Why corsets aren’t the terrible patriarchal torture devices everyone thinks they are
a brief history of corsetry; were Victorian waistlines really that small?
Few garments in history have received as much criticism as the Victorian corset, which still to many is considered a physically damaging symbol of historical female oppression which induced; insert list of ceaseless diseases and ailments feebly or not at all proven to have been caused specifically by corsetry.
Although it is true the Victorian corset did cause some issues, they aren’t quite as horrific as is often suggested.
It’s important to note that costs during the Victorian era were a wardrobe basic. For the upper class, for the poor, for women who worked, for women who were pregnant, even some men wore corsets. The garment was usually moulded to each individual body in order to support and apply pressure equally, not just to cinch in the waist, which made it extremely difficult to touch your toes. Corsets preceded the bra, and so one of its’ jobs was to evenly distribute the weight of the chest across the body and to support the hips, which often held up layers and layers of garments and weighty dresses.
Cosets have often been associated with the inability to breathe, and fainting spells. Countless period drama celebrities have complained about the effects of wearing them whilst on set:
Kiera Knightley — “You can’t literally draw a breath to try and centre yourself again. It’s no wonder they were sort of fainting all over the place.”
Lily James — “My corset was so tight, I could only have liquid food,”
The are various reasons for these complaints. A corset requires extensive fittings, and ‘Breaking in’; wearing it for small amounts time daily so that it slowly moulds to fit. (in a similar way to Doc Marten’s). Under the time constraints and chaos of film production, it’s highly unlikely corsets for period dramas had enough time to be fitted well and properly broken in. Thus, it is no surprise they cause such discomfort.
Costumers were corsets all day and engage in a variety of sports and activities. Opera singers sing perfectly well in their Victorian corsets. In Victorian times there were even corsets designed for cycling.
Furthermore, corsets and tightlacing are not the same things. The corset being the actual garment itself, and tightlacing being the act of cinching in the corset as seen done by a maid in many a period drama. Tightlacing on a daily basis was actually very uncommon for the average Victorian woman, and even when she did tight lace, this was not usually more than 1–2 inches smaller than her natural waist size.
Why is it that we all have such preconceptions about tiny Victorian waists?
This is partially down something which is still an issue today; poor media representation.
The Victorian era was no different. All the most popular magazines and adverts for fashion and corsetry displayed drawings with particularly small waists, aligning with ideals of beauty. Even photographs were physically manipulated (yes Victorian photoshop if you will) to make waists appear smaller. This has lead to ridiculous conclusions being drawn that therefore all Victorian women must have looked exactly like the magazine drawings whose waists were as wide as their necks.
There are no existing records of any woman having had ribs removed to fit into a corset, which makes sense given the chances of death by early 19th-century surgery.
An article called ‘the use and abuse of the corset’ from a ‘The Delineator’ magazine, published in 1909 gives a fascinating perspective as to how to correctly wear a corset so as to not risk harm:
‘A healthy and sensible corset is one which reaches from five to seven inches below the hips, completely encircling the lower abdomen and bony structures which form the pelvis. The hygienic hose supporters assist in keeping the corset in this situation; it is now laced from below upward. The pelvis is thus held firmly in its normal horizontal position. The spinal column assumes its normal vertical position, and the support is uniformly upward.’
This is not to say that corsets were without their faults. They could cause some weakening of the back muscles, but there is no real evidence that they had hugely negative health implications as is often suggested. Thus it infuriates me that the corset is still seen as the cancer and hysteria causing historical torture device. So next time someone brings up how corsets were the spawn of the devil himself, tell them not to act like such a male-owned 19th-century newspaper.
