The Regulation of Berlin Prostitution in the 1900s: a Study by Dr. Wilhelm Hammer
A 1905 study summarizing the contribution of Dr. Hammer, assistant doctor at the Berliner städtischen Obdach, a state institution supervising female prostitutes, to Vol. 23 of Großstadt-Dokumente.
Großstadt-Dokumente is a work in fifty volumes edited by Hans Ostwald (1873-1940), a Berlin journalist, which documents the full variety of life in Berlin and Vienna between 1904 and 1908.[1] Volumes 1, Dunkle Winkel in Berlin (1904),[2] and Volume 5, Zuhältertum in Berlin (1905),[3] both by Hans Ostwald, give a vivid account of prostitution at a time when Berlin’s population was increasing dramatically (Fritsche 386-90).[4] This study summarises the contribution of Dr. Hammer, an assistant doctor (Hilfsarzt) at the Berliner städtischen Obdach, a state-run institution for supervising female prostitutes, in Volume 23 of Großstadt-Dokumente entitled Zehn Lebensläufe Berliner Kontrollmädchen: und zehn Beiträge zur Behandlung der geschchlechtlichen Frage (Ten life stories of Berlin registered prostitutes: and ten articles on the treatment of the sexual question)(1905).[5]
In Zehn Lebensläufe, on the basis of anonymised interviews. Dr. Hammer recorded the life story of ten women placed on the medical ward for prostitutes where he worked. Dr. Hammer prefaced these case histories with nine articles based on his experience with female prostitution while working as a doctor: I. On prostitution and prostitution research; II. The Berlin vice police and their impact; III. The education of young prostitutes; IV. On gender issues; V. Reflections on religion and sexual behaviour; VI. Criminality and prostitution; VII. On the sexual education of the younger generation; VIII. Men and prostitution; IX. Benefits and harms of prostitution.
This article focuses on Part II of Zehn Lebensläufe on the regulation of Berlin prostitutes.[6] In section one, Dr. Hammer reproduced the document issued by the vice police to each registered prostitute. The first part consisted of police regulations issued to protect “Gesundheit, der öffentllichen Ordnung und des öffentlichen Unstandes” (health, public order and public decency), which came into force on 1 October 1902 (Hammer 22). The regulations placed restrictions on women “who on account of the conduct of professional sexual relations” were placed under the supervision of the vice police and health authorities (Hammer 22). Prostitutes placed under supervision had to undergo a medical examination, the frequency of which depended into which of three classes they belonged: Class I, required to undergo checks twice a week, consisted of women under 25 or of any age who had been listed for less than a year or women with syphilis, if three years had not elapsed since the first symptoms appeared, or women deemed by the vice police by their conduct or personality to require frequent control; Class II, required to have weekly check-ups, consisted of women between the ages of 25 to 34 who did not fall within Class I; and Class III, required to be checked once every fortnight, consisted of women over 34 who did not fall within Class I (Regulation 1). They had to attend punctually a doctor’s appointment. Upon discovering a venereal or other disease, they had to report to the vice police or undergo a doctor’s investigation (Regulation 2). If diagnosed with a venereal or other infectious disease, they had to present to designated clinics until cured and follow orders of the medical authorities (Regulation 3). “They had to wear simple and proper clothing. The wearing of men’s clothing is forbidden” (Regulation 4). The conduct of the women was strictly regulated.
On the streets and squares of the city you may not by your behaviour attract attention to yourself. In particular, you may not stand or sit on streets, doorways, building entrances, or pavements, nor are you allowed to stroll up and down in a certain area, or in an offensive manner to parade yourself and allow yourself to be seen in company of a person whom you know to be under the supervision of the vice police or to have been sentenced for procuring, or is known to you to be a pimp, or from a distance give a wink or other sign to men to follow or speak to you. (Regulation 5)
There followed a list of reputable streets and places where supervised prostitutes were forbidden to frequent except in cases of absolute necessity (Regulation 6). They were prohibited from soliciting or disorderly conduct in public bars (Regulation 7). Contact with minors was prohibited (Regulation 8). Any conduct in their dwelling or the vicinity likely to cause upset could result in being obliged, after prior warning, to quit the premises upon police order (Regulation 9). They had to permit entry day and night to their dwelling for police inspection and provide information about persons on the premises (Regulation 10). They could be banned if found on premises deemed by the police to be a center for prostitution (Regulation 11).
You are not allowed in any circumstances to show yourselves at your own or another’s windows. During a visit from a man, the windows of your dwelling must, be shut and covered with curtains so as to prevent any view into the dwelling. It is forbidden to place a lamp, a light or any other sign at the window or in any other manner from the window or the house entrance seek to attract men. (Regulation 12)
Controlled prostitutes had to register their address and any change within three days (Regulation 13). They were not allowed to reside in places where loitering was forbidden, nor in hotels and guest houses, which they also could not enter and from which they could be evicted by the police (Regulation 14). “Finally, it is prohibited for you to share your dwelling with another person, while you have a visit from a man, or to lodge your pimp at your place” (Regulation 15). It was forbidden to have an under-age person as a domestic (Regulation 16). They were issued with a control book and authorisation card which they had to keep safely and present on demand (Regulation 17). While on police premises, they had to behave correctly and obey orders of supervising authorities and doctors (Regulation 18). Violation of the regulations was an offence punishable with up to six weeks imprisonment.
Furthermore, on completion of their sentence, the convicted person may be handed over to the local police authorities who are authorised for a period of up to two years either to transfer the person to a workhouse, an improvement or educational institute, or in an asylum, or to employ for socially useful work. (Hammer 26)
The second section consists of Maßregeln zur Verhütung von ansteckenden Gesclechtskrankeiten (measures for prevention of venereal diseases). The first paragraph warned against intercourse with symptomatic men to prevent transmission. The second paragraph advised on post-coital hygiene measures. The third paragraph recommended regular bathing in Summer and weekly baths in Winter (Hammer 27).
In the final section (28-30), Dr. Hammer described the prostitutes’ lack of autonomy. The head doctor could decide without consultation on their treatment and impose harsh punishments. The women had to pay a daily rate for their stay during the compulsory treatment. Prostitutes identified by the vice police as licentious were examined for venereal disease and, if infected, taken to hospital. In any event, they were warned that on subsequent arrest they would be placed under police supervision. He recorded that despite this strict control regime, each adult male in Berlin had on average 1.2 venereal diseases, including 80% with gonorrhoea and 20% with syphilis. He highlighted the high cost of medical treatment, often unaffordable for the prostitutes. He stressed their unfair and gender discriminatory treatment: used to satisfy male desire while subjected to strict discipline over the most intimate aspects of their behaviour. Finally, he noted that women under supervision, unlike males, were segregated on hospital wards, even though when allowed to mix their behaviour was no different from that of other women.
[1] See: Dietmar Jazbinsek and Ralf Thies. “Großstadt-Dokumente”. Metropolenforschung im Berlin der Jahrhundertwende. https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/1996/ii96-501.pdf Accessed 18 December 2020.
[2] Ostwald, Hans. Dunkle Winkel in Berlin. Be bra verlag, 2014.
[3] Ostwald, Hans. “Das Zuhältertum in Berlin.” Großstadt-Dokumente, edited by Hans Ostwald, vol. 5, 2nd ed., Hermann Seemann, 1905. Digital Landesbibliothek Berlin, https://digital.zlb.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:109-1-5578191. Accessed 18 December 2020.
[4] Fritzsche, Peter. “Vagabond in the Fugitive City: Hans Ostwald, Imperial Berlin and the Grosstadt-Dokumente. Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 29, no. 3, 1994, pp. 385-402.
[5] Hammer, Wilhelm. “Zehn Lebensläufe Berliner Kontrollmädchen: und zehn Beiträge zur Behandlung der geschchlechtlichen Frage.” Großstadt-Dokumente, edited by Hans Ostwald, vol. 23, 10th ed., Hermann Seemann, 1905. https://digital.zlb.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:109-1-6389955. Accessed 18 December 2020. All translations from Zehn Lebensläufe are mine. My translation of Dr. Hammer's study on prostitution in Berlin in the early 20th Century co-edited by myself and Jill Suzanne Smith has recently been published by Peter Lang. Details at: storage.googleapis.com/flyers.peterlang…
[6] See: Roos, Julia. “Between Normalization and Resistance: Prostitutes’ Professional Identities and Political Organization in Weimar Germany.” After The History of Sexuality: German Genealogies with and beyond Foucault, edited by Scott Spector et al., Berghahn Books, 2012, pp. 139-55.