When one first thinks of corsets, often paintings of women with tiny 20 inch waists, newspaper clippings depicting squished internal organs, and horror stories of the diseases and conditions supposedly caused by the “torturous devices” come up. However, corsets in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries were actually often the exact opposite: they helped facilitate the fashion standards at the time while becoming a feminist statement.
What is a corset?
The first issue with the belief that corsets were harmful originates from confusion and a lack of education around the iterations of the corset itself. The “corset” of the Elizabethan period (16th century) focuses on slimming the entire upper body to conform to the beauty standards of the time. Edwardian corsets were typically structured with whalebone, although women who could not afford a custom-made corset could easily make one at home with thin reeds and sackcloth [Figure 1]. Later, in the early 19th century, dresses’ waistlines rose to right under the bust, resulting in softer and shorter corsets, more aligned with the stays of the late 18th century [Figure 2]. Since the waist was now hidden by a light, flowy dress, the need for support around it disappeared, and corsets got shorter, only covering the bust (to help push up the breasts) and the top of the ribcage [Figure 3]. Some early Regency corsets featured light to no boning at all. Women could even go without a corset at all, although, if the support was needed, they wore a light pair closely resembling the aforementioned stays.
In the 19th century, the lower waistline returned and a new type of corset emerged. In the 1810’s, these corsets were sewn out of a thick cotton material and extended down to cover the hips [Figure 4]. Gradually through the 1820s, the corset gained new gussets around the hips and bum to allow for movement and boning began to be used again [Figure 5]. The eyelets in these corsets were often hand-stitched, thus impeding on the ability to tightlace. A “busk,” a modern-day paintstick sized wooden stick was added between the breasts to create clear separation between them. By the 1830’s, metal was beginning to be used as eyelets and for busks, and a new type of extremely comfortable woven corset debuted. With the rise of slim waists popularized by Queen Victoria, tight-lacing gained popularity through the 1840s and 1850s, where corsets covered more of the abdomen and could thus “suck in” more of the stomach [Figure 6]. It’s important to distinguish that when speaking about “corsets,” the common version referenced is these newer versions from the Victorian era.
Figure 1.
Figure 4.
Figure 2.
Figure 5.
Figure 3.
Figure 6.
Tiny Waists
One of the most common misconceptions is that every corset-wearer laced down to a 24-, 23-, 22-, or even 20-inch waist. However, this idea is not necessarily outlandish, nor is it exactly true. Look at the modern waist sizes of clothing marketed today—Forever 21 lists a size small as a 25-26 inch waist, not too far off of the “crazy small” Victorian waist corsets are known for producing. Moreover, it’s highly likely that corsets were made in various sizes for all body shapes, as it was socially unacceptable for a long period of time to not wear a corset. Plus, the “proof” of the surviving corsets having small waists can be attributed to a lack of everyday wear, as many of them are from royalty or teenagers who grew out of them, and that the ones worn by common people wouldn’t have preserved well or been donated to research.
Tightlacing
Furthermore, “tight-lacing,” where corsets would be laced as tight as possible to achieve the smallest waist, was never a universal practice. Tightlacing came from the post-revolution fetishization of corsets, where the tight waist and raised breasts from the undergarment resulted in a more “youthful” appearance. It also facilitated the cultural fetishization of breasts by pushing them up from below. Tightlacing is often compared to Chinese footbinding, another fashion fetish where women’s feet were bound at a young age. However, tightlacing was rarely enforced on children, in fact, over the 19th century corsets on adolescents effectively disappeared.
Contrary to popular belief, tightlacing reached its peak when feminism was most popular in the 1870s to 1880s. Women used their corsets to regain their femininity, as they argued that fashion is an “individually chosen and easily changeable style.” Plus, reclaiming the power of tightlacing, which previously was encouraged by men for their own sexual desires, allowed women to recover their right to their own libido, and control mens’ at the same time.
Likewise, unmarried lower-classed women could use deliberately-timed tightlacing to hide unwanted pregnancies and, in some cases, give themselves abortions. This concerned male doctors, as they worried about declining birth rates and believed a woman’s role was to reproduce. Thus, many doctors falsely blamed deaths, illness, and disease on corsets and discouraged women from wearing them. In fact, in Russia, Bulgaria, and Romania, where women had the fewest rights and whose governments were regarded as the most politically repressive, corsets were outlawed in schools and workplaces.
Health Issues
Corsetry’s connotations today revolve around health concerns, with false beliefs that they cause permanent deformations [Figure 7]. The idea that women had rib-removing surgeries in order to create a smaller waist for themselves is most definitely false, as in the Victorian era the risks of a surgery of that regard would have very likely led to death. Plus, corsets would not have been able to cause deformations of the ribcages, as after taking the device off the ribs and flesh would simply move back to their proper position in the body. It could be possible if the corset was worn from a very young age, however, as mentioned previously, this was phased out by the early 1800s. Nor do corsets cause liver damage, although they do press it down and in, but even if they were to cause slight issues, they would not lead to the health problems typically associated with corsets. Extreme biases against corsets from the doctors of the time have led to the stigmatization around them and myths being circulated without proper evidence. Even modern-day, the boning types in corsets on a limited sample showed positive body comfort and physiological responses, specifically when exercising in a corset.
Moreover, corsets towards the early 20th century were typically of the “S-bend” style that flattened the chest and emphasized hips. The purpose of these corsets were initially medical before they were adopted by fashion designers, as Dr. Inès Gâches-Sarraute, the creator of the “S-bend” corset and physician, searched for a possible solution for the gynecologist issues many of her patients experienced. Her abdominal corsets provided support to the abdomen and removed pressure on the diaphragm. They also supported the weight of breasts, removing the strain on the back, essentially acting as the precursor to modern-day brassieres. Thus, the style of corsets during this period actually provided medical benefits rather than the assumed detriments.
Complaints
Today, actresses who star in historical-era films and who must wear corsets for accuracy often state discomforts about the undergarment. That is often due to skinny women being casted, then the costuming department trying to lace their already small waist down even more. However, lacing works by squeezing the fat or excess skin into a shape: bonier figures lack the moldability of larger bodies, and trying to achieve a Victorian figure by simply tightlacing actresses only leads to negative experiences. Instead, costumers should use augmentation to maintain historical accuracy and comfort. Augmentation works by adding padding to the breasts and hips to create the illusion of a small waist. As David Kunzle states in his novel, “Historians, like fashion advertisers, accept that the waist can be small without being compressed, and that it can appear tight without actually being so.” Filling out the figure above and below the waist makes the waist look smaller, without having to lace actresses incredibly tight. Ultimately, these actresses’ poor experiences with corsets and their unfortunate pushing of the negative connotations around the antique practice of corsetry continues to misinform the public about corsets and hides the feminist role corsets once played.