Like A Virgin
Historian Nancy Bristow tells host Brian Balogh about one of the biggest worries about sending young Americans off to war: whether they would be having sex — and how that preoccupation helped end the Progressive movement.
View Transcript
BRIAN: This is BackStory. I’m Brian Balogh.
PETER: I’m Peter Onuf.
ED: And I’m Ed Ayers. We’re talking today about the long shadow cast over America by World War I.We’ve talked about the ways war has been memorialized, and about some of its geopolitical legacies.We’re going to turn now to a couple of stories about what the war meant for Americans a little closer tothe action.
BRIAN: As the United States mobilized for war in 1917, Americans began to fear for their youngsoldiers– but not in the way you might think. Take, for example, this letter to government officials from aconcerned mother.
CONCERNED MOTHER: I could bear it if my boy came back a cripple, but I would rather he died in thetrenches than to have him come back with an incurable disease– or one that would taint his children,and his children’s children for generations.
ED: Now this mother wasn’t talking about just any ailment. Americans, including the president, wereterrified of venereal disease. And they had a reason to worry. In the days before penicillin, VD coulddecommission a lot of soldiers. And that’s exactly what was happening to US allies overseas. Over thecourse of the war, an estimated 5% of British troops were hospitalized for syphilis and gonorrhea.
BRIAN: To head off the threat posed by all the young men beginning to coalesce in training campsstateside– places known for their proximity to brothels and saloons– President Wilson and a coalitionof progressive reformers set up the Committee on Training Camp Activities. But historian Nancy Bristowsays that this group of reformers all had different ideas about how to stop the scourge of venerealdisease.
NANCY BRISTOW: I would describe sort of three wings here. You’ve got people concerned with purity,people concerned with social justice, and people concerned with efficiency.
So the purity reformers are going to want to provide opportunities for people to have safe, clean,healthful interactions– men and women together, to be good middle class Americans who have selfcontrol and manage their bodies through sexual abstinence, at least until marriage. And they’re going todo things like hosting picnics, and having town parades. And those things aren’t going to have muchimpact, and will become less and less important to the federal government as the war goes on.
Then you’re going to have social justice reformers, who may be trying to manage the situation in apretty complicated way– to provide opportunities for girls to find a route that is meaningful to themaway from prostitution, away from simply being exploited for sex during the war. But the efficiencyreformers, when push comes to shove, are going to be most interested in keeping the soldiers free ofdisease. And the Commission on Training Camp Activities– the federal agency that’s actually created tooversee these issues during the war– the CTCA is really, most of all, concerned with efficiency. Andhere you can think of any number of urban governments that are set up in this time to run things in amore democratic, but also more efficient manner. These folks, when it comes to VD, are wanting tohand out condoms.
BRIAN: They want to cut to the chase.
NANCY BRISTOW: They want to cut to the chase. And that’s really where the federal governmentcomes down, is that they really want “virile yet virginal soldiers,” as the historian Alan Brant describes it.But they’re willing to have a backup plan.
BRIAN: So it sounds to me like virile trumped virginal.
NANCY BRISTOW: Yes. They’re going to be willing to use law enforcement programs, and they’re goingto use them pretty repressively for young women. Part of what happens as they begin a more lawenforcement directed program to prevent venereal disease is they begin to arrest women on the street.And they arrest them for a range of behaviors. They need not actually be engaging in anything thatresembles a sexual act. In fact, they can be at a dance, and dance incorrectly.
And once you’re arrested you are taken to a hospital, or to some sort of medical clinic, where you’retested for venereal disease. If you have it, you are then locked up in a hospital until you’re cured. In apre-penicillin world, this could take months and months and months. You might never be cured. Onceyou’re cured, you are then prosecuted for your crime. And then, once you’re prosecuted you are held ina reformatory, often on what was called an indeterminate sentence.
So for all the talk of social justice reformers about moving to a world where men and women weretreated the same, where both would become advocates of purity in American life, the reality is that boththis commission– and the American populace– and, I suppose, I should add a third population, theAmerican soldiers– they don’t buy it, by and large. Boys will be boys, men will be men, but women areto be the moral bastions of the American culture.
BRIAN: This coalition is easy to make fun of, but they did have some very idealistic hopes. Did thecoalition hold together after the war? Were any of these objectives pursued in the 1920s, and were theactors the same?
NANCY BRISTOW: Historians have long said that World War I brought the end of the progressivemovement. I would actually frame it just a little bit differently, and say that the war actually empoweredprogressives, and created coalitions that perhaps were a little bit tenuous all along.
And so suddenly you have people who before had been able to imagine themselves having a coalition–OK, we’ll work together on this, because we all agree that venereal diseases is a serious problem inAmerican life. They could hold together tenuously, until there’s actual real power to hand around– untilyou actually begin to repress American women and lock them up, until you begin to distribute condoms.And then they begin to really recognize the differences that they have.
And in the aftermath of the war, the progressive coalition in general is coming apart at the seams, evenas Americans are just fed up with federal intervention in their lives. We go from an all for one and one forall to a– individualism, it’s up to you to make your own way, let’s not have a social safety net, let’s notbe preoccupied with community.
BRIAN: Nancy Bristow is a historian at the University of Puget Sound. She’s the author of “Making MenMoral, Social Engineering During the Great War.”
[MUSIC PLAYING]