesn't have a revealing costume for the women or a sex scene in it. I refer you to Fast and Furious, a franchise aimed at men who like cars, explosions, and action. Women's films, on the other hand, show women in a more-clothed manner. Little Women has a vastly different costume department compared to Fast and Furious.

That being said, some men don't care to shield their eyes. They enjoy it. No guilt at all. Some don't see porn as a problem. There is a Friends episode where Monica gives the guys porn. Some guys have a low sensitivity, while others are high sensitivity. Some don't try to divert their minds from it, while others actively do so. It depends on how you were raised, as well as active choices made as an adult. Those who had trouble with porn in the past have an even harder time than most and had to go against their wiring to get help. 

Now, what does "scantily clad" mean for men? Depends on the culture. If it is a culture where women cover up most of their body it would most likely be any part of the body that gets revealed. The woman showing the most skin gets the most attention. Different times in history have women covered more or less. (It explains why ankles, at one point in time, were considered sexy. It is the only part of their body not covered!) According to one of my sources, it is, in fact, impossible to be a reasonably attractive woman and not be noticed, no matter what you're wearing. Yes, the most skin is noticed first, but you will be noticed because men historically notice women.

More information 

Before we assume men are only attracted to physical beauty, I have two sources and multiple personal experiences that say that is not the case. Men are not animals, by any means, and can control their actions. They care about personality, emotional intimacy, shared values, and intelligence. They care about more than a good body, ladies. They do care about us.

What we wear does matter. They didn't lie to us at church camp. If you thought they did and wanted a blog to prove it you are not going to find one. The scientific studies and first person sources don't lie. Showing skin effects them, and so does tight clothing. If I'm honest, I did not realize just how much men are made uncomfortable. Again, I will say that some will soak it up with no guilt, but others? Not so much. It is hard to focus on a sports game when you can't unfocus on the volleyball shorts. 

Sports and dance is a sticky issue, especially sports that require freedom of movement that makes it difficult to wear more clothing. I ran cross country, a sport that had a culture around it that was anything but modest. Some of us women probably don't want to hear this, but be careful what you wear. It does impact men around you. Going into this topic was a journey where I didn't know what I'd find. Now that I can see what men are seeing, I am questioning what cosplays to wear, what media I consume, and what I wear on a daily basis - because I was oblivious to everything before this blog post was researched in full. If this had been explained to me in this much detail a long time ago I would have done some things differently. 

What now?

If you are now wrestling with all this information as a woman I'm right there with you. What do we do with all this and should we change? What do we do in response to be kinder to our men and their brains? I don't quite know, really, and some men don't tell you a lot of this oftentimes. It is mostly talked about by women because it is better presented by women most times (if there needs to be a conversation about it). That being said, some women can be overaggressive about modesty-patroling, so if you had a bad experience with this you aren't alone. 

Part of the problem I am seeing in this world is that us women have been taught sexy is beautiful, then clothing stores (most of the popular ones) follow. That gives us clothing that covers less, leading to less modesty and more temptation for the men. Media role models teach us what beauty is, so we follow like sheep without knowing it sometimes. To make this harder on those who want to be modest, the clothing stores that have modest clothes that don't require layering are hard to find. Layering works - don't get me wrong - but I would prefer to not layer, if possible (just me, personally, especially during summer). So, women are taught to change themselves to be sexier, men are told to "suck it up" and deal with their wiring being taken advantage of - and here we are! Aren't we a big happy family (to be taken sarcastically). This is not just one person's fault when you truly logic all this out. Our society has done both genders wrong, really, but we should be helping each other out. 

Now we come back to the question of what we do about this mess. Well, what convicts you personally has a lot to do with it. If you feel you shouldn't wear something in front of someone, don't. If you feel no conviction about your outfit at all, it's okay. It has to do with where you are, too, to a degree (as some places are more tolerant), so it may be you feel okay wearing your low v-neck at home while Netflixing, but not at bible study or college study group. You may run in a sports shirt that covers in the Canton area, but run in sports bra and shorts on back roads. It has a time and a place, in essence. It also helps to consider what you are showing someone in film and media (for example, will it cause them to have to resist their wiring to focus?). Yes, some men don't care what they soak in, but just as many do care, especially if they had previous issues with porn. We may be showing them something they never wanted to remember, or worse, trigger more unwanted images. Take the temperament of the men around you into consideration, as well as history. If they regularly don't care, well, they don't care. If they are super careful with movie choices watch what you show them. Use common sense, in short.

Pictures:

Glamour

Show Biz Cheat Sheet

Slideshare

Sources:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040316072953.htm

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201205/the-triggers-sexual-desire-men-vs-women

1st person sources:

Since I am not sure who wants to be acknowledged and who doesn't, you know who you are. I realize some don't want to be. Thank you, those who helped.

News and media- making money off of our distress

False news! Misinformation! Controversy and shock! Let's talk about how reliable your news is. Did you ever wonder how much power your local news station held over you? You'd be surprised how much it dictates your thoughts. 

 

Now, your news may not tell you what to think, but it is biased. No human is entirely without bias. I blog and I can tell you that bias is everywhere. Including here. And, to boot, your news tells you what is important and should be discussed. During the coverage of George Floyd you may remember Covid 19 going into the background real quick, and that was because the news stopped covering Covid 19 when a less-stale lead came up for them to follow. 

Is this anything new? No, they've been doing this for years. Sensationalism? Yellow journalism? It is still out there. Look at war newspapers and tell me what you see. One can quickly come to the conclusion that there is nothing new under the sun. The media still tells us what to focus on and converse about. People-watch and keep an eye on the news. With no prompting, see what the people around you talk about. Do they focus on Floyd? Covid 19? Black Lives Matter? Yeah, we're being led on a leash, and the media hold the end of it. 

A look into how they do it

For starters, they may do what I do on occasion - tap into trends to get more views. Do you want honesty from me? I do this more often than you may realize. Occassionally I find trends on my own, on accident - like the people-watching blog posts, but most of the time I keep an eye on twitter and the conversations around me. 

Click bait, catchy headlines, trending topics - and all get more people to buy news to get more of it. This is especially so if the bias is in the direction of your opinion. They need money, rates, and advertisers to make their business go. If you think reality TV and social drama is stupid, well, think about the amount of money thrown at it. This is because people feed it. We feed and fuel what we want to see. So, sex and drama sell. There was an experiment done once that proved that the public responds to negative and danger-related words quicker than good words. In some ways, we feed what we see online and on television. A word of caution on breaking news, though - it is sometimes put on without being fact-checked, then corrected later. 

Also, think of politics. Political agendas, and many nonpolitical ones, are dictated or set by current news issues. What issues do government figures talk about, even debate on? The ones that are talked about most, of course. The loudest person gets heard. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as my late great grandmother used to say. It isn't a new idea, really.

Fear and News

Now that we know how the news sometimes functions (not always, sometimes), we connect our current issues to it. Covid 19 and Black Lives Matter are popular topics, as of right now. The news can set the tone of what to think about just by wording, so seeing fear-related words in the news is nothing new during this season. It sets a tone that says "danger! danger!", whether it is dangerous or not. To be clear,  I  am not calling either topic fake. I am simply saying that you should probably assess what truly is dangerous based on evidence and common sense. Keep this in mind when the breaking news bulletin comes in or Dewine speaks on anything. 

I said this before and I will say it again - news needs views to keep their business going. Expect to hear about nothing but Covid 19 until it is truly over or replaced by a more compelling news topic. As long as people seek information on any topic (obsessively or moderately) the news will give the people what they want. Do you want to cut down the hype? I would suggest (kindly and honestly) that you stop adding to the hype. Less demand equals less supply. It is a common-sense theory that just might work. I look on facebook and see nothing but debates on masks, politics, and Black Lives Matter, with Defund Police added to the mix. We are trying to scream our opinions at people without listening. You want it to stop? Stop screaming and start listening. 

The dark side of what is already dark is that we divide ourselves with the help of the news. We create loyalty to causes, some of which are good and some of which are bad, that result in lines in the sand. We were not formed by God's hand only to fight constantly over every social issue known to man. Fear is nothing new, sadly. It is a function we discovered all by ourselves. Fear can make someone a human weapon and steer us places we didn't know we could ever reach. I'll put this as nicely as possible - cut the leash that media and fear holds over you and imagine everyone as God's own child, then make decisions. Don't blindly follow what your news station tells you. 

Pictures:

Jstor daily

State of Digital Publishing

Sources:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/two-takes-depression/201106/if-it-bleeds-it-leads-understanding-fear-based-media

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-how-media-coverage-of-epidemics-often-stokes-fear-and-panic-131844

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-neuroscientist-explains-how-politicians-and-the-media-use-fear-to-make-us-hate-without-thinking-2019-07-18

https://www.thestreet.com/markets/emerging-markets/3-ways-to-profit-from-the-endless-war-on-terror-13579490    

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/10/get-rich-or-die-trying-the-people-trying-to-make-money-from-coronavirus

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140728-why-is-all-the-news-bad

The Boston Police Strike of 1919 - a look back at history

Boston, Massachusetts. Sept. 9th, 1919. That was the day that the police force in Boston ran out of negotiation options and went on strike. After the first night of quiet, the city went crazy and militia were called in. Murders, property damage, rape, and looting were rampant. The volunteers (scabs) taking the officers' place were in way over their heads. 

I thought I'd bring you some long-forgotten history today, and maybe some perspective. The police force in Boston had wages that hadn't risen since the Civil War, and the war wages that were promised to rise if they waited, didn't rise. They were denied having a Union to speak for them, most of them were immigrants (Irish, mostly), and working conditions were awful. They had to try to afford expensive uniforms that cost around  $207.25 on a $21.90 weekly salary.  

How bad were working conditions? Try rats in the bunkhouse and one day off for every fifteen days on the job. 12 hour beats ( walking routes) on the streets. They did speak up. They tried to get provided uniforms, higher wages, and better work conditions for months. Then Edwin Curtis became commissioner and forbid any outside clubs aside from American Legion. 19 officers were suspended for going against his orders and creating an AFL chapter (on Aug. 15th). The vote on Sept. 8th on walking out on the job was 1,134 (for) to 2 (against). 

Sept. 10th Arthur McGill was shot on Howard Street when Scollay Square was cleared. Four hours later, three men were shot dead or fatally wounded elsewhere. Sept. 11th Richard Reemts, a striking officer, was shot dead. Raymond Barnes was killed 11 am. that day for curiosity at a group of craps players being moved (more than 30 of them). That night two young men were killed after finding either a craps player or a man picking up a manhole. The final death was Sept. 13th, when Gustave Gaist (WWI veteran) was shot trying to seize a soldier's rifle. 

At the end of all this violence -when a majority of officers walked off the job - returning service men replaced them and got everything they had gone on strike for. Calvin Coolidge, the current governor, was quoted saying "There is no right to strike against public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime." This meant that no striking officer recovered their jobs, and they struggled long after to continue making income. Their last resort to get heard cost them everything.

Why remember this?

 Defunding police is a big issue nowadays. This time some of the public wants to cut funding to police, or disband them entirely. This could potentially resemble what our world may look like if it happens. Less police mean less help for the vulnerable. Do you want to see a world where you are afraid to leave your home at night? Or even during the day? The images of this historic strike may give you some idea of what disbanding police may look like and how Irish (or immigrant) police officers fought to make a living. Let's not forget our history lessons. 

Also, if you want a good representation of this historic event, I suggest the historical fiction The Given Day by Dennis Lehane. It is an excellent picture of this event and time period. The link for the book on Amazon is below. 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0015DROFK/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Pictures:

UMass Boston Blogs

Universal Hub

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Boston-Police-Strike

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-boston-police-department-goes-on-strike

https://u-s-history.com/pages/h1348.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/07/when-city-was-lawless-recalling-boston-police-strike/0YgNYLshnyfcxYkQnGKhvM/story.html

Concubines, Mistresses, and Prostitutes- Oh My!

Of all the subjects to talk about, why am I talking about this?  Because why the heck not. There is, apparently, a difference between prostitute, concubine, and mistress - all in the lense of history. I'm not saying it is right, but I'm not going to argue with the history of the subject and it happened. Just for fun, let's explore this random topic. 

Definitions first! Mistresses (in our case) are lovers on the side, unmarried. Prostitutes are paid to have sex with anyone. Concubines are almost the same as a mistress, but includes living with their lover. All this in the lense of history is an interesting and scandalous topic. 

Women have been used for sex often throughout history. I don't like it, but there it is. I read a Phryne Fisher one day and it mentioned concubines were not prostitutes, so I was curious as to what they were, for real. Let's start with Mistresses.

Mistresses

The actual term did not start out like the definition above. For example, the mistress of the house might mean the female head of the house. However, it still made it to that definition through time. It is mostly connected to royalty and kings. If we know anything about kings, we know they had mistresses. The french favored mistresses often. Marriage was political. It was not uncommon for the mistress to demand luxury from her lover, or to even get more love and gifts than the wife. 

The royal mistresses held a lot of power over the king. You want influence over the king? Talk to the mistress, who tells him sweet nothings over the pillow and gives advice. Politics and friendship were connected by mere inches. Kings could usually get away with having many women, but the unfair thing was that women had no such privileges. Mistresses were often rivals of each other. Even Queen Elizabeth I was private about her gentlemen suitors. 

If the king needed to give them a title, he could. Sadly, the power of holding the king's attention led some to early deaths. Keeping beautiful led to using some harmful substances to keep skin "like porcelain", in the case of Diane De Poitiers. While beauty wasn't the most important for every king, it did prove fatal to her. Kings were expected to have mistresses for the sake of manhood. The unfortunate effect of losing king protection was humiliation and cruelty if things went wrong. Some mistresses, a few only, did become queen. 

Diane De Poiters - fatal beauty

Concubines

This is mostly an Asian practice, also appearing in Biblical times. They were not married, but they also weren't paid for sex either. They were a weird mix of a mistress and prostitute. They were confined where they were living. Harems are an example of this. Strangely, embroidery came from here because they would only be called on every once in a while, and they were bored. Other than bearing children and entertaining, it was not a fun life. It was being enslaved in a luxury palace, with all the rest of the women enslaved with you. 

Biblical debates on why this was allowed in Hebrew culture are out there. Some say that God allowed it for upping the population, in that time period alone. The biblical standard of concubines was that they weren't equal to wives, but did have rights. It was for the purpose of an heir to the throne. It has been said that God didn't approve of the practice, but man did it anyway because of the patriarchal system that was in place. They were either sold by their father, prisoners of war, foreign slaves, or Canaanite women. Sold women or prisoners of war had rights, but the remaining were not recognized or forbidden by Hebrew law. Hebrew law said that after six years the women were freed. Simply put, the women sold were released after the number of years is up, or they stay forever if they wanted to. Hebrew law said they couldn't be treated like slaves. They were not slaves, could not be mistreated, could divorce, and their children were legitimate. In contrast to the Asian culture, the Hebrews treated them well, if they obeyed laws.

Ming Dynasty Concubines

Now, let's look at what the Hebrew experience really was. Hagar's was that she was used by the wife of the house, as in ordered about in order to have an heir. King David's kingdom came to an end and the concubines and wives in the house were, "had" (to say it nicely) in public as a result of that (not by David, but by his enemies). In Judges 19-21 you can read about a concubine thrown to the wolves, then chopped into pieces once dead (all in order to call the country to war after her death). Those defiled by the enemy were at one time locked up and left lonely forever (2 Samuel 15, 16, 20). The laws may have said one thing, but humans are not known for following rules. It was not okay.

Prostitutes

Now, we get to a practice that still continues under-the-radar. You can still find a prostitute on the street if you drive around the right places at the right hour of the night (please don't, though). It is a form of modern-day slavery. And don't think only men are selling women, because women also sell women - or children - every day. They even sell men. Human trafficking continues on in places you wouldn't expect, like well-populated malls. Women and men should both be on their guard for it. 

When did this start? Well, maybe this blog is too short to go back that far. It is one of the oldest professions in history. Surprise! Greeks like both sexes for their entertainment. It isn't a woman-only problem. Prostitution was legal at certain times in history and certain places. There were legal and illegal brothels, in the same time period. Some sold themselves, others were forced into it, but either way it happened. Ohio law states you can't be a prostitute in Ohio legally. It is also a crime to sell someone and take a part of their earnings.

Pictures:

Dexion Logos

All Posters

Ancient Origins

Sources:

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/prostitution-laws-ohio.htm

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-is-a-concubine-why-did-god-allow-men-to-take-concubines-in-the-bible.html

https://cityhotpot.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/the-life-of-a-concubine/

https://www.history.com/news/royal-mistress-power-england-france-prince-william

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/secret-life-ancient-concubine-001301

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-prostitution-721311

https://www.historyextra.com/period/mistresses-through-history-the-term-wasnt-always-about-secret-sex/

https://medium.com/@ciarafitzgerald_20093/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-royal-mistresses-65a2e55410a0

Defund Police movement - what is it?

The Defund Police movement is all up in arms right now because, well, Black Lives Matter. Before you form any opinions based on what your neighbor, cousin, or your news source believes, let me tell you the factual basics on the movement, based on what I researched.

*The rest of this blog is facts from my research on the subject and the use of logic.*

First things first, what is it? In the most basic of terms, they want to lower funds for the police and give them to often-neglected needs in the community, possibly redefining police roles in the process. While there is a sister movement that goes farther and says disband the police, I am not talking about the sister movement. 

I'm not going into an overly-detailed description in this post, so if you want more information follow my sources below and go as far as you'd like in the research process. This is a deep hole of an issue. You should probably find a shovel at this point. 

Where does the money go?

This money, in theory, would go to the poverty-stricken, homeless, education system, youth, and public health. While that sounds great on paper, there are several problems here. How much goes to each, how the community decides who gets the money, how much the police budget gets cut....etc. I don't mean to throw a monkey-wrench into the theory, but people and making money decisions have a long, sad history. Communities would have to make those decisions and it wouldn't necessarily go over as smoothly as the plan indicates on paper. 

Police Roles

The claim here is that there are calls police "shouldn't" have to even take. The idea of sending in groups of social workers and specialized teams to take domestic abuse, drug calls, suicide calls, and any call dealing with mental health is that police don't have to touch it - licensed health professionals would. The only clog in this bathroom sink is that social workers are now in danger. The movement trying to help police could now cause premature deaths to social workers getting killed taking their calls. Then you have a homicide and police get called anyway. Domestic abuse cases can get increasingly violent, just like cases dealing with drugs and alcohol. Taking this into consideration, if you were a social worker would you want this job? I could also ask the police the same question.

The idea is to help police and reform the role of the police officer, but through logic, I'd reason we could make their job harder this way. Having to rescue social workers on a daily basis is less helpful, and when the count of officers could be lower due to layoffs the help could take longer to receive. That is a lot of dead social workers, and a lot of social workers that quit their jobs. Then police end up taking the calls anyway, and with less officers, that makes less solved cases. It may look good on paper, but let's be logical here. 

Police Jobs and Funds

Low funding already equals less jobs. Layoffs would be coming to police stations everywhere, should everywhere take this approach. With less officers to take calls, crime would rise. The rich could possibly make a mass-exodus or hire their own security, but think about the bad neighborhoods that people are too poor to move out of. With a longer response time to homicides, accidents, and other serious crimes the police may not get to the scene in time to stop violence. Riots alone take up a lot of police officers. Less officers may spell doom for the people who need their help. 

People in El Paso opposing Defund Police

Yes, I know I said some of the funds would go to poverty, but let's be real. People can make bad decisions on funding when uninformed or bribed. Is it possible that making good decisions would help the community? Yes, but human nature has proven that we are not innocents. The police already deal with a lot, and even if social workers succeeded in their response teams, you have to consider that police have families to feed. Less pay may put them in poverty if the money is not handled correctly. It may even put them in an early grave if they don't have training and equipment they can trust. Funds are used for training and equipment and if they aren't there, those officers who need to defend themselves from rioters or criminals may die doing so. 

Safer conditions

Another claim made by this movement is that social workers taking calls can help police have family lives and less hard hours. The idea behind this is that they could have lives outside work. It is truly touching that they considered this, but also think about the danger in having less officers. More overtime, more crime, less equipment, and less pay. Spending time with family? Can't, have to take a call of assault at the gas station - on overtime. Providing for family? Not so easy. While they "shouldn't" have to deal with the person with schizophrenia down the road, they might have to deal with more calls on a skeleton crew police force. Possibly without a partner to back them up, if they don't have a partner.

Is this truly safer conditions? With "less work", it may give them family time, but at what cost? Putting someone at a lower income may cause them to seek a second job, or depend on family and friends to pay rent. "Less work" may become overtime, as well, if crime goes up. With less police training (with funds down it is possible) they may be less equipped to protect us and themselves. Does that sound safe to you?

In conclusion

I know that I used logic to rip this theory apart. I also know that most of us don't want to relive the old west. On paper, without playing devil's advocate, this sounds like a plan that many can get behind, but please play devil's advocate. Think about what the consequences would be before you join the crowd that wants to defund police. Do your own research - on every movement you hear about! Find the truth. 

Pictures:

CNN

El Paso Times

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/06/09/the-movement-to-defund-or-disband-police-heres-what-you-need-to-know-now/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/12/black-lives-matter-defund-police-is-country-ready/

https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-the-phrase-explained.html