This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
The contents of the Tightlacer page were merged into Tightlacing on 2014-02-13. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
I see there has been a lot of debate about this one, but it urgently needs attention from someone with sources, and to construct a proper flowing narrative
"They remained a feature of fashionable dress until the French Revolution" is wrong, as is "At the end of the eighteenth century, the corset fell into decline" - and both statements are almost immediately contradicted by discussions of Victorian and Edwardian corsets. Women wore some kind of corset or stays or similar garment under a different name throughout this period, including the post-revolution pre-victorian Regency & Romantic eras.
I think the page contradicts itself. Under the main image, it says: Cathie Jung (born 1937), wearing a sterling silver corset, holds the Guinness World Record for the smallest waist on a living person, at 38.1 centimeters.
Later in the page: The smallest waist recorded is that of Ethel Granger, who tightlaced for most of her life and achieved a waist of thirteen inches: a reduction of over ten inches.
Was Ethel dead?
In the biography on the page linked at the end of the article: "Ethel Granger 1905 - 1982" Obviously she has been for 24 years. /rithrin 19.12.2006
"Corset and Tight-Lacing.—The baneful effects of corset-wearing are now so well understood that few woman will venture to deny that the practice is harmful, but they endeavor to shield themselves by declaring that they are sure their corset does them no harm, that it is very loose, etc., etc. We scarcely ever met a lady who would admit that her corset was tight, and we have had occasion to speak with hundreds, of ladies on this point in making medical examinations.
We read the other day in a newspaper of a young woman who actually broke a rib in the attempt to gain another half-inch on her corset string. She well deserved the accident, no doubt; but the chances are ten to one that she would assert in the most positive term, if expostulated with about the matter that her corset was "quite loose," and to demonstrate the matter would show you how much more she could pinch up when she tried, or something of the sort. The fact is, ladies do not really know when their clothing is tight about the waist and when it is loose. The tissues have been so long under pressure that they have lost a good share of their sensibility, and clothing really seems loose to them which to a man would be so uncomfortably tight as to make him utterly wretched." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachnut4 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is from:
<ref>Ladies' Guide in HEALTH and DISEASE by J. H. Kellogg; 1904; page 243</ref>
Now is the article to favourable.Haabet 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if anyone is interested in my rewrite for this page, because I haven't heard anyone say anything or comment on it (except Katherine). I'm just trying to see if there's any interest, so that I know I'm not wasting my time. Thanks. --Matsurika 18:27, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry not to have responded, Matsurika. It seems like a good reorganization of the material and I would be happy if you changed the main article to match.
Your re-org makes it clear that there's a gap in the article between the Victorian/Edwardian heyday of tightlacing and the modern revival, which I need to fill with some info re the critics of tight-lacing. This might also placate Haabet.
I also need to do some more work on the dress reform article.
I hope you'll stay around and work with us. Zora 19:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The problem of the old days Tightlacing was the corset was a cheap industry product, from about 1860. Nearly all pre-industry corset have shoulder strap, and alternative is a long hip part, first invented correctly of D. Kops in 1898. In long era was corset very often unhealthy.
Many people do not have surport and knowledge about tightlacing. And the expert in tightlacing,
do not like to diffuse the knowledge, because the knowledge was theys livelihood.
A myth say: If you have pain, you can loosen the lace and remove the problem. But you have only few nerves in the entrails, and the entrails are build to work by 1/3 power. A young can remowe 2/3 power of the entrails, but how long time?!
Haabet 22:52, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
How is this relevant to Matsurika's rewrite?
You haven't persuaded us of anything by making unsubstantiated statements so far. I repeatedly ask you for evidence, and yet you do not supply it. I tell you clearly, I will not believe any of your claims until you can give me one piece of real evidence (that means something other than the patents that you have gathered on your website). You are pretty much wasting your time. Until you offer evidence for these new claims, I won't believe them, and I won't believe that they belong in the Wikipedia.
Yes/No, it is writing on the Talk:Tightlacing page. Haabet 19:48, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
Thanks, Katherine and Zora, for your support. As you can probably tell, I've posted my rewrite. I think it looks and reads better than the old article, although I doubt it will make Haabet happy. Personally, the only thing I think will make him/her happy is his/her own rewrite, which is obviously riddled with grammatical errors, makes little sense, and is not NPOV. (I wouldn't even bother debating with him/her anymore, because it's quite obvious that Haabet doesn't care what we think, he/she just wants to use Wikipedia as his/her soapbox. Terribly unfortunate, as he/she might actually have something worth saying.) As I've said before, I think we should only accept his/her contributions, if they are coherent, intelligent, and NPOV. They should also have relevent sources that we can verify for ourselves (i.e. not Haabet's website).
Don't worry, I'll be staying around here for a while. I can't contribute much, but I'm really good at finding grammar errors and rewording things to make them sound better. (This is the second article I've completely rewritten.) --Matsurika 18:24, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
From 1867 to 1874 have more than 150 letters on corsetry. The tightlacing was connected to this Magazine. Haabet 21:50, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
As you have been repeatedly told, Haabet: 130 year old ideas about what tightlacing and corsetry in general did to the body are not a good source. Medical understanding at that time was very primitive. You seem to buy into some very 19th century medical ideas yourself. —Morven 22:55, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think on the historical and geographical of Tightlacing. Haabet 09:33, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
I did what I said I would and added more to the history. I also expanded the external links. Please check and correct if necessary. Zora 11:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excellent additions, Zora! I think they really enhance the article. I might make a few tweaks here and there (I disagree that the corseted waist looked "dowdy"; I think it's just one of those things that fashion just leaves behind when it finds something more exciting), but there's nothing I disagree with.
And now I'm going to write the section that I said I would!
Hey, looks great you two. Keep up the good work! --Matsurika 20:17, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Tightlacing is the practice of applying corsetry to it's extreme to achieve the smallest possible waist. A tight-lacer is always wearing her corset, night and day, and is always trying to pull her laces tighter. When she achieve a 2-4 inches reduction and she's comfortable with it, she gets a smaller corset to be able to go on with her figure training until she reaches her "ultimate waist".
--These mistakes are as nothing to that of tight-lacing, and the evils they produce are small in comparison with those that attend this larger and greatest of all evils of feminine dress. The real effects of tight-lacing ought to be thoroughly considered. First of all, it undoubtedly impedes the full expansion of the lungs. In the section on Respiration it is explained that the act of breathing consists of an expansion of the chest in every direction; the cavity of the chest enlarges and air rushes in to fill up the lungs, and so occupy the increased space: thereafter the chest returns to its usual size, and air is thus expelled to permit of a diminution in the expansion of the lungs to fit the diminished space. The chief way in which the chest cavity enlarges is by the descent of the diaphragm, which is at once the floor of that cavity and the roof of the cavity of the abdomen or belly. When the diaphragm descends it does so at the expense of the belly cavity, on whose space it encroaches, and to make additional room the front and aide walls of the abdomen bulge outwards: Now if the waist and part of the chest are encircled by a tightly drawn and, by the agency of steel, practically unyielding structure like stays, this movement of the abdominal walls cannot be developed, the descent of the diaphragm is arrested, and expansion of the chest in this direction becomes difficult. To compensate for this, enlargement must take place by exaggerated raising and widening of the upper part of the chest through movements of the ribs. The lower part of the chest is restricted in movement, and in the upper part the movement is overdone. The lungs are thus insufficiently and improperly inflated, in their upper portions having to bear an unnecessary strain, and their lower portions being seldom properly distended at all   Moreover, the constant pressure exerted by the stays forces inwards the lower ribs and specially the last two on each side, the floating ribs, which have no attachment in front, and forces in to some extent also the lower ribs next to them, so that the shape of the chest becomes actually altered, and instead of being broad and expanded low down, it is narrowed and drawn in. All this means diminished breathing space, enfeebled breathing power, and its indirect consequences it is difficult to estimate. But more than this.   The pressure exerted by tight stays seriously alters the proper positions of the various organs in the abdomen It is difficult to state with any accuracy how many different kinds of disturbance of a good state of health may arise in this way. The normal circumference of the waist ought to be from 25 to 27 inches. Under the influence of lacing this may be reduced to 20 or 22 inches, and even less, 16 inches being considered by some fashionable dressmakers the goal to be reached. Now all this constriction takes place at the expense of the space within the abdomen, and partly within the chest; for, as has been stated, the lower ribs are easily compressed from the slight nature of their attachments in front. Now in the ordinary condition every inch of space is occupied by the various organs, and the compression can only be exercised at their expense. The stomach, bowels, and liver will be directly affected, pressed together to some extent, and also to some degree forced upwards or downwards. This undue pressure tends to prevent full growth of the parts, and even if they have previously been fully developed, some degree of wasting (atrophy) or shrinking. After death the liver on examination has been seen to bear permanent marks of the ribs pressed on it by tightlacing. For even though the pressure is relaxed every time the corsets are removed, the continuous daily recurrence of the compression gradually establishes a permanent state of constriction, so that the parts do not return to their normal size on removal of the pressing force. It is undoubted that indigestion, disturbances of the liver and bowels-even ulceration of the stomach-have been the results of the persistent practice of wearing tight stays. Besides being themselves directly affected in this way, these organs, according to the amount of displacement they are bound to experience, alter the relations of others. Pressed upwards they encroach on the space that ought to belong to heart and lungs, breathing is disturbed, and the natural action of the heart interfered with i Palpitation, faintness, and many other heart symptoms may be the direct consequences.. .
Then the pressure exerted downwards inconveniences the bladder, and is a very frequent cause of altered positions and disordered functions of the special female organs. Displacements of the womb, with all the manifold influences they may have on the monthly illness, are recognized as often produced by such a cause as this. While such evils as these result from the practice, what benefits, it may be asked, are supposed to be derived from it? It can hardly now be maintained that the "taperwaist" is desirable from its beauty. Any standard of beauty as regards human form is derived rather from that which appears to be most perfect in its development and most natural in its outlines. Greek statuary shows with perfect distinctness the views held by. the ancients on the subject. The Venus of Melos shows the natural outline of the waist, and is a model of what its sculptor must have esteemed an ideal of beauty. The wood-cut in the text, taken from a photograph, while it sufficiently indicates the outline, cannot suggest the dignity and grace which the statue itself so wonderfully exhibits. Let anyone compare this outline with that given to the female form in any fashion-plate, and. there ought not to be much difficulty in admitting that the "taper-waist" is, strictly speaking, a deformity artificially produced. It is urged, however; that stays are necessary to distribute the weight of the clothes and to give some support to the back. As to distributing the weight of the clothes, it has been already indicated that the suspension of so many clothes from the waist, which is supposed to necessitate, the use of the corset, is itself a grave mistake and there can be no doubt that the clothes can be so adjusted from the shoulders as to render any such artifice as stays unnecessary. As to the need of supporting the back, that is rather the effect than the cause of stays. For the fashion in which, even from infancy, children are hedged in, from the hips to the arm-pits, by a more or less stiff wall, is undoubtedly productive of feeble development and deficient vigour of the great muscles which run right down the back on each side of the back-bone. It is one of the first laws of growth that moderate and regular exercise of a part of the body strengthens that part; in short, that its strength is in proportion to the use that is made of it, and that, on the other hand, disuse of a part inevitably tends to weakness and wasting. Now the swathing to which infants and young children are subjected so restrains the activities of the muscles of the trunk that proper exercise of them is impossible, and the corsets of later years even more effectually impede their activities.
It is therefore the stays that render the back weak, not the weakness of the back that renders the stays necessary.
Will you PLEASE stop vandalizing the article? You can't write grammatical or comprehensible English and everything you touch is turned into gibberish. We have added anti-tightlacing references. We have gone into great detail as to medical problems resulting from hasty or ill-informed tightlacing. We have started a dress reform article. Your anti-corset bias is now represented. If you persist, it will be obvious that you are more interested in "publishing" your garbled prose than in producing a good article. Zora 10:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is you who is the vandal. The meaning fill, the grammatical is only a surface. ;-) Haabet 14:41, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if your grammar is so poor that the words make no sense, then what good are your words? --Matsurika 18:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
In the old books and patents tightlacing is defined as process which change the body from the natural curves to the corseted curves. Typically it take one half year to one year by a speed of 2,5cm per month. But it can continue but by slowly speed. Tightlacers are they who continue by tightlacing after a year. All who use corset make tightlacing, but normally only i a short period.
We've defined tightlacing already. --Matsurika 18:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Is this a trivia question? --Matsurika 18:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I think Haabet might have a point, if badly expressed. There's an argument, implicit in the text as it stands at the moment, that tightlacing started in the early 19th century. We need more of a bridge to the earlier history of corsets, explaining why we aren't counting Catherine de Medici, frex, as the first of the tightlacers. If we date tightlacing from the early 19th century, I think we have to be more explicit about the passing of the Empire waist and the return of the waistline to fashion. The emphasis had shifted from a straight, columnar silhouette to an exaggerated contrast between a small waist and a spreading skirt. Tightlacers took the contrast to extremes. Something like the difference between high heels, which are accepted, and extremely high heels, which many people think are ridiculous as well as medically unhealthy. Zora 19:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, thank you, Zora, for that wonderfully enlightening, extremely well-thought out explanation. I learned a lot from it and wish that everyone could be as helpful as you. (Face value, no sarcasm here.) I especially love the high heels analogy, I think that helped me understand you perfectly. I agree, we should probably have an article about that. I'm sorry that I don't know enough to be able to write it. --Matsurika 02:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
The Corset and the Crinoline. A Book of Modes and Costumes from Remote Periods to the Present Time. By W.B.L. Lord, William Barry. [1868] Is the first book about/for tightlacing, but a fantasy-book or mythology of tightlacing. And all later literatures have this book as source. But this important book is not mentioned in the article. Haabet 10:31, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Tightlacing has its roots in the nineteenth century,when improvements in technology allowed the mass manufactureof corsets that were stronger than before.
I England and France all woman used corset long time before the mass manufacture of corset.
And a serious tightlacing demand a custom–tailored corset. 15:35, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Zora, I like that new history section you added. I had a thought about it, though. It's very informative, but so general about corsets that I think it would fit better in the corset section. Perhaps it would be good to divide it, place the general section under corsets, and keep the informative tightlacing info here. --Matsurika 22:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Matsurika, go ahead and do your best. You've shown good sense in edits so far. Zora 00:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A myth say: If you have any pain you can loosen the lace and remove the pain. But if you have pain, there is something serious wrong by the corset, and you have need of a new better corset. It is important as stomach and liver are pressed up i the chest, but if you loosen the lace they sink down to the thin waist. If the corset is correct the breathing in chest been better the more the lace been tighten in the waist, because the apexs of the lung opened by pressure from corset or enlarged womb, and you have poor breathing in chest by loosen lace.
While the majority of people involved in waist reduction are also involved in BDSM and called tightlacers, the existence of several books available for women who are not a part of the BDSM subculture indicates that the practice of waist training is not exclusive to BDSM.
No structural features distinguish a modern waist training corset from a corset worn as an external garment for special occasions. Training corsets are always made from strong fabric (or leather) and with relatively in-flexible boning (not all corsets are strong enough to mold a body). A training corset is designed to be used everyday, and will probably be hidden under clothing, so it is likely that practical aspects (comfort, ease of laundering) will have been stressed in it's construction over aesthetic ones.
Any style of corset can be used for tightlacing, although some styles are more popular and suitable than others. However, as the corsets necessary to maintain a body modification are no less rigid than those first worn to achieve the modification, there is no effective structural difference between corsets worn during training and those worn once the desired body shape is achieved. The term "training corset" can, therefore, be used for any corset worn by somebody undertaking corset training.
This talk page itself needs to be organized so we can see if there are still any outstanding rewrites. It isn't clear.
regarding neutrality dispute:
The first sentence acknowledges opinion, but the rest really starts to be pushed as fact. We need to keep it in encyclopaedic tone. Of course, you can't really prove the there aren't adverse effects if there are no studies to prove the effects are adverse, but there are no resources/studies given to prove it is safe either. This is really dangerous ground here; things should not be touted as fact. It's an opinion of one group, and is welcome to be represented, but not as fact. (Just as "the other" viewpoint is welcome to be represented, but not necessarily as fact). Give the readers the schools of argument, andresourcesto investigate. That's what an encyclopedia does.
"Effects of tightlacing on the body:
Contemporary tightlacers claim that tightlacing does not adversely affect the health, as was believed in the later Victorian era. Certainly, there are no contemporary medical sources condemning tightlacing, and the continued good health of modern day extreme tightlacers would seem to demonstrate that the practice is not dangerous if properly done. A safe training routine begins..."
Whoa.... safe? Whether I am biased or not (with good reason or not), that's a heck of a claim to be making. --Kat08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kat, you seem to be sensible. Caveat away. I think the article is positive partly as a reaction to German user named Haabet, who periodically attacks corset-related articles with animations, illustrations, and 100-year-old medical advice proving that corsets are deadly. I have googled extensively and was not able to find any CURRENT medical opinions contra tightlacing -- probably because it is such a minority practice now. So what we've got is current info saying that it's safe, and no contrary opinions. If you can find any, of course they should be put up. Zora08:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As with so many things, from dieting to skiing, it's probably safe with a little prudence. My personal experience, and that of others I know, is that we have noticed no ill effects. But, for example, it's easy to chafe or nip the skin if care isn't used - certainly an ill effect, if a minor one. I expect that if a complete novice went over the top, it could be harmful. - Taxwoman19:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add the following: The Duchess of Devonshire often talked about tightlacing in her letters in the 1780's, and hints that its almost a routine habit at court and high ranking social gatherings. Late 18th century corsets almost resemble the Edwardian corsets, as it tilts the wearer forward, enhances the bosom and narrows the back.
In the 17th century tightlacing was a standard method to 'control' naughty children who were corset training. The Diarist Evelyn records the sad day his young daughter died after an autopsy revealed that tightlacing broke a rib which was driven into her heart. Some 18th century books advice on tightlacing as a method to control teenage girls and young children who were unruly and disrespectfull to their elders. In the 1650's a famous paper was published 'The Artificial Changeling' that stated the horror and disgust of tightlacing - infact it lists very similar things to some 19th century writers. One of the comments was that "Tightlacing produced foul breath". Queen Elizabeth was reputedly fond of tightlacing, so I feel that the whole concept is as old as the actual Stays/Corsets themselves, and not a sole 19th century habit. I have done my best to ensure the above is correct, and some of the things mentioned can be cross-referenced on here as normal. Scarlet 82.25.194.19500:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scarlet, I'm not at all sure that you can compare 17th and 19th century tightlacing without considering the enormous changes in corset construction. The earlier corsets were cones, since the stiffeners (reeds, bones, etc.) were fairly rigid. Also, they did not extend below the waist. I believe that the late Victorian corsets, with their flexible spiral steel stays and extensions below the waist, were capable of much greater waist reductions. I agree that "tightlacing", or discomfort for the sake of vanity, has been a target for preachers for a long time, but the extreme tightlacing we're considering in this article (13" waists) is a later phenomenon. Hmmm, is all that in the article? Zora00:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could use "History of tightlacing" section as nucleus for "History of Corsets" article
The "History of tightlacing" section (mainly by you, Zora?) in this article is really kind of good; maybe this could be used as a nucleus for improving the "History of corsets" article, which is currently just Haabet's playground (== wasteland). Churchh20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grotesquely over-extended in all directions. If you want to challenge Haabet and use this history as a basis, PLEASE DO. I'll support you. It may come to an arbitration case, however. Zora22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't promise to attempt a major rewrite on "History of corsets" anytime soon, but at the very least I'll start by correcting his inaccurate Empire/Regency period info. Churchh04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, please see transvestite. The term is one which is overloaded with many different confusing meanings, which will not always apply here. I believe it's sufficient to say men - as a compromise, I've put a link to cross dressing, which is the more appropriate and accurate term here.
Can anyone explain what "male to female transvestite" is (especially since we still have another reference in the article to this)? The term "male to female" is usually only used in the context of transexuals, which is a very different thing. A man who wears clothing usually associated with women is not necessarily "male to female" in any sense. Mdwh |00:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transvestite means a person who wears the clothes of the opposite sex, generally with the intention of pretending to be a person of the opposite sex. Clearly, you have to say whether it is a man wearing female clothing or vice versa. I suppose you could just say "male transvestite" if you prefer. - Taxwoman14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This advertising both tell as Tight lacing exist and it was dangerous by the common Victorian corset.
It the only 'Judiy corset has advertising which tell about Tight lacing. Håbet 07:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
If the waist is tight and the waist bend, the tightlacer has got a pain. Of this cause the corset to Tightlacing have need of full hip, as the waist been stiff, but the full hip been first common in 1902. Håbet 08:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Corsets were first worn during the 16th century, and remained a feature of fashionable dress until the French Revolution (1789). These corsets were mainly designed to turn the torso into the fashionable cylindrical shape, although they narrowed the waist as well. They had shoulder straps; they ended at the waist; they flattened the bust, and in so doing, pushed the breasts up. The emphasis of the corset was less on the smallness of the waist than on the contrast between the rigid flatness of the bodice front and the curving tops of the breasts peeking over the top of the corset. There are no records of tightlacers at this time.
The corset then went into eclipse. Fashion embraced the Empire silhouette: a Graeco-Roman style, with the scanty skirts gathered under the bosom and the waist de-emphasised, and dresses sewn from thin muslins rather than the heavy brocades and satins of aristocratic high fashion.
The reign of the Empire waist was short. In the 1830s, shoulders widened (with puffy gigot sleeves or flounces), skirts widened (layers of stiffened petticoats), and the waist narrowed and migrated towards its "natural" position. By the 1850s, exaggerated shoulders were out of fashion and waistlines were cinched at the natural waist, above a wide skirt. Fashion had achieved what we now tend to remember as the Victorian silhouette.
In the 1830s, the artificially inflated shoulders and skirts made the intervening waist look narrow, even with the corset laced only moderately. When the exaggerated shoulders disappeared, the waist itself had to be cinched tightly in order to achieve the same effect.
--Haabet
It's setting the background, supplying context, and implicitly exploding some "urban fashion history myths" in a low key way. The way you hacked away large sections, and put small snippets of garbled English in their place, didn't really improve the article, Haabet. "Family Harald" is certainly a misspelling; please don't add it back unless you can spell it correctly and provide some context. Churchh03:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous contribution is from Haabet, who didn't sign. He has a bee in his bonnet about corsetting; he can be ignored. It was someone named Petaholmes who added the tag, but didn't explain him/herself on the talk page. I've left a message on his/her talk page asking for an explanation. I don't understand why the article should be considered "off" in tone; it describes in neutral fashion a controversial topic. Zora10:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article say:
Theoretically, it is possible to fracture the ribs through tightlacing, although the necessary pressure would be brutal and the tightlacer would feel acute pain. the lower ribs of many woman are very thin.
And a old corsetmaker say about 1930 in London Life: It is too rapid and extreme lacing that gets stays a bad name and makes the Editor say unkind things about them. The ribs had need of time to change form. Many woman have fracture in the ribs about a time of every year. Particularly the place beside of a old fracture have a great risk.
Håbet 21:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
To the right this stomach had a notch from the waist of a corset. But that was a damage from a middle tight ready-made corset by edged waist, and not a damage from a tight tailor-made corset, because in the tight corset the stomach is above the waist, as like this damage is impossible.
I know nothing of corsets or tightlacing.. so as someone who has come across this article and read it objectively I have to point out a couple of things;
Considering the corset article has a well written section entitle Health Risks... shouldn't there be at least a succinct version on the dangers of this practice.
The RISKS of this kind of body modification?
Rather than "shortness of breath", perhaps more use of terms like "lung-constriction" and "organ deformation" would be more encyclopaedic.
When it says "corset wearing was the norm" I think it is slightyl OTT considering the majority of women of that time would have been too poor to buy corsets, attend balls or even enjoy any socialising beyond the pub/farm/factory.
"Womens body sizes have increased since.." have they?
only rich women wore corsets? that seems incorrect, most dresses required some corsetery, not just ballgowns. these corsets provided some rigidity and support, but were not constricting enough to be major hassle for farm-women.
most victorian age women wore corsets (if only to have something to attach their heavy skirts to), but not all of them were tightlacers. kinda how most women today diet from time to time, but most aren't anorexic.
extreme tightlacing was mostly for young rich women: the paris hilton's of their time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.33.20.133 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two unscientific sketches from 1884: A, the natural position of internal organs.B, when deformed by tight lacing. In this way the liver and the stomach have been forced downward, as seen in the cut.
I am not sure what the point of this is. Is it to illustrate unscientific propaganda? Is it to illustrate pre-scientific understanding of problems associated with tightlacing? Something else? Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T03:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, despite it's pre-scientific, it's quite accurate. Because X-Ray was not possible source, it was probably created during autopsy...
There is a major problem - from our point of wiew, there is no scientific material, because methods were claimed to be NOT scientific.
But - it's really important..? Maybe they do not use scientific method, but death is death, no matter if described in easy way or in mathematic theory..
So we know, that corsets used to mutilate people - we dunno exactly why it happens (as it happened in pre-science days), but we know, that it happens - thx to lot of pre-scientific experience from time, when it was widely in use.. Maybe, with our medical knowledge, we can count damage caused on spine and how it will limit lifespan of tightlacer - but before that it should be stated, that tightlacing is not safe and what it cause.
Many books and articles was and are against Tightlacing and/or Corsets. And this illustration is unintentional humorous. The Neutrality of article demand something against Tightlacing/Corsets.
The fact is many been damaged of cheap corset, because cheap corset was to soft, but Tightlacing was in the upper-class, because Tightlacing demand expensive corsets.Haabet 23:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I am a pre-med major aiming at becoming a reconstructive surgeon; and this image is not accurate. The fact that anybody would believe that the liver and stomach could be forced into your pelvis like this image is depicting is a disturbing indication of the things people are willing to believe. This is not anatomically possible, so we need to change to reflect that this is not an accurate medical image.AerobicFox (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I think this photo is from Runcorn because that photo is correspond to other photos from Runcorn and do not have a source. The photo is changed, see the bosom is to low.
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see there has been a lot of talk about the poor quality of this article since 2004 and I must say the article is still in a terrible state. The most egregious problem is the almost complete lack of sources. Most of it sounds like it is written by someone who is interested in the modern practice and is passing on folk wisdom about it. Second, it is not clear whether the article is about the modern practice or the practice throughout history. I'm going to start cleaning up. Ashmoo (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
[User:AliceCorset], a had a look through your edits, but unfortunately they contain a lot of major problems. You are obviously interested in the subject and want to clear up the misconceptions about tightlacing, but after looking at the sources you provided, I do not think they qualify as WP:Reliable Sources by wikipedia standards. I think this because: 1. The source is a blog attached to a commercial enterprise. That is, the blogger is running a corset selling business. Which wouldn't necessarily be so bad except... 2. The cited blog posts cite no sources for any of the assertions made and 3. The posts repeat known myth about the Victorian era (such as the sheltered, fragile nature of Victorian women). Alice, I'd encourage you to keep editing, but please familiarise yourself with wikipedia rules. I am happy to help you, if interested. Since you haven't made any corrections in 2 weeks, I'm going to start fixing up the page now. Ashmoo (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image Image:corset 16inch.jpg is indeed altered, the bottom button is clearly drawn on. It looks to me as if the figure has been pasted over the background too, and I'm inclined to think there are other alterations. Given this I have removed it from the article.
While I have been aware of the practice of tightlacing for many years, my knowledge is very limited, and therefore I will be asking WP:Medicine at the very least to have a look at the article.
The current image Wasp waist.png appears to be altered. Between the woman's arms and her torso there is solid black where there should be a textured curtain. This suggests that the photograph was drawn over or otherwise manipulated to make the subject's waist appear slimmer. If the image is indeed altered, perhaps it should be removed or replaced so as not to mislead readers, or the description at least be changed.
It shouldn't be removed because it is an authentic manipulation, but yes, it needs to be noted that that woman's waist is not actually that small. There needs to be information about the modern perception of tight-lacing being inaccurate due to period manipulation of photographs and just fashion in general to manipulate and give the impression of a very small waist. Enlarge at the bust, shoulder and hips with padding and lots of fabric and you don't need to tighten the corset much to give the impression of a small waist. Basically no one tightened down to 18 inches when you examine actual corsets from that era. Hard to find scholarly articles on the subject, however. - Random Person 17 February 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.199.78 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this whole article is full of misleading information. Barely any of it is linked to a source. None of the sources and references linked should even be considered valid as they all come from sources not relevant or proven with further research to be biased opinions to cause fear. source 1: a book about sex and why females should submit. 2: modern day waist trainers. 3: just not trustworthy. 4: the equivalent of bad clickbait. 5: once again false claims made by sexist men who disagreed with something because they had no control over it. The whole history section is inaccurate or misleading. The Images referenced are either satires or just inaccurate. There is actually no proof of wearing a corset, set of stays and tight lacing having a genuine long term negative effect on the body. Tight lacing was shown to have a slight shift on the organs but it caused no damages. Pregnancy causes a much larger shift in a similar way. The whole article implies that tight lacing was what almost everyone did and has no clear distinguishing of the difference between women who wore corsets aka everyone and people who tight laced (a very small group of people).
This whole page seems to be written by someone who doesn't even understand what a corset is and the reason behind it in history. The article has a huge emphasis on corsets being to clinch the waist and while they did that it wasn't the point. Corsets were to support the bust and back and share the pressure evenly around the torso and hips so it was comfortable. Heidi7327 (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These two pictures are absolutely horrid! The first one does not even make sense! I mean, did you think that was true? That your organs would still work if they were in your butt?
I will cut you a little slack for that second picture but still. During the late 1800s, women would stand in front of black or white background, and paint over there waist to make them seem smaller. Like, olden day photoshop. But you should really fact check before you make an article. tightlacing was nothing like that, I could not even bring myself to read the whole article, but if you said that it caused fainting spells, are so wrong. It is almost impossible to hear about women fainting for no reason outside of old fiction. Women did not just faint because they were in a corset! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopard leo (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
This advertising both tell as Tight lacing exist and it was dangerous by the common Victorian corset.
It the only 'Judiy corset has advertising which tell about Tight lacing. Håbet 07:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
anonymous sock puppet of Runcorn, a dark image
