Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taxwoman (talk | contribs) at 12:43, 6 March 2007 (Change of photos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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"

Many photographs were altered in early photography, the second image is an obvious example of it, you can still see a faint line around the waist and bust where it was retouched.

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?

Intestine problem

The intestine's work is aided by the movement of the organs effected by abdominal breathing. However, in a tightly laced corset, breathing movement shifts to the upper thoracic area.

A common solution of Intestine problem is a diet by many small meals, as the Intestines are even filled, so the food have fine contact by the inner side of the in the Intestine. But a better solution of Intestine problem is some stiffness in the front as, some of the breathing movement from upper thoracic area push to the intestines in the abdomen. This push been opposite as a abdominal breathing, but this detail is without importance. The push to the intestines move to the food as it have fine contact by the inner side of the in the Intestine. It of this cause the stays have the stay in the front.

A well-designed corset will allow some movement by breaking up the stiff front with flexible zones. Three alike corsets, wrong, wrong and correct.

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)

a. Sternum. b. shoulder blade. c. liver. d. dotted line show the corseted shape (Pointillé suiivantles lignes du corset). e. dotted line show the natural shape (Pointillé indiquant les courbes du tronc). f. stomach moved. g. Intestine fallen.

Erm, what's your point Haabet? I'm not debating that internal organs are moved by tightlacing, just that you seem to want to put things in the article that are original research - for example, where has this picture come from? Is it reliable? Is there a second source that backs up this information?

Katherine Shaw 08:33, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

the image is from: Le Corset (Ludovic) O'Followel, Paris 1905. fig 135. I have also a patent from about 1875 which tell about "Intestine fallen". In a yahoo groups have a woman ask about this problem.

the solution of this problem is simple: make the fornt longer.

Haabet 13:25, 2004 Oct 15 (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)

• :-P blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with blankfaze's assertions that British English is correct in all articles that aren't about explicitly American topics and that "American English is a corruption of proper English". The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style sits on the fence on this issue and only madates that there should be consistency within articles. As a Brit, American spellings generally look wrong to me, but in the end I'm more concerned about the content of this article than which variety of spellings is used. As the American spellings were first used in the article, I think we should carry on that way: if blankfaze wants to travel around the Misplaced Pages changing all American English spellings, well, it's his time, and he can stop by this article periodically to 'correct' us.

- Katherine Shaw 09:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth...I'm a Brit who has lived in the USA for 7.5 years. I write all of my Wikepedia contributions with English spelling (and I'd like them to stay that way). If someone came along and "corrected" all of the spelling in my contributions to US English I personally would not be happy about it. As long as the grammar is correct, I think the spelling should be left alone. The same of course applies to articles originally written with US spelling :-)

Dlloyd 10:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a Brit, and sometime professional author, it's worth noting that some of the words we in England think are the correct spelling are infact the "changed" version whereas the American spelling is the older. Aluminum is the original, Aluminium is the changed version. The use of the "z" instead of the "s" in many words has a longer history than the "s" version.

User:MrMarmite 11:01, 8 May 2006 (GMT)

There's a very clear policy; if the article was started in British or Australian spelling, stick to it; if the article was started in US spelling, stick to that. Which was used first - colour or color? - Taxwoman 11:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual fetishism or Necessary Underwear?

I have get a great number of corset images and drawings. And my conclusion is the corset is an anonymous Underwear or a Sexual fetishi but not at the same time. If a corset look as a Sexual fetishi it is a poor Underwear. I think we have need of two aetikles Haabet 17:26, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

NO. Zora 06:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Faint

• On new wearer can faint, because the musculatures in the chest been tired, because they are to weak. Corset use demand some exercise. In olddays the faint was nearly always a flirt, because the boy touch the girl when he catch she.

Removed text

I removed the following text from the article, since it appears to me to be nonsense:

• It is important as healthy lungs, for use of corset, because the breathing in abdomen is blocking. Virgins who not have train the breathing in chest by sing, dance, sport or corset use can get a faint, because the un train musculatures in the chest been tired of the new unaccustomed breathing. This rare and harmless accident had been a part of a fetish mythology. Mothers had used the breathing in chest by the pregnancy, and are permanent train.

-- The Anome 13:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Um, that's Haabet. He has a bee in his bonnet about corsets. I think he's Danish? German? Has been blocked from his local Misplaced Pages for disruption. Worth doing here? Zora 14:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Danish:

Det er vigtig at have en sund lunge funktion, for at kunne gå med korset.

Hvis en jomfru bruger korset uden at være sportstrænet, sanger eller have øvet sig i at gå med korsett, så kan de muskler som giver vejrtrækning i brystkassen blive udmattet så at hun besvimer. Mødre har ikke dette problem fordi de har trænet vejrtrækningen i brystkassen under graviditeten.

Det er ikke almindeligt at korset bruger besvimer, og selv om det er ubehageligt for omgivelserne så er det ufarligt og den ramte mærker ingen ting. Så spiller det at kvinderne kan dåne i korset en overdreven stor rolle i litteraturen.

English:

This is serious to have a well lung function, so that know wear corset.

If a virgin user corset without to get up athletic, singer or you have practised herself in a wear corset, then can you muscle by given breathing in the chest being done to the wide so that she faint. Mums i do not thus problems for the reason that they i do not train the breathing in the chest below the pregnancy.

It have not common a corset user faint, and the even though this is disagreeably too surroundings then is it harmless and the of strike sign no things. Then player it a womankind could faint in corset a exorbitant heavy role in the literature.

16:51, September 4, 2005 (UTC)Haabet

Insensibility and discoloration

Over long demolish tightlacing then stays the skin numb and the gets a tawny discoloration is the the waist of connective tissue.

Følelsesløshed og misfarvning

Ved langvarig stram indsnøring så bliver huden følelsesløs og får en brunlig misfarvning i taljen af bindevæv.

Problem by corsets are as lift of the ribs, because the more the chest go up the thiner been the waist.Haabet 20:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Damage on stomach

Men wearing corsets

Two anonIPs (who could be the same person) added material re military men wearing corsets, young boys routinely wearing corsets, and corsets morphing into belts. None of this material is sourced. From what I know of the 19th century, it doesn't sound TRUE, either. So far as I know, male corset-wearers either had back problems, or they wanted to look slim and trim, and were satirized as popinjays. Young boys didn't wear corsets. The transition from suspenders to belts most likely has a very different explanation -- and happened much later. I have reverted. The anon may wish to come forward with cites. Zora 08:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Man_in_corset Category:Boy_in_corset

In family by officer-traditions or -ambition a straight back was important.

Infant used routinely wearing Infant binders, both sex. Haabet 17:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

POV check

This article is too positive.

Many corset pattern and corset design on sale today is old unhealthy. Not of a modern healthy design.

particularly the corset from c. 1870 to 1898 was unhealthy.

http://www.staylace.com/ say: C&S Corsets are the very finest quality TIGHTLACING corsets available--accept NO others at any price! why not ccept others at any price?! because C&S Corsets are of a modern healthy design.Haabet 00:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That quote does not prove your point. You are convinced that some corsets are healthy and others are unhealthy, but you can produce NO modern references or citations for your beliefs. Your beliefs are apparently individual, idiosyncratic, and not encyclopedic. Please stop trying to insert them in the corset article. Zora 07:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

my claim:

Many make corsets, but only few have the necessary anatomical knowledge.

is that not encyclopedic?

Today people stop by use cosets if they have pains, and they do not like to tell about how much they feel stupidity. I But if I can produce some old references of damage by corset and some new references which tell about sale of old day corset to use of woman today. The logic says if a corset get damage in oldday, the same corset also get damage today.

Google: Victorian corset

How many of 350.000 lings for Victorian corset is about the old unhealthy corset?

Haabet 13:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The number of

The fact that ONE person believes something is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. You seem to be the only person who believes that some corsets are "healthy" and others aren't. All you can do is cite 100-year-old medical references. Those aren't CURRENT beliefs. Zora 22:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If the human being is the same species, now and 100 years ago, and the some corset are the same, now and 100 years ago. If correctly Misplaced Pages can use 100-year-old medical references.

After 1898 the corset been more correctly anatomical.

first the girl used:

As you know, the corset of today not are gradually, as in Edvard era, but poor as in Vitorian era.Haabet 10:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The common opinion

The common opinion abut corset is: Corset is a terrible oppress suppression of woman, invent of a tormentor by whips and bad irons. And the use of corset cut the body of, or strangle the woman before the cut.Haabet 12:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

...? Runa27 19:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't give me fucking links. Give me a coherent English sentence. I said it below, I'll say it again: your English is painfully hard for even a native speaker such as myself to decipher. Yes, I understand (as a person who's trying to learn a couple of other languages myself) that it is difficult to write in a language that is not your native tongue, and that practicing it more often improves your ability to do so... but that does not mean you should try to write an encyclopedia in a language you can obviously barely speak at all. Your grammar is atrocious, hideous, embarrassingly bad - how many different words must I use until you understand this? Your edits aren't even bad just because they are POV (pushing a particular point of view to the exclusion or near-exclusion or denigration of another common one), they are very very very bad because to a native speaker of English, your sentences are at best clumsy and at worst, completely incomprehensible. I hate that you're actually making me come out and say this, but I have to, because you're really messing up this page and making it extremely difficult for others to edit it or even "meet you halfway" (come to a compromise):

Haabat, you should not be editing the English-language Misplaced Pages. Your English is so bad that for you to edit this page is for you to make it a hundred times worse than it was before you got here, regardless of content. You are doing absolutely nothing to help this article become a good article, you are only making it a hundred times harder for other people to make it a good article.

It is an extremely bad idea to try to do a complex thing (writing an encyclopedia) in a complex language (English) that you barely understand.

If you still want to bring up information for us to consider putting in the article, feel free to share links, yes. But PLEASE stop editing the article, and plus, if you still insist on writing long, complicated notes on this talk page, PLEASE make use of something like the Freelang Forums. The Freelang forums is a place where you can request a FREE translation of something from one language into another language, from other users who speak a particular language better than you. You NEED to be using this kind of thing, because I'm going to be blunt right now and say that otherwise, 'you are just going to keep being misunderstood. Do yourself a favor, and at least do this much: ask for help translating your comments into good English.

(In case you folks are wondering what I'm going on about, he posted to my user talk page with a link and no explanation, however, I recognized the username and remembered that I had jokingly responded with "...?" here. I naturally assumed he was responding to that above response of mine). Runa27 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Arpingstone

I reverted your edits -- I'm sorry, but so many of them were highly debatable. Do you think that you could take it one by one and we could discuss them?

For one thing, it IS true that men and women wore corsets. Also, it IS true that contemporary tightlacers rely on spouses or partners. In fact, sexual relationships of dominance/submission characterize much of the current tightlacing scene. It's entirely different for historical costumers and re-enactors -- they don't tightlace, so don't need help donning their corsets.

Could we talk about this? I hate to just revert stuff that's obviously not vandalism. Zora 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, the reversions can stay and, as you said, it isn't vandalism. I don't even know how I arrived at the article but I read it and I felt certain parts grated. My changes were as a reader who does not have the slightest interest in the subject so I could view it as a piece of writing. Did it flow, were there repetitions, how was the grammar, the spelling, the sentence construction.

I found that the statement (in what is essentially a summary) that men and women wear corsets seemed out of place. The fact is stated lower down so it didn't seem part of a summary (but that's only my opinion). Other readers would be perfectly happy with the statement in that position.

I was going on to justify all my edits but life's too short and I want to do something else today. So let me just finish by saying your reverting of my italicising in the pic caption was odd because most of the caption is a quote and on WP quotes take italics. Also that pic is far too large at 350px wide, 250 is the norm. I expect you reverted the lot, in order to start again.

Please don't engage me in any further discussion on this (please imagine a smiley here!). I have too much else to occupy me! (wife, children, car, garden, putting images on WP, sitting around, TV, reading, waiting for the English winter to end, and so on). Please revert just as you like and I'll be quite happy. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 12:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The image you spoke of there I've changed to 300px while I was making other edits. I don't dare make it smaller, as it looks good and has an awful lot of detail work, but you're right that it was a wee bit too large. :) Runa27 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging Ribbon corset

Yes, please, let's merge. Once we remove all of Haabet's obsessively-placed pictures, we're left with TWO sorts of corsets that should not have been conflated (ribbon corset and waistcincher) and can easily be covered in the main article. Or perhaps we need to restore the old "waistcincher" article, before Haabet took it over.

He's been fought to a draw at Corset, so he's moving his obsession to minor articles that are less strongly policed. Perhaps we need to take him to the Arbcom and try to get a ban. Zora 19:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a difficult one to call - there aren't any hard and fast definitions of different kinds of corset (I would have said that a ribbon corset is a kind of waistcincher!). What I would suggest is maybe a new article on kinds of corset, which can include ribbon corsets and waistcinchers, and all the other kinds we currently have listed, but have links to larger articles where necessary. That way we'd avoid stubs. It doesn't quite seem to fit in this main corset article; we don't have any other kinds of corset described here yet, and if we did it might make the article too long.

Just a suggestion, I'm only getting back into this whole Misplaced Pages-ing thing after a long absence...

Katherine Shaw 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article on ribbon corsets has enough information to stand on its own. Ric | opiaterein 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the waist cincher article is too weak to stand on its own but makes an excellent sub-section for this article. -Etoile 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Measurement

Can someone add something about "hip spring" and "waist-to-hip-ratio" (WHR)? Thank you folks! --84.177.54.93 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Article is a hideous mess, and overlooks newer modern usage

Half of it is like notes more than an article, and the history section consists entirely of a link to a website! WTF?? How does something like this happen??

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that in recent years, "corset" has become FAR more loose in definition. There are apparently "corset" tops that are ordinary (though usually form-fitting) women's tops that happen to have something like lacing that immitates the look of a laced-up ("ribbon", perhaps?) corset without cinching the waist.

Examples:

Results at Target.com, the website for major U.S. retail store Target, for search term "corset top" - none of which is a traditional corset! Click on any one of those tops, you'll see that the closest they come to being a "corset" in the traditional sense is that they lace up similarly to some old styles of corsets. They do not cinch the waist at all.

Hot Topic's "Tanks/Camis/Corsets" section. Notice that their "corsets" are actually form-fitting tops with laced-up fronts made to mimic the look of what I'm assuming are called "ribbon corsets". They are form-fitting but do not cinch the waist; this one even has a zipper in the back!

So-called "corsets" at The Castle, a Gothic clothing retail website. Note that only one is labeled as a "waist-cincher". The other two available designs appear to be laced-up form-fitting tops, not waist-cinchers.

Target and Hot Topic are considerably more mainstream of course (especially Target, which doesn't even pretend to cater specifically to any subculture, let alone supposedly rebelious ones), and considerably more popular, so the fact that those four "corset tops" are available through Target in particular means there are people out there in the general public who do, in fact, think "corset top" need not necessarily refer to waist-cinching undergarments.

This is apparently a quite popular usage at current, and the fact that "corset" brings me to this page, which does not even disambiguate between traditional corsets and modern "corset tops", is something that probably needs remedying. The only problem is that (aside from me being about to go to bed to sleep), I have no idea what this newer, modern usage of "corset" in the sense of "corset top" specifically is, other than apparently they mimic "ribbon corsets" in look, lack of waist-cinching aside. Would someone who actually knows what the hell seperates a "corset top" from a non-"corset top" top from an actual traditional corset please address this? Perhaps there needs to be a seperate page for the modern "corset top" usage, with a link from here? Superficial styling aside, they seem to be very different things. Runa27 06:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Article restored

I took a several month break from WP and it seems that no one was watching the corset article. It had been a good article, and between Haabet and various trolls and vandals, it was completely trashed. I restored the older version. I think it's OK now. Let me know if I missed anything.

Dang, it's like trying to keep a public bathroom clean. Zora 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe! I know what you mean. It's improved a lot though since when I was here last, which I'm sure is in large part due to your hard work. :) Thank you! Runa27 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention

the most common use of corsets to day, is to get attention.Håbet 13:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mirror

• 1890
• 1890
• 1893
• 1899
• 1899
• 1902
• 1902
• 1908
• 1908
• 1909
• 1910
• 1910
• 1913
• 1913
• 1913
• 1928

Have corset a element of Narcissism? Håbet 18:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Victorian morality

The uncomfortable Victorian corses help the woman by keep the Victorian morality.

But where tell this article that?Håbet 05:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaaand your source for this iiiis... where?

I have many sources of that, but the quality of sources about corsets are poor.

Dress and MORALITY; ISBN 0 7134 3788 X; Aileen Ribeiro 1986. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.130.49.211 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

The society had three class: 1. Them who had servants. 2. Them who had no servants. 3. The servants. ::The upper-class, used impractical clothes, as you could see as they was from the upper-class.

And I hate to sound mean or anything, but your English is not particularly good. Since you seem to have trouble expressing whatever the hell it is you're trying to say, and certainly seem to have trouble understanding others here, I would suggest you try to create or edit the corset article in YOUR native tongue, not ours. Don't get me wrong, it's always good to see people practicing a second or third or fourth language - but Misplaced Pages is a horrible place to practice your English if you're not close to fluent in it, considering that one needs to communicate well in order to write a good article. Please go to the version of Misplaced Pages that actually caters to your language. You will probably find people much more receptive, and be understood much better. I get the feeling that it's largely the language barrier that's making things difficult between you and other editors. That said, no matter WHAT version of Misplaced Pages you're editing, you should ALWAYS have a source to support the kinds of claims you are making. Runa27 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Haabet has been writing gibberish in corset-related articles for the whole of the two years that I've been editing here. Nothing, but nothing, seems to discourage him. Is the only recourse a full-on Request for Arbitration to get him to stop editing? Zora 00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If you help me by the many aspect of corset, I have no need of editing here. You have need of tell about damage from corsets. Because I have images of that.

I have need of editing about the modern corsets. Why use 7/24-slaves corsets? and why use you corset?

The book: Fashion & Fetushism of David Kunzle talk much about corsets. But it is not in the References.

The common use of corsets is male transvestites. (have you need of sources?). Corsets is part of the Gothic Fashion. (have you need of sources?)

Håbet 10:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

I don't know who added all that material re various stores selling corset-like tops, but it certainly seemed like advertising to me. Mentioning brand names and adding pictures is suspicious. I could be wrong and it could just have been a new editor trying to be helpful. I did something like that when I was a new editor, recommending one of my favorite ethnic pattern companies. Someone else removed it and rightly so. If we allow anything like advertising on WP, we'll be overwhelmed. Please don't! Zora 06:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the definition of the word: "Corset".

The most common definition is a womans dress by a lace, (opposite elastic)

The definition of corset from 1930 to 1960 was a Girdle by bone. (for stout woman) (opposite Girdle)

The contents of this article is: "Victorian corset see Hourglass corset (Victorian)" and Hourglass corset (Fakir Musafar).

Sewing Technical: The corset (opposite corsage) have a waist which is more thin as the natural waist.

The english word corset have many meanings. Håbet 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Springcleaning

Taxwoman, "neck corset" is not a corset and it is unknown outside the BSDM community. It doesn't rate mention here. Other edits are fine -- photo of a modern corset is a great addition.

Haabet, you started the gurita article, based on one advertisement on a website. It is not clear if such a garment exists, or that it should be called a corset. Links are not warranted.

The gurita was named corset in a old book. Die frauenkleidug von Dr. C H. Stratz 1902. Haabet

Someone, probably Haabet, had copied ribbon corset material into the top of the article. I removed it.

I do not. Haabet

Haabet, balked here, has apparently been creating articles on varieties of corsets and linking them here. I need to go through all the links and figure out what should be combined or deleted. Zora 22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have need to tell for which reason. Haabet

Neck corset is not a corset but it is a corset-like device, and this one definitely doesn't belong to BSDM, so they are known outside BSDM community.--193.198.16.211 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But this article is about corsets, not "corset-like devices". I just googled for "neck corset" and up came several thousand hits on fetish shops selling fetish and BSDM clothing. That they may be worn by Goths aw well doesn't make them any more mainstream. Look, we have a link to sexual fetishism -- I think that should be a link to Fetish clothing. Write an article on neck corset and link it to fetish clothing. The fetish clothing article itself looks like it could use some sprucing up and re-organization. Instead of putting the fetish stuff here, make sure it has a good home in a linked article. That will be of more use to readers, I should think. Zora 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Neck corset are not known enough, even in BSDM and goth communities, and particularly anywhere else, so they should be either in corset article, because they belong in corsetry, or there should be separate article about them. They are not used only as as fetish clothing, so mentioning them only there would be inappropriate.

Here is a comprehensive list of the custom corset makers available worldwide. It can be seen by searching that many of them make neck corsets as well. There's page about neck corset fromStaylace with pictures of same model of neck corset worn by both men and women. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.198.16.211 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Anon, they aren't corsets. Modern corsetmakers cater to the fetish trade and so of course they sell other fetish clothing. If neck corsets aren't "known enough," then they don't belong here in the main article, but as an item in the fetish clothing section. They certainly aren't mainstream clothing -- I've been reading fashion and sewing magazines for 30 years and I've never seen anything like "neck corset" featured. A corset encloses the waist and torso. Calling a neck brace a neck corset doesn't make it one. Zora 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora: why do you begin your comments by mentioning me? I didn't start the section on neck corsets. Anyway, they are at least as appropriately mentioned here as modern "corsets" that don't really change people's shape - shall we remove all references to those? I'm not sure that fashion and sewing magazines are the best place to look for neck corsets.--Taxwoman 12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A corset is defined as changing body shape. Surely, other clothing that carries the name is worth mentioning, but it should probably have its own article. It's unlikely that non-reshaping corsets need much more than a sentence of mention, but perhaps a corset (fetish clothing) article is in order for things like neck corsets? Possibly with a disambiguation at the top. I'm afraid that I don't know enough about that subject to create the article, though. This article is about true corsets, and things that don't fit the definition should be moved elsewhere, but mentioned.

Further, the link to talk isn't really appropriate. If the BDSM aspects are not fully discussed, change the article or link another one. --Eyrian 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be separate article about neck corset. There is a request for such article. --193.198.16.211 22:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking to talk

Linking from the main namespace to another one is, as far as I know, discouraged; and with good reason. Simply linking the talk page isn't the correct way to "inform the people" as to a wholly appropriate reduction in scope. Again, if the BDSM aspects of corsets are to be discussed, why not simply add a brief paragraph mentioning the different uses, with a link to another article? Simply dumping users into 50k of discussion isn't going to fix a lack of knowledge. I feel that the notice should be removed from the top of the page, but I don't want to start a revert war. But, please, explain to me how linking the talk page is the correct solution here, as opposed to the one I've proposed above. --Eyrian 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link. The BSDM folks do not "own" this article. Corsets have been around for centuries, and the latest BSDM fads are just blips in a long history. Not only that -- of the people currently wearing corsets, I would guess that the historical re-enactors would greatly outnumber the fetishist community.

I changed a previous link, Sexual fetishisms, to Fetish clothing. That article could use some work, but it's the proper place for items like boned leather "neck corsets." I don't remember if there's a section there for "Contemporary fetish clothing," but work on that. If it gets big enough, you could branch off another article, and then corsets could link to both of them. I'm not trying to censor the BSDM material, but I don't want it to take over the article. Zora 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The BSDM corset and the fashionable corset is completely different. The overlap is only in fantasy. The fashionable corset was only a foundation of the big heavy dress. Particularly the editors of wikipedia are in two groups. But the BSDM editors group is the biggest group. Håbet 08:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking to talk is done all the time, for example when there is a proposal for merger or (as in this case) where there is a POV issue. I would be happy to put on a POV tag that would automatically link to talk, but what I did was more discreet. I have now, as a concession, not referred to talk. Happy? Of course BDSM people do not own this article, any more than readers of knitting magazines do. The shape of the article emerges from a consensus. What we could do is have a new article called "Fashion corset" and move the stuff about so-called corsets that are just fashion accessories.--Taxwoman 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. That sounds like a step in the right direction, but ... it seems to me that there's a continuum between the real fetish clothing (used in scenes, not worn on the streets) and street fashion. Street fashion borrows edgy details from fetish clothing. How would you divide stuff between fetish clothing and fashion corset? Zora 23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear dividing line. Anything that has hard bones and can be used to alter someone's shape significantly is a corset. Anything that doesn't isn't.--Taxwoman 23:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"This article does not fully cover the BDSM aspect of corsets."

I don't like this line. It makes the article look unprofessional and halfhearted. I want it gone. What changes to this article or others need to be made in order for this to happen amicably? --Eyrian 22:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

the Tightlacing have the BDSM of corsets.Håbet 01:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Change of photos

I don't want to make the change myself, as I may be thought to have an interest, but does anyone else think that this change of photos is an improvement? You can't even see the corset clearly in the new photos.--Taxwoman 12:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)