So I saw this illustration recently floating around here and itโs so riddled with bullshit I decided to go through it with meticulous detail. Also itโs whole point is bullshit, but weโll circle back to it. I have to note Iโm not dress historian and donโt know all the nuances related to history of undergarments, and wouldnโt have even room for that in this post. And the illustration is completely devoid of them anyway.
So strap in and jump into the rabbit hole with me! Letโs start with the accuracy of the figures illustrating the undergarments.ย I donโt know why the 18th century stays (corsets come later) look like that? They are so wrong in so many ways. This is what 18th century stays looked like.
They did not flatten the bust at all. On the contrary, they pushed the bust up. It makes the stomach flat, but bust very much not. The boning was made from whale bone, reeds or slim wood bents most often, which are all very bendable and soft materials. Which means it was firm but not hard or restrictive. They mostly just smoothed the torso and supported bust. Also none of these illustrations have shift or chemise under their corset/stays, which was extremely important part of the undergarment (they protected the skin from corset/stays and it from oils of skin).
Now Iโm questioning weather the makers of this info graph have seen Regency dresses. Firstly they claim that the ideal figure was โnatural waistโ when you can see that the waist canโt even be seen under the dress. Thereโs literally no waist. I would rather say the ideal figure was long tube body and boobs (emphasis on boobs). They also say theย โcorsetโ (still stays) stops bellow the bust line, but if you have seen a Regency dress, you know the bust is basically on the chin. (There were some stays that actually stopped under breasts, but the ones with cups where much more common as they were better at getting the fashionable silhouette.)
You donโt achieve this look without some heavy lifting done by the undergarments.
Hereโs what they looked like. (Picture is from Abigail Polstonโs blog.) They were basically push up bras. They didnโt have boning at all or sometimes a couple bones, but were usually made at least partly of stiffened fabrics. Between the breasts thereโs a wooden slab that keeps the boobs separate and the stays from crinkling. They only smoothed out the rest of the torso and their only real purpose was support the bust and lift the hell out of it.
The next figure has so so many things wrong about it. In 1830s the stays were basically same as Regency stays. In 1840s the stays started to have a little more of the Victorian hourglass shape, but their construction was still similar. Though at the same time corsets started to live along side stays, till in the 1850s they took over the undergarment business. Hereโs an example of 1890s corset.
Victorian corset is result of very complicated engineering. The shape is achieved with very ingenious patterning and strategically placed bones. Maximal shape with minimal boning. When you go back to look at the 18th century stays, which are covered in bones and then check out bow little thereโs bones in the Victorian corset. The shape subtly changed thorough the rest of the century, but the basic construction and hourglass figure stayed the same.
Now the description says tight lacing became popular and itโs not entirely wrong. Tight lacing became a thing. In the previous centuries it wasnโt really even possible in same sense, because the materials used were too soft. Well some rich fashionable women still did it in 18th century (with regency stays it just wasnโt possible), but because of the materials, they couldnโt restrict bodily functions like breathing (looking at you PotC). Victorian corsets however usually had couple of iron bones, the rest being the soft whale bone, giving them more ability to shape the body. Tight lacing however was not common. Some rich, young and fashionable ladies would do that, but it was seen broadly negatively at the time. People talked about the health consequences and perhaps more than that, saw it as very vain. Tight lacing every day for a long time had negative health consequences, but vast majority of women didnโt do that and they were nothing nearly as dramatic ass people claim. Corsetโs magic wasnโt itโs ability to reduce waist, but rather accentuate bust and hips. It was all about the illusion. Padding was added too on top of the corset. All women used corsets and it didnโt restrict them from doing all kinds of stuff, like working in a factory, or climbing a mountain.
I donโt really have anything to complain about the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s. They have at least the right shapes and donโt have weird claims. Now, Iโm not very knowledgeable in any decade after 1920s, but I know at least that bullet bra were already a thing in the 40s? You can see it in 40s dress silhouettes too.
After all this wildly inaccurate info, the whole point of the info graph is that lingerie is going backwards and apparently itโs a bad thing. It gives the impression that undergarments were bad in the ye olden times, then they got good and apparently they are bad again. I think the funniest part is when it says in the 80s bit thatย โlingerie no longer a way to control the body but to empower womenโ. Empower how? How were 80s bras more empowering that previous or following bras? Also it says that the ideal figure wasย โanyโ. Now, Iโm not that familiar with 80s, but if you look at the fashion then, you definitely notice a common silhouette: broad shoulders and natural waist.
After that apparently shaping bras are used to make the bust look bigger, which is bad I guess. Worse than padding on shoulders for some reason?
It is not outright said that the undergarments of earlier periods were used to control womenโs bodies, but itโs implied. Thatโs a really common misconception, but not really true. In the 17th century women didnโt wear stays, but the bodice was heavily structured and boned. When mantua (loose robe draped on body, think of robe รก la francaise) entered the western fashion (around 1680s), women jumped on it. Stays became very quickly very popular, to give the fashionable silhouette even without the rigid bodice. Stays and mantua combo was more comfortable and more adjustable to changes in body so it took completely over the fashion during the 18th century. And when corsets became a thing in the Victorian era, most corset makers were women. Women invented a lot of the engineering that went into patterning corsets.
Corsets and stays were not some torture devices. They were flexible, constructed with the right measurements and their purpose wasnโt to reduce the measurements of the body, but rather create optical illusions and support the bust and the back. Many people who have used recreations of historical corsets say they are in many ways more comfortable than modern bras, which shift all the weight of the bust on shoulders. Corsets and stays distributed it on hips instead. Perhaps the biggest actual health concern with a regular use of corset especially (excluding tight lacing and stays didnโt to my knowledge have this problem at least to the same extend) is it supporting the back too much, making the wearerโs deep muscles wither. So in a way, they were too comfortable. Victorians were aware of that, and upper class women, who didnโt do manual labour, were encouraged to excercise to keep their torso in good shape.
Now at some point when making this post, I started to wonder who made this illustration and why. It does seem, if not well researched, at least professional. After googling the label in the bottom left corner, I found this.
The poster is saying itโs terrible when fashion tries to shape your body with clothing and it has the solution for you. Shape your body literally with the serum they are selling. They even say in the 2000s section that big bust is the desired shape, which now looks a lot like marketing. Though it doesnโt seem like they are selling it anymore. Their website is down and I couldnโt find any info on them. The whole product seems a little suspicious. Itโs apparently a cream containing estrogen you put on your breasts and it should make your breast grow. Now Iโm no expert, but thatโs not how estrogen works. Any cream that claims it has some hormones that will change your body or skin? They donโt work. Donโt buy them.
I think this illustrates very well why I disagree so much with the idea that shaping your silhouette with clothing was so terrible and itโs good that we moved away from it. Fashion always has a silhouette, itโs part of the overall look. When the silhouette was still achieved with undergarments, your body shape and size didnโt matter. It wasnโt about the size, it was about proportion and you could create that with corsets/stays, padding and illusions. Nowadays you see sometimes thin celebrities praised for being fashionable when they wear boring clothes which show their stomach, and people have started to question if they actually have style or are they just thin. And often bigger people are ridiculed for wearing the exact same thing. Now itโs the body which is fashionable, not the clothing. And it leads to companies like these trying to push people to change their bodies.
Now, I donโt think any strict fashion or beauty standard is ever good, even if it could be achieved with clothing alone. But I think thereโs something to be learned from past, to maybe not reserve fashion and style only for a specific type of body. I donโt think itโs ever helpful or healthy for a body type to be trendy. Thereโs always all types of bodies and they all deserve to enjoy style, if they wish.
TL;DR: Add tried to sell their boob cream by spewing inaccuracies about historical undergarments.
stormborns
tangentwithtanner
janainaart
gummygunk
pixelskylines
discoholicmusic
andulkaphoto
