Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:25, 13 October 2004

"Corsets go back as far as 2000 B.C., when Cretan women wore them to emphasize their breasts and hips."

What are not correct, Cretan women and man do only have abdominal belt. And perhaps the abdominal belt unly are a style, because naturalisme is a modern style.

sources

what's the source that supports "There have been documented examples of women shrinking their waists as small as 16" through corset training."?

http://spook.dk/ http://www.staylace.com/gallery/gallery05/polaire/polaire4.jpg polaire do have 13"

and what's the source for "Corsets go back as far as 2000 B.C., when Cretan women wore them to emphasize their breasts and hips."

p0lyglut

Any serious, it is only a big loincloth.

What are the sources for cartilage softening from corset wearing? I do know that the muscles getting weak will be a problem, if the corset is worn almost always and the wearer do sports to compensate for the inactivity of e.g. stomach muscles.

Me is the sources of "cartilage softening from corset wearing" The stomach muscles do quickly grow is the woman take off the corset, and been too strong to the softed chest.

If the corset is correctly, the softed chest work as to compensate for the inactivity of e.g. stomach muscles. The alternative of the nature is death of the pregnant womman. About 10 or 20 % of all women do have a softed chest, to some extent. specially sports women.

It is correct as the softed chest is not generally accepted, because the model of human being by the doctors is a man, and the model of woman by the doctors is a man by womb.

The doctor do only see the a hysterical women, because no is broke, but the women, feel as she been strangled by a ring round the chest, and do been hysterical.

Meaning of sentence

"The corset was originally stiff, later of stretched silk."

Can anyone explain what this sentence is supposed to mean? Otherwise I think it should be deleted as nonsense. Marnanel 01:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A possible origin of corset is a shining armour by cover of silk.

Sorry, that doesn't make much sense to me either. Do you mean that corsets may have evolved from plate-armour as worn by knights, covered with silk? Marnanel 19:55, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Animated GIF

Image:Respiration.gif in the thumbnail version doesn't seem to work properly in Mozilla Firefox 0.8 (the full sized version is fine). I'm currently investigating whether this is a Firefox bug or something weird in the thumbnailing code or what. (This is Firefox 0.8 for Linux running in emulation on FreeBSD, though Gecko should be the same across all Mozilla on all platforms.)

The problem is that the thumbnailed version does not redraw properly, leaving all the black lines behind.

Same problem shows up in Opera (6.0, Linux running on FreeBSD).

In Konqueror 3.0.0 (FreeBSD), it not only does this, it has a weird glitch at the end of the animation cycle ... - David Gerard 18:51, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

And now I'm testing in Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows 98 and it does the same there too! (Did whoever put this in actually preview it?) Does anyone feel up to doing a version at thumbnail size to put into the page? - David Gerard 19:09, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

I've had a look at the original image in a few different programs and it's strange: it stores only minimal changes between each pair of images, but the differences don't seem to coincide correctly within gif editing programs. Browsers handle them fine, but gifsicle and gimp, and presumably also whatever rescales images on Misplaced Pages, are fazed by them somehow, so that it's extremely difficult even to split the images up to create a new animation from them. I think it would be best to ask the person who made the original image to re-make it. Marnanel 22:24, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

I've left a note on User talk:Haabet. - David Gerard 23:34, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

File:Respiration thumb.gif~

The image Respiration.gif is the original image. Editing program: Animation Shop.

Haabet 19:42, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Advocacy, and pictures

I've had a go at copyediting the current page, though I haven't touched the table or most of the picture captions, because I don't understand them.

However, the current page reads a bit like an advocacy argument for corsets. It would be better if the language was toned down somewhat. I'm not sure how, partly because I don't know enough about the arguments for or against wearing corsets, and partly because, again, I'm not sure enough of what the original poster meant in some places.

Also, do we need this many pictures? What with this and the advocacy, the page reads like a sales catalogue. Perhaps we could move some of them to a new page. Marnanel 20:26, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

The great number of pictures are important because the corsets change by time.

If you give they all a new page, any can se the change. the corsets are also difference by use.

perhaps a pages "The history of corset 1500-1970 or 1983" and a page: "Corset before 1500"

"original poster meant in some places."

please tell the problems

Haabet 21:50, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I see no intrinsic problem with the pictures. Although it's not usual to have that many images in an article. I thought of shifting them too, but see no pressing need for the moment - David Gerard 09:23, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've put the images on a page called Corset illustrations, and will be putting Haabet's new animated GIF in there. (What's policy on animated GIFs? I know we don't include static ones, but the PNG equivalent - MNG - is almost totally unsupported even by modern browsers) - David Gerard 11:48, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have just added an image for the cover of the book "Fetish Fashion: Undressing the Corset" to the Modern history section of the article.... Dlloyd 00:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Corset comfort' section

I've been pondering Haabet's latest additions - the 'Intestine problem' table. It seems a little out of place in the article: this section is very specific, while the article is more general. Also, it's a little isolates: if intestine problems are going to be included, shouldn't there be coverage of breathing problems and the like? Perhaps its worthwhile considering an article on 'Medical consequences of corseting'?

Also, this kind of information is skirting the edges of medical advice, which makes me mildly uneasy. For that kind of think, I think it might be better to link to an external site like Staylace.com, which has advice from doctors.

I also suspect that that this is original research on Haabet's part.

Apart from that, I didn't actually find this section very clear. I'll have a quick try at cleaning it up, but I'm not sure how clear and informative the little animations actually are.

Thoughts and suggestions?

- Katherine Shaw 13:05, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that Haabet's semi-coherent table detracts from the article rather than adds to it, and that it's not clear that it's based on actual medical information. I think an edited, text-only version of this viewpoint should be added to the advantages/disadvantages section, and the link you suggested should be added.

I'll perform the surgery :) Glad there's someone else working on this article. Zora 19:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

staylace sell corsets, and a salesman of corsets never tell about a seriously problem by corsets. Haabet 20:14, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

http://haabet.dk/korset/English.html

Haabet, I read the medical advice at Staylace and it seemed fairly neutral about the dangers of badly fitting corsets, sudden rather than gradual constriction, pinched nerves, problems with breathing and digestion, etc. I modified the Advantage/disadvantage section to positively state that bad digestion can be one consequence of aggressive corseting.

And to think that I've never worn a corset! I'm here only because of my SCA and Regency dancing friends, who bristle at corset slurs. Zora 01:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is good to have more people working on this article - especially somebody who is not so avidly pro-corset as Haabet (no insult intended to him, of course).

For what it's worth, I've always found Staylace's factual information to be balanced, reasonable and sensible, and it accords with other sources.

- Katherine Shaw 08:48, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Good edits, Katherine

Thanks for the stylistic tweaking. I have a tendency to be gnomic and you expanded some things nicely. I see a few typos, but I'll work on them later.

I think this is shaping up to be a good, informative article. Zora 12:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can anybody tell about the negative by corset?

All of this page have home in Tightlacing

Spurious article move

This article absolutely should not have been moved from corset to tight lacing corset. The information is applicable to general corset wearing. There is a very big difference between wearing a corset on a regular basis and tightlacing. What information the two topics share should be in the 'Corset' article, as tightlacing (for Misplaced Pages purposes, at least) is a subtopic.

The information on tighlacing should go in the article on that subject - and as there's already a page on training corsets, which includes a section on the corsets used for tightlacing, there is no need for a separate page on 'tight lacing corsets'.

My actions are going to be:

• Request that this talk page (which once belonged to the corset article) be moved back there.
• Put this page up on votes for deletion (it's entirely unnecessary)
• Restore the deleted information to the corset article

Haabet, I do not think that you are working contructively with Zora and me. It's clear that you are keen to improve the 'Corset' article too, but you do not engage with us! As I've said before, please use the talk pages, and we can avoid getting into a situation where we just keep on undoing each other's edits.

- Katherine Shaw 09:44, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Unless anyone other than Haabet objects, I'll be moving the page back in 24 hours - David Gerard 12:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks! Katherine Shaw 13:47, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

24 hours are short time when Misplaced Pages not answer. Most of the Corset pages are part of others corset pages.

Exist any connection between the corsets of today and the corsets of olddays?

Well, the page was not actually moved for several days, and as I asked for the page to be moved on the Village Pump, there was plenty of time for people to comment and agree/disagree.

As for connections between modern corsets and old fashioned ones, I presume you are referring to the 'Modern history' section of the article? As this is a general article on the corset, the section seems entirely appropriate; it would also make sense to have a section before titled something like 'History of the corset' and maybe retitle that section to 'Modern corsets'.

- Katherine Shaw 10:07, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Bustle and more

The corset was important as base to bustle. But where are the Bustle and Skirt supporter? Breast protectors and Bosom pad Abdominal-corset, Shoulder-brace and Nursing corset? Baby corset? Crinoline

I agree that there are not yet many articles on items of historical dress on the Misplaced Pages; I have a list of several that I mean to start, but it's a case of too many articles, too little time!

In my opinion, there needs definitely to be an article on the Bustle. I'm unsure about the rest of the items that you list: 'Skirt supporter', 'Breast protector' and 'Bosom pad' are not phrases that have either not been commonly used in English; arpart from that, they are all pretty self-explanatory. I've never encountered the 'Abdominal corset' or the 'Baby corset' either; I would be very wary of new articles on these items without a reference to some source citing their use.

There could be an article on the Shoulder brace (note that it should NOT have a hyphen in English); it's a very minor thing in terms of costume history, and I suspect could do with input from somebody with medical knowledge.

And there's already an article on the Crinoline; you should know, you contributed to it, as have I!

- Katherine Shaw 10:07, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Images

http://haabet.dk/patent/Sketchs.html

http://haabet.dk/patent/People.html

Corset illness

All the olddays corsets are maked without knowledge about the female anatomy. Of this cause the corset make damage. Particularly was the lower edge of the front of corset a problem, because it end where the skirt start, and not near pubis, of this cause the body bulge under the corset. A special unhealthy was the healthy Corset because it had a narrow chest and a moderately round waist. By pregnancy and wery slim corset the entrails can hide in the extended chest. And a natural slim girl have a broad waist by flat front. By healthy Corset the liver and or stomach was in the front of the round waist, where they been squashed. The attitude to illness in olddays was another as today. Some illness was fashionable, because man-made illness display wealth and many servants.

I think that this is a very narrow view of old corsets. Not all corsets were badly made and badly fitted, and many of them were made with female anatomy and health in mind. Sometimes they drew incorrect conclusions, as happened with the straight-fronted corset (is this what you mean by the 'healthy corset'?), but they were not working in ignorance.

I disagree that "the lower edge of the front of corset...end where the skirt start"; prior to the twentieth century, skirts very rarely started below the natural waistline, and corsets always descended below the natural waist - hence your statement is incorrect. Yes, some corsets were not long enough in front to prevent abdominal bulge, but this was not the result of anatomical ignorance.

While I agree that there was frailty was a desirable element for many Victorians, you seem to imply that they deliberately chose to wear misfitting corsets to achieve a sickly image and that this was a status symbol. I think your interest in the construction of corsets is leading you to misinterpret the historical evidence: corsets were not worn to induce illness, they were worn to gain a fashionable, slender shape. Illness was a (possibly desirable) side effect. It's worth noting that lots of corset advertising (particularly in the nineteenth century) focuses on the health benefits of corsets, or their comfort. Some brands of corset were not promoting fashionable ill health!

I think that the kind of information you want to put in the Misplaced Pages relating to corset health problems is mostly original research, so although it's interesting, you ought to try to restrain yourself to historical evidence.

- Katherine Shaw 10:07, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

The servants have need to do his or her own lacing, but the master and mistress was too tight lacing and have need of support from the servants. The tight waist show who have servants.

I think you have a monolithic view of corset wearers: not every woman who had servants would tightlace. In fact, some high status, wealthy women, considered tightlacing vulgar. Servants and wealth are not the only signifiers of social status - take, for example, courtesans and prostitutes, who might have had money, but who were unacceptable in most levels of society - so you've got to be careful about what conclusions you draw.

- Katherine Shaw 10:07, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Request to move pages

Moved from Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)

The talk page and history has been moved from the article Corset to Tight lacing corset. Could these be moved back, please? There are more details on the discussion page.

- Katherine Shaw 09:59, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I concur: the page should be moved back. Not all corsets are laced, so the page is a misnomer. ] 10:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page has since been moved back to the original location. Just FYI for anyone reading it here. —Morven 03:33, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Transatlantic alliance imperilled

The corset article had a visit from Blankfaze, who corrected all 'or' spellings to 'our'. I complained on his talk page and his response was that British spelling was correct and American spelling was to be tolerated only on pages that dealt with American topics. British spelling was to be used everywhere else.

So, being pissed off, I changed all his 'our's back to 'or'.

Sheesh.

Ordinarily, I'll veer wildly between British and American spellings. I read so many British books and hang out online with so many Rightpondians that I'm often not sure myself when to put in a 'u' and when to leave it out. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a matter of custom. When the venue is international, as Misplaced Pages is, I'm prepared to let many spellings bloom. Indeed, I've noticed that I tend to lapse into a bit of Indian English when I write articles about Indian films.

So far as I know, Misplaced Pages as a whole has yet to hear that the British flag has been planted on our shores. This should be interesting. Zora 05:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) (a rebellious colonial)