This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.230.233.194(talk) at 04:27, 6 March 2009(→Male corsetry?: removing comment I made that I placed in wrong spot to put in right right section where it belongs instead.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:27, 6 March 2009 by 64.230.233.194(talk)(→Male corsetry?: removing comment I made that I placed in wrong spot to put in right right section where it belongs instead.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
"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."?
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."
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
Respiration in stays
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 Wikipedia, 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 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"
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 Wikipedia 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.
24 hours are short time when Wikipedia 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'.
I agree that there are not yet many articles on items of historical dress on the Wikipedia; 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!
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 Wikipedia relating to corset health problems is mostly original research, so although it's interesting, you ought to try to restrain yourself to historical evidence.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I concur: the page should be moved back. Not all corsets are laced, so the page is a misnomer. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia changing all American English spellings, well, it's his time, and he can stop by this article periodically to 'correct' us.
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 :-)
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.
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? - Taxwoman11:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine colour and color were used interchangeably for quite some time. I've seen 16th century documents in which people spell the same word differently in one paragraph. People's names were often spelled in a variety of ways- even in royalty. The Tudors started out as the Tudurs in Wales, and the Grey/Gray families have been swapping out those two vowels for quite some time before anyone insisted that people stick with one spelling. English-language spellings weren't standardized until well after the American Revolution, so it's a moot point at best. I agree with the aforementioned policy. Can we now get back to some Transatlantic peaceful coexistence? - Laura Grey User:Lolaphilologist —Preceding comment was added at 19:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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.
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 Wikipedia for disruption. Worth doing here? Zora14:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Zora08:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.Haabet00:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Zora07:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The fact that ONE person believes something is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. 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. Zora22:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia can use 100-year-old medical references.
After 1898 the corset been more correctly anatomical.
first the girl used:
1. Shoulder straps, to form the floating ribs2. Corset by shoulder straps, which raise the chest3. Corset to girl, 13 to 16 years4. Corset, to marriageable woman
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.Haabet12:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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). Runa2700:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 Pingstone12:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. :) Runa2720:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Zora19:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia-ing thing after a long absence...
I feel that the waist cincher article is too weak to stand on its own but makes an excellent sub-section for this article. -Etoile16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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!
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. Runa2706:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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! Runa2720:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia you're editing, you should ALWAYS have a source to support the kinds of claims you are making. Runa2720:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? Zora00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)
From what little I can actually UNDERSTAND of that semi-gibberish, I find it ridiculous. Here's why:
1.) YOU DON'T NEED TO EDIT THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA TO GET INFORMATION ONTO IT! (Sorry for the YELL LETTERS, but it needed saying) You can improve the article (or if it doesn't exist yet, start it) in your own language, then request translation to improve this one (there are tags and WikiProjects for that, you know). I do it all the time at the Spanish-language Wikipedia, because I'm just wise enough to know that I am nowhere near as fluent in my second language as I am in my first language, and that even translating from my native English to Spanish, I could make bad mistakes.
2.)"Images" aren't ENOUGH, Haabet. RELIABLE SOURCES. An image, especially without origins for the image given (as is the case with many of the images you showed us), is NOT a "reliable source", it is merely an image, which could be real, but could be fake. Sources that can be PROVEN are reliable and up-to-date, such as Encyclopedia Britannica or MODERN medical journals, those are the kind of sources we want, not "images" that could be from almost anywhere. The Fashion & Fetishism: Corsets, Tight-lacing and Other Forms of Body Sculpture book is a step forward possibly (for the History section, more than anything else, it seems), though it would help if you spelled the title right. I do not know how to put in a textual reference in the Wikipedia format, but there is probably a page that could help with that somewhere on Wikipedia if you don't know how to add it.
3.)"The common use of corsets is male transvestites"; I assume what you REALLY mean is "It is commonly used by male transvestites" (by the way, in English the connotation of "transvestite" means you do not need to prefix it with "male" to define what you mean). "The common use" means more that it is the ONLY really common use, or the most common use; both of which I sincerely doubt, since I know plenty of girls who buy some form of corset from lingerie stores. I don't doubt it could be common, just that it would be more common than female fetishists or women looking for an "exotic" look (if only because there are very few transvestites compared to women, and the corset is making a comeback in women's lingerie and even as outerwear).
4.)Gothic fashion I knew about and it is more documented in general outside of Wikipedia and thus less in dire need of references, BUT another reliable source is ALWAYS welcome on Wikipedia, naturally.
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! Zora06:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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)
For once, Haabet is right. "I don't know who added all that material re various stores selling corset-like tops, but it certainly seemed like advertising to me."
First - a quick check of the editing history (jeez, does anyone ever remember to check those anymore?) would show you it was me. Second, the reason I listed them, and especially the ones I did, was because Target and Hot Topic (both of which are notable enough for their own detailed Wikipedia articles, by the way) are VERY well known stores (at least in the U.S.), and, well, in the case of Hot Topic it practically started the more mainstream trend of wearing so-called "corset tops" (technically just tops modeled off historical corset looks) as outerwear (it's well known for being a chain that tries to advertize itself as being aimed at Goth and Punk subcultures, but having a clientele of mostly ordinary middle school and high school girls who like the "look" of Goth/Punk fashion but aren't into the actual subcultures themselves). Target is of course a major retailer up there with WalMart and KMart in the U.S., and though it markets itself as slightly more upscale (and OK, has less of a bad reputation than WM does when it comes to employee treatment), it's very similar - by which I mean, it's everywhere, it's well-known as a major retailer, and it's very, very mainstream. However, even more so than Hot Topic, what they sell is NOT a true old-style "corset" of any kind. Thus, it is clear that a new usage of the term (to describe tops reminiscient of corsets) is becoming fairly commonplace in the larger mainstream clothing market, the evidence of which is, well, that even Target sells a "corset top" (I hadn't searched WalMart's site, but Target's turned up on the first page when I Googled "corset top").
"Mentioning brand names and adding pictures is suspicious." So would simply saying "some retailers have begun selling 'corset tops', but they aren't really corsets", without defining "some retailers" as anything, let alone a notable retailer, I figured. As for brand names... well, what the hell was I supposed to do, just say "some designers have done this and that" or "they call them corsets, but they're not technically traditional ones" without giving examples? I'd get reverted for that, wouldn't I? As "unverified", or "original research" or something. It's not OR to mention a highly well-known major, mainstream retailer carrying exactly what I was trying to descrive, I don't think. Hot Topic is one thing, I know most Europeans haven't heard of the store since it's only in the U.S., but Target? TARGET? Target, again, is as mainstream and nearly as ubiquitous as WalMart, and THEY carry these non-traditional "corset tops". I guess I get reverted no matter how I try to help on this article. It's frustrating. The only retailers I even mentioned were ones that I knew were notable; technically, the same goes for the two brands I mentioned, Prada is EXTREMELY notable, and XHilaration may not have a Wikipedia article, but they probably should have at least a stub, since they've been around for at least a decade (I know, because I have an old dress from that brand that I had when I was ten, and I'm 20 now), and they've been carried for that whole time (and maybe then some) in major mainstream brick-and-mortar retailers like WalMart, KMart, and Target, and tons of others that I can't remember off the top of my head. I don't know if they're known outside the U.S., but in the U.S., they're a common brand - further, I would not have included that one at all were it not for the fact that it demonstrated the "it barely even resembles a corset" type of "corset top" perfectly as well.
"I could be wrong and it could just have been a new editor trying to be helpful." Well, I've been on Wikipedia since December of 2005 (which is when I joined to create the deleted scene article), so I'm not exactly "new" per se, but I am fairly new to editing any kind of fashion-related article. I was indeed trying to be helpful. The article is certainly improved overall lately for which I am glad, but the fact that we now essentially have no source or support at all for the (truthful) statements concerning "corset tops" that aren't traditional, body-modifying corsets concerns me. I wouldn't mind the pictures being removed (though I still think that the picture in the Modern History section could be better; again I mean no offense to the model, who is perfectly attractive, and the camera flash I could get over, but that black corset barely shows up at all with that background, and might as well be a tight-fitting non-corset satin top for all the viewer knows), but the lack of reference to NOTABLE mainstream stores selling such tops bothers me. Again, cut Hot Topic if you really want, I'd understand since they aren't as well-known outside of the U.S., but Target is certainly notable enough. Almost any town I know of large enough for a WalMart has at least one Target, too, especially on the highways, and they're one of the nation's top retail chains (check Christmas earnings, you'll see what I mean). And, again, not exactly noted for their selection of Gothwear, if you know what I mean :P (in fact, I've found that they don't have enough interestingly punky things for me to buy clothes from them most of the time. They're upscale-but-still-WalMart-comparable-pricing mainstream, all the way).
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!
It wasn't intended to be "advertising". I don't get paid to mention that that pseudo-Goth store Hot Topic sells pseudo-corsets. :( I don't even LIKE Hot Topic (they're way too expensive, and I'm told that any clothes bought from their inevitably fall apart after the first or second wash). I do sometimes shop at Target because it's cheap and close by, but I certainly wouldn't buy that ugly "corset top", even though I've bought Xhilaration brand clothes in the past (mostly when I was ten, heh). This isn't a case of me "including my favorites"; this was a case of me trying to demonstrate the distinctly modern phenomenon of mainstream reappropriation of the term, using actual references to notable brands' and mainstream retailers' usage of it. I mean, I "get" why it was removed, but... it wasn't LIKE that, you know? And now there's no sources for it... :( Runa2722:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Zora22:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Zora23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Zora03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Taxwoman12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Eyrian13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, another possible good source for this page might be The Corset: A Cultural History, by Valerie Steele; also, Corsets and Crinolines by Norah Waugh appears to show you how to construct a corset (according to the one who recommended it to me, "This book is a must for corset makers - although you will need some pattern cutting know-how to interpret the patterns"). Runa2721:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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?" NO. NONONONONONOONONO. Please? I am SICK of this. :( I TRIED to add references; they all get deleted! It is a notable phenomenon in fashion recently that more mainstream retailers have used this term; it's what LED me here. It's what I spent HOURS researching, trying to find notable examples of JUST for this article. IT EXISTS. IT HAPPENS. THEY CALL THEM CORSETS. There is no other term for them as far as I know, so they can't even be disambiguated properly I don't think, but they deserve a mention, it's encyclopedic, it's notable, and it's obviously something of importance to the article, because it's a change in what "corset" means to the masses. Please don't do this. I've been trying to help, I don't know why everybody wants to delete pretty much everything I do. It's truthful information, and it's a change in meaning that's obviously THERE, accross many well-known companies, why do people want to not include it? It makes no sense. I'm just trying to improve the article by including important information. I'm not a vandal or a liar or an advertizer, I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP. :( I don't understand why no one wants me DOING anything. I thought the whole concept of Wikipedia was that EVERYBODY who could contribute valuable, truthful content, could, and was allowed to. Everything I do gets torn apart and ripped from the article, and I really don't understand WHY. :( Runa2723:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles
The industry of clothes use the French terminology, in French terminology all bodies except brassieres is corsets. In the tailor's terminology of English, Danish and German is a corset 4" smaller as the natural waistline. You have two terminologies and this article mix these to nonsense. One solution is split up, as industry and tailor keep they terminology. Håbet 08:10, 23 June 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. --Eyrian22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Zora01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Taxwoman23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Zora23:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Taxwoman23:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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? --Eyrian22:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1] is an improvement? You can't even see the corset clearly in the new photos.--Taxwoman12:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The replacement photos allowed you to precisely see the corset, as well as its shape and lacing. I don't see the graininess. --Eyrian03:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
featherbone and terminology
hi, I think that this article could be improved, and be more academic. I am new to wiki, so i'm going to be careful. please tell me when i've stepped on anyones toes! I've added information on another type of boning used for corsets. I've got some old stock in my studio, but have cited a reference source. It's very similar to Rigiline (nearly mentioned that in the article, but I think this article should just be about history and uses rather than how to make them. do you think that 'victorian' is the best academic term to use considering it only covers the period 1837 to 1901 in Britain? (where i'm from)Bawdekin10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
terminology
also, considering a corset is only for the body (L. corpus: the body) is the section on neck corsets really relevent? if we are going to talk about any sort of body restriction then everything from bondage straps on trousers to handcuffs could be included, this article rambles on enough as it is!. i think an article on corsets should just refer to the item of body-shaping, support clothing worn round the trunk of the body. Bawdekin10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about splitting my rant into two sections, i've learned how to do it now (like i said i'm a newbee). anyway i REALLY think the section on neck corsets should be removed...a neck corset is called a STOCK. they where made from everything from fabric to leather or even wood. they are not 'body-shaping' and should have their own page. Bawdekin10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
had a look and yep, they are definatly stocks. not body shaping..there is very little info on stocks on the web, so i'll put my book references up for you at some time. (i've got a degree in costume history) stocks are not necesarily the starched fabric neckwear that i think you think they are. they where also made from buckram and leather and are vey similar to the items on your web page (although not so fetishistic and not made to resemble corsets). military and the early british police stocks where even made from wood. even if you don't think your items ARE stocks, they are definatly NOT corsets and shouldn't be in this article(and please sign your entry)Bawdekin
There is a huge difference between neck corsets and stocks. Neck corset is a corset worn around the neck instead of waist or posture collar incorporating stays. And it is either fetish, fashion or goth fashion item. And nothing else. Stocks are something entirely different. Or will you even claim that posture collars are stocks? However, if you are so convinced that neck corsets are stocks, then try to back it up with some references. (and please notice that i DID sign my last entry as well as this one) --83.131.2.3816:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok. here goes. "the degree of servitude represented by a uniform ...is best represented by the introduction of the stock. a black strip of leather, the stock was secured round the neck ... with the intention of keeping the head up...tales of this reviled collar emphasise its demeaning constrictive aspects." "in those days the men had to wear high and stiff leather stocks to keep their heads up." "the authoritarian aspect of the leather stock is enhanced when one discovers that officers were let off with a soft stock made.. from silk" "two will be necessary for each man...one of horse hair for common use...the each for the clasps to fix in, are best of leather, as that will last" "the stocks should be made of black cloth in preference to leather" from: regulations for the use of his majesties troops1795, Brassleys book of uniforms isbn 1857532430. when stocks are made, before the fabric is put over them they are made in panels just like the images in your source. boning is sometimes required if the fabric is soft, for instance the horsehair ones. i allways put boning in ladies high collars of the 1890's. They are made from lace but have the same shape and general panelling. As this article says at the beginning, a corset is BODY SHAPING. A neck support doesn't change the shape of the neck or reduce its diameter like a corset does (if it did you'd faint). as mentioned elswhere (also see spingcleaning)if you want to include RESTRICTIVE devices worn elsewhere on the body apart from the torso then Vanbrace and Grieves should also be included in this article, do you call them "arm corsets" and "leg corsets"?. high healed tight shoes do to the ankle what your devices do to the neck..are they "ankle corsets"? Just because its restrictive and superficially looks like a corset doesn't make it a corset!172.201.81.63oops forgot to sign172.201.81.63
Citation you provided has nothing to do with neck corsets. You still haven't provided any reference claiming that neck corsets are stocks. There is no mention of neck corset in citation you provided. And it looks like that you didn't only forgot to sign your entry, but you also forgot to login if you are Bawdekin, which is unlikely to be untrue.--83.131.79.5320:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah i see..you want an historical reference saying "a neck corset is like a stock"..but 'neck corset' is modern terminology made up within the bdsm community! it isn't even used in "fetish, fashion,sex and power" by valerie steel written in 1996 so that term wont exist historically. The "corp" in corset means body, as i've said before it would be like calling an long laced ankle boot an 'ankle corset'. There isn't any need to make up a new word because there is a perfectly acceptable word allready in existence...STOCK!...leaving terminology aside are you saying that a neck'corset' changes the shape of the neck like a corset and therefore should be included in this article?Bawdekin
Word stock (or "STOCK", as you like to capitlize it) is not used for neck corset, so it isn't "perfectly acceptable word" for neck corset as you claim. "Perfectly acceptable word" (actually two words) for neck corset is neck corset, and there is no need to use the word stock instead. Only you pressuposed that neck corsets are stocks, so this is either your POV or OR. And there is no need to write some words in all caps as you did. --83.131.7.009:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this article seems to have been abandoned! i really want to start improving it! anyone else able to give me any help? in the section regarding types of boning someone suggests that Girdles usually have no boning...i have never seen a girdle with no boning at all, whether from the 30's, 40's or later. can i remove that paragraph? Bawdekin20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Girdle by some light bone in the front. From 1913 to 1960, the fashionable corset and girdle was close related and overlap.Håbet 22
23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Social position
The waistline show the social position, because good tailored corset was expensive. And daughters of rich parents begin by big dress younger as common people, and the big dress demand a corset. And they keep the same waistline the rest of her life, because she reuse the dresses. The normal waist size of a lady was 4" smaller as the natural in that age, then she begin by use corsets.--Håbet 19:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
old text
Orthopedic and reconstrution surgery; Fred H. Albee; 1919; page 430
Can you translate to common English?Håbet 07:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: helping the 'corset' article improve.
Hello from a wiki newbie. I can't access the 'net regularly, so can't promise 'help' per se, (nor can I log in... grrrr.) but I can offer some quick suggestions as to needed edits for the style and the content flow. 1 - CITATIONS. Most of what's up there now CAN be cited, but isn't. That's an easy fix with a good search through Encyclopedia Brit, or a research trip to the library. 2 - Article flow. I'll have a few direct suggestions in a bit, but the general feeling is that there is LOTS of info and links that people want to see represented, and they seem to be all represented (after lots of nagging and edit wars). BUT they can all be incorporated into a better flow. I see much info located in the wrong subject heading. Again, easy to fix as a navigational matter, WITHOUT deleting any info, but I don't want to anon. edit and get flamed... 3 - Language Level. Sorry to harp on this myself also, because I feel for people who don't speak/write English as a first language. However, the content added MUST be in clear and IMO academic-level language. I don't care about British or English spellings, but most readers will care GREATLY about misspellings. This detracts from the article, and makes the content seem questionable. Hope these comments are of use, and please take them in good faith - I'm not in any way judging the content or the previous submissions - I'm just noting a fairly clear case of too many cooks in the Wiki. :) 165.166.3.170 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC) SCLibrarian (original submit, before I figured out how to do it properly.)
ok, from what I can tell of general etiquette in revising and editing, people usually state their intentions to edit something, and then give a bit of time for people to object. So, I guess this is me stating my intent. I PROMISE I will not delete ANYTHING from the article once I start editing it. So, if anyone has violent objections to someone trying to restructure the article, please say so before Monday, June 4th. 165.166.3.17015:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)SCLibrarian[reply]
I will like to divide this article in a under-article about Corsets and health, because a complete clarification of that part been to big, as that will drowning this article.Håbet 16:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
go ahead and start imroving
i think you should go ahead and start imroving this article sclibrarian. good luck...if i get time i'll give you a hand if you want, although i'm new to this too. Bawdekin11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us a previous show? Håbet 19:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
er..i'm very sorry Habet but i don't understand you! what is a "previous show" and why do you want one? and i don't understand your previous comment either.... :( Bawdekin
Missing Reference
any reason why my reference was removed? i assume it was an accident as my addition in the article citing my reference was kept. if you want to remove the reference perhaps it would better academically to remove the reference to it in the article aswell. (Bawdekin)
i'm going to remove the section on neck support as it has little to do with cosets (see earlier comment made by me) also its references relate to an advertising website for some sort of face cream i thinkl. its not in english..and this is an article in english so i don't realy think it is relevent. perhaps this reference should go in an article written in its own language. (Bawdekin)
On a new version of the Talk page, as Eyrian is right, there's no need to clutter this page more. I'll start at the macro-level and work from there. I'm fairly busy in the summer (children's reading programs...) but I'll try to post edits once a week.
So, my method in a nutshell - I'll copy-paste the article and work offline, then save my edited version in the new Talk page here. One week later, if there are no suggested changes to what I've done, I'll move that section to the main article, and load the next ideas to change on the Newer Talk page.
Please if you have suggestions, give them to me, and I'll work them in. Also, any citations people could drag in will be good. I'm not wiki enough to know how to do them myself, and don't have the time now to learn - I'm more of an editor than a writer or researcher.
I have continued to remove this section. The problem is, the list of appearances simply isn't important to cultural understanding. Listing a few times they appear isn't relevant. --Eyrian 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I entirely disagree. I anybody wants to re-add it or only think about it, here it is:
What does this tell us about corsets? How does it help us understand how they are perceived? You say you disagree that it doesn't, so clearly you must have an answer. --Eyrian 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. They don't have the same content policies as Wikipedia. --Eyrian 13:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"corsets in popular culture" what a useless section! please remove it. to start listing every time a corset is seen in a movie will take pages and pages and i can't see that it adds anything to our knowledge of corsets. esp since i would call the items in the lady marmalade video Bodices beacause they don't re-shape the torso!Bawdekin16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I altogether disagree with the above view, and i think most WPedians do also. There is not the least agreement that such sections are unencyclopedic, that the material is unimportant, that the use of the corset in significant ways in significant art. some editors have ben trying to delete separate articles with such material, and succeeding in cases where the articles are particularly poorly prepared, and also trying to eliminate individual items in articles,where in general they should not be succeeding, except where a separate article is justified. I support such material wherever it fits, and this is a place where it does. I am not entirely sure that every place where it appears in a movie is important content--some uses and some movies are more important than others. The examples above seem well chosen, and they should be inserted and kept. Wikibooks is not a precedent for us, however. The intrinsic nature of the material is what is important. Why do people use these features in movies? out of pure chance, because the people have to be wearing something and a corset would do as well as anything else? of course not. I note that there is requirement that content be documented--there is no requirement that individual items of content be notable in the sense that a WP article must be notable, just that it be relevant, a much more inclusive standard. there is no reason not to have it. Please feel free to put it back, and if any one removes it, that should simply be reverted as done against consensus. I'll keep an eye on it. i dont think most admins would support Eyrian here. But it would not hurt to find one of the many possible literature references first to a discussion of the movie--might as well make the section as strong as possible. DGG (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are extremely mistaken, DGG. This kind of fancruft is the most embarassing feature on Wikipedia, even more so than adolescent vandalism. It contributes nothing to the sum of human knowledge (not even about corsetry) to say that Shania Twain wore a corset or corset-like garment in a music video! Please do something constructive instead. --Orange Mike14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
opinions vary, and there is no consensus to remove such material. I have integrated it better inside the article. I didn't see anything about S.T. or music videos at all--feel free to add the information. I notice that a great deal of material in this article is not sourced--the entire article needs work in this direction, not just these aspects. DGG (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the top corset films are in a list about Corsets in popular culture. It have no sense.Håbet 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, not all appearances of the corset in popular culture are notable - but its commonality as a costume piece surely can't be disputed, nor could its mild association today with gothic fashion, both of which are part of its place in our culture today. Additionally, on rare occasions it is a notable pop culture appearance - Pirates of the Carribbean being a very good example, as in this obviously notable film series a corset technically plays a key role in the plot of the first film in not just one but multiple places (not to mention forms part of a running gag) -- first, Elizabeth's too-tight corset causes her to fall off a cliff into the ocean... leading Jack Sparrow to save her, which leads to a chaotic attempt to arrest him, etc., cue adventure plot. And then later she uses the corset as an excuse to fake another fainting spell so Jack can be saved from the gallows - also an important plot point, as the character appears in the sequel films and his escape from said gallows is an important plot point in and of itself in the context of the series...
I think at this very moment, the "in popular culture" type section is mostly fine - it notes a few notable recent cinematic appearances, some general trends, and how it connects with the current use in fashion, etc. -- covering all the major bases, really, without going too far into the trivial or fancrufty. Of greater concern I think is the rather messy series of sections on "healthy corsets" and such, which among other things, is too filled with bulleted lists (I don't know why this bugs me so much, other than it makes the article look a little odd format-wise and that that many lists back to back doesn't look very much like a encyclopedia entry); and it also verges dangerously close to being too POV in places (mostly pro-corset, though at least it seems to try to balance this with stuff about how an "ill-fitted" corset can cause serious health issues, even going so far as to detail the nastier potential side effects including pictures, which I could swear was somewhat absent previously and is appreciated). Runa2722:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good Sense Corset Waists
By long time use and childhood in Good Sense Waists, the abdomen been spoiled and pressed down. See the mother
As see on the drawing the mothers abdomen is pressed down.Håbet 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs)
Håbet/Haabet, my comments are based on looking at your changes to this article (and others.) You seem to upload and use a lot of illustrations and then you use those images to try and point out the damage that different types of corsets have done and can do to a human body. I think I understand some of your reasoning; corsets can cause, change and contribute to many physical effects and there are many types of corsets and "corset items" through history. These are valid points that can be referenced in heaps of medical, historical and fashion literature. You are also right that deformation of the human body and impact on health due to corset wearing should be address in an article about corsets. But it is not the only thing to be said -about- corsets.
The problem also remains that you have used and still are using advertising illustrations, illustrations for early patent applications and caricatures/paintings (some -very- old and satirical) to illustrate serious points about health and medical problems.
Maybe you could contact an illustrator on wikipedia and try and work with them to draft up some clean, modern, medical textbook style graphics. A small number of these could then be used to illustrate the physical affects of corsets without getting into the murky issues of using 100 year old caricatures or random advertising from the late 19th and early 20th century. Also there wouldn't be any danger of overwhelming the article.
"worn by a female model" what a lie! that's a man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.1.250 (talk) 16:52, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
She is a girl, she have boy friend, I send the image to he. See in the mirror, the behind is a womans behind.Håbet 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs) [reply]
Images on this article
There is a problem with inages in this article. There is too much of them and they are arranged in messy way. And most of them are historical and those aren't in color, some of them are redundant or have a very little relevance to the article.
Most of images seem to be added by Haabet who mostly adds (or even worse, replaces good images with) those grayscale historical images and pays no attention on arrangement of images.
There should be fewer images on this article and they should be of good quality and in color, except for maybo one or two historical ones for illustrating the history of corsets. --78.0.18.17408:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If was fine by some modern photo. But the article is a mix of headings and repetitions.Håbet 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs)
sock puppet of Runcorn
His article have a problem by anonymous sock puppet of Runcorn. What do we by he, when he is anonymous?
What is "His article"? Who is this "Runcorn" and why do you (seem to) highly dislike him/her? Why do you think that theese images were added by sombody's sockpuppets?
The first image was uploaded by User:Misanthrope00 a member since 2005 and the other two by User:Beachnut4. For the number of dodgy 19th century/early 20th century advertising illustrations in the article some clear pictures of current (modern) corset use is needed. Though I'm a bit skeptical about the Beachnut4 pics simply because the woman pictured seems to represent an extreme in corset wearing. Dogsgomoo17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the gibberish above mean? And who is Runcorn? The second two images above are not "art", but photos of a unique individual whom I know that is very into corsets and body modification in general. She wears corsets often, and seemed to be a good example of not only modern corset usage, but also what is possible with disciplined tightlacing. Beachnut420:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He put in the same text and text part again and again after several had delete these.Håbet 13:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Which text was he insering and when? And why was this text deleted? Can you give us some permalinks to his edits in which he keeps on reinserting this text? --Qsaw(talk)15:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused - what text? If the photos are inappropriate or off topic, I'll remove them. However, they seem to be a great example of a clearly photographed corset. My understanding is that the use of a corset is for waist reduction, and this is also a good example of this. She reduces her 22" waist to 16-17" as part of her tightlacng regimen, and I find this fascinating. The community of folks she associates with are ALL into corsetry, and this seemed a good example of modern usage. If personal bias has clouded my judgement, then by all means, remove them. I took the photos myself at a period costume gathering where I met her, which is what prompted me to look up this article, to gain more information. She and her friends are the only people I've ever seen who actually use real corsets (as opposed to the fashion-based, pseudo corsets you see occasionally. They are real photos - I believe Wikipedia's upload system can detect photo alteration and lists it under "metadata" in the photo information page, if presentBeachnut401:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A neck corset is a type of posture collar that incorporates stays
and it is generally not considered to be a corset. It is a corset-like garment
designed for the neck instead of the waist, but usually it is not used
to compress the neck in the way that a normal corset compresses the waist, though
it can be used in such manner, but caution is advised to prevent suffocation.
Yes! one anonymous who write odd text.Håbet 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs)
What yes? Nobody asked you the question that can be answered with yes or no. I asked you "Why do you think that those texts were added by Runcorn?" and "Who is this Runcorn?". I suppose that you failed to see "why" in my first question.
A "Health Corset". The fashionable waistline illustrated is that of a thin woman who has worn corsets from childhood.
The meaning by this image was a show the big belly from a unhealth corset, named "Health Corset". The more advertising, the more poor corsets; because the reputation sell the good corsets.Håbet 13:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Maternity corsets
A maternity corset from 1911
A maternity corset give the woman a fine support by the pregnancy. It support the abdomen both and back.Håbet 14:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Another unintelligible section within "Advantages and Disadvantages of Corsets"
In particular, there is a section called "Risks: Compression of Chest" which reads:
"If a corset is correct the chest been immediately high and broad in corset, in the same way as the chest been high and broad by a pregnancy, by the pressure from the womb. But many corsets have (especially for beginners) a serious problem with the amount of pressure exerted on the ribs and chest cavity. A correct corset is too big in the top, before it is tightened. Compression of the chest can lead to serious illness. Wearing a tight corset may lead to difficulty breathing. If a girl who has not yet developed wider hips uses a corset without a wasp waist or shoulder straps, the corset can only compress the chest. And all entrails will be moved together and down. Its [4] and liver.[5] Developing children are far more vulnerable to the potential health risks of corset use. As such, corsets should only be worn by fully-formed adults, never by growing children."
The bolded parts of that are completely incomprehensible, and some of the other parts are awkwardly worded. I can't figure out how to correct the bolded parts because I can't even decipher them. Does anyone have enough knowledge of what the person is trying to say, to correct this? If not, what should be done about this section? Silentmiaow (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Diagram of a comparison between a normal heavily pregnant woman and a woman in an theoretical extreme Stem Waisted CorsetThe volume of the entrails in the chest by the pregnancy (only one child, of four practicable).
I do my best, but the subject is so complicated, as if I make a good english text, still anybody understand my. So I will manke illustrations, to tell.
Woman is build for survive of the pregnancy. But as you see in this image, the entrails have only a little place in the chest. To survive this tremendous deformation woman is created by a flexible ribs, as the chest can been raised and extended by the pregnancy. The flexible ribs can been to flexible as they break or bend by weight of the body or the chest do not support a weak breathing in abdomen. A corset can support the ribs like a extended uterus if the corset is correct produced, and this support can been difficult to do without.
Haabet 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The support fields for corsets: Shoulders; sides of waistline; sides of the buttocks
To extend the chest you have need to push up the chest in the direction of the blue arrow. To make the pressure up, you have need of fields for push down, in the opposite direction. If the corset do not support on these fields the chest been press wrong and been compressed. The corset can support on all these fields if the corset have more than one lace.Haabet 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The chest of this woman is compressed in a stay-makers bad Corset.
A bad Corset
The same woman restored by a Corset from madame Caplin.
The same woman restored by a Corset from madame Caplin.
Two photos from 1913, of Emma E. Goodwin. A bigger chest give better breathing.
A girl in a corset from "the favorite of dressmakers." The expansion of chest is only 1½ inches.
Plate 1. First Subject
The same girl in a corset from Emma E. Goodwin, the expansion of chest is now 3 inches.
Plate 2. First Subject
Ok, I tried to make it .. make sense. The image I'm referring to by my previous image remark is image:GutesKorsettSchlechtesKorsett2.png seen earlier in the page, but I don't know how to link or refer to it properly. I'm aware it might get taken out at some point, so saying 'scroll up the page and stare at a nonexistant image' is probably not so good - could someone help with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.131.83 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haabet, NemFX asked id male corsetry still exist and you answered with links to historical corset images, as you usually do. Do you ever provide any images besides historical ones?
NemFX, male corsetry does indeed still exist today although not anywhere near fashion mainstream, as far as I know. There are many corsetry shops that make corsets for men, such as Wasp creations, C&S, etc... Just type "male corsetry" in Google and you will find what are you looking for. Also, some small alternative clothing manufacturers might provide male corsets, in case you can't afford a corset from whoever you will find with Google. Good luck! --Qsaw(talk)12:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Against Corset
Against Corset in Denmark in 1838. Note in that time corset was a pair of stays, and had been out of fashion in many decades, as it is not possibly as the drawings show anybody real persons
Many encyclopaedias are negative to corsets. That have need of an explanation. But that have several explanation.
The first explanation is difference between the female world and the male writers of encyclopaedias.
The second is the sources, about corset, often are male moralist, who are against all beauty and unnecessary fun.
A serious cause is the poor quality of many cheap corset. It is thought-provoking ad many manufacturer of corset, never had need of advertising, because the buyer recommend the corset for new buyer, and some other manufacturers have need hundred of variants of corsets and advertisement in all magazines.
In old days woman typical start the use corset, as girl by use a special corset for girls, and use first later a woman's corset. But if a woman start by use a woman corset as a grown-up woman, she has great problems by the shape of ribs. And been against corsets, because she do not can use them.
Neutral point of view
The corsets can show social status, as the corset-wearers are different from other people. In the old days, the upper-class wore corsets to demonstrate distinction from lower classes. Today, some subcultures wear corsets to demonstrate nonconformity.'
What are wrong in this text?Haabet 10:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence is unclear but may be true if we knew what it means ("different" how?); it requires more information. If it's meant to state the thesis of the paragraph, it fails. That's not the same thing as being untrue. The second sentence is clearly stating that corsets were a fashion accessory worn by the upper crust to distinguish themselves from the proles; this requires a source citation and sounds like original research. How is the third sentence untrue? Isn't the whole point of Goth culture to show nonconformity with the mainstream? Corsets are frequently worn by men and women as part of Goth fashion. There may be other venues (is the BDSM community considered nonconformist?) where this might also be true, but it still needs a source. Conclusion: the problem with the passage is lack of source citations and lack of clarity, not necessarily lack of truth. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History
have the long history home in this article or in the article: History_of_corsetsHaabet 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this was Haabet's, because it's a parsable statement, but the external example does not show what the editor thinks it does.
Some corsets extend over the hips and, in very rare instances, reach the knees (example).
The problem is that the "example" is clearly a photo of a woman who is wearing a fashion corset over a pencil skirt (or slip or girdle), not a corset extending to her knees. The corset ends just over the hips, where one would expect it to end. The statement is unsourced, and as far as I've been able to tell no mention is made elsewhere in the article about a corset design that extends to the knees. I am not particularly knowledgeable about corsets, so I hesitate to remove the statement. Can anyone more qualified make a judgement on this? [EDIT] Never mind, I just found the section on corset dresses. However, the example in my citation is not a corset dress; the model is wearing two separate pieces. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed image of Agnes Sorel
I've removed the image of Agnes Sorel because a close examination would make it rather obvious that she's not wearing a corset as we understand it. Moreover, research by Robin Netherton, Kass McGann, and Tasha McGann tends to point to the conclusion that, while late-medieval European dresses were designed to give the body an artificial shape, they accomplished it simply with the structure of the (fabric) dress rather than with boned corsets/bodices/stays/whatever. There's no problem with the article's statement about the origins of the corset, though. 114.58.86.96 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
1890
1890
1893
1899
1899
1902
1902
1908
1908
1909
1910
1910
1913
1913
1913
1928
anonymous sock puppet of Runcorn, a dark image
GutesKorsettSchlechtesKorsett2.png without support for abdomen and by support for abdomen
corresponding images. (1909)
A woman who had get shape after a bad corset (1909)
A woman who had get shape after a bad corset (1909)
A bad corset. (1900)
A bad corset. (1900)
The same woman after some time in a correctly corset
A corset by a separate support for abdomen.
A corset by a separate support for abdomen.
