Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Well this is straightforward enough:
So this personal ad is actually from the twentieth century, not the nineteenth as my blog claims, but it's within the first decade and really who's counting? And why should I leave out such an interesting little tidbit like this one because of a matter of a few years?
And interesting it sure is. Lots and lots of ads were solicitations, so this is hardly new. But it's awfully direct. I'm used to seeing ads like this masked a little, and, okay, the "fascinating baby" doesn't outright say exactly what the opportunity mentioned is, but there's not much left to the imagination, is there? Other than sex, is there anything else she could be offering him that would be worth a month of expenses (or at least some of)? I'm not trying to be too cynical here, but let's face it, it's not like financial support in exchange for sexual favors is unheard of. I guess it's just that she's so frank about what's going on here. This isn't coy, she's not pretending to love or even like him. This is a business transaction - but I don't think she's a prostitute. I think she's just a girl who can't meet her expenses (given how underpaid working women were, not hard to believe) who's making the best of a bad situation.
But it's more than that which I find so salacious - it's really the way she refers to herself. The "little girl"? "The fascinating baby"? Wow. Beyond the weird pedophilia undertones, that's just so very racy.
I deal with a lot of women like this in my dissertation and I worry about what happened to them. A "little girl" (obviously - hopefully - not very little) could probably get some guy to pay her bills for awhile. But what about when she got older and the guy moved on to someone younger and prettier? What happened then?
Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!
©2010 Pam Epstein