Talk:Tightlacing

message: 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. 
Ninquelosse (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs rewriting

message: Where in the world did this come from?
"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)
thread_title:  Removed non-encyclopedic mess 

message: 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, and resources to 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. --Kat 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Zora 08:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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? Zora 00:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Still needs some work/Neutrality

message: 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). Churchh 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Zora 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Churchh 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Could use "History of tightlacing" section as nucleus for "History of Corsets" article

message: Regarding my recent change:
*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)
replies: text: 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. - Taxwoman 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Male-to-female transvestites"

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Technique

message: I do not see the relevance of that text:
: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. Churchh 03:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted

message: 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)
thread_title: fracture the ribs

message: :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?
:quote from; 
:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071721
:"The average height before the 20th century was about 10 cm (∼4 in)shorter than today." = 5.8% difference
:"...waist measurements that seem small today might not have been considered so by Victorians."
:A 5.8% difference on a waistline of 60cm is ~3cm (an observer wouldn't be able to notice that difference, let alone approve or disapprove of it).
:Seems to be a fairly blatant OR statement given the above figures.
:Having looked also at the corset page and this image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GutesKorsettSchlechtesKorsett2.png), does anyone else find it strange that all the micro-waist tightlacers fit under the "bad" image.58.178.137.100 (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: 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)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: 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.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Image and other issues

message: 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.
Does anybody have any thoughts on this problem?
Sardhrantor (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image issues - Photo editing and image manipulation

message: 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)
thread_title:  misleading 

message: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/ANatural_-_BTight_lacing.png
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wasp_waist.png
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)
thread_title:  Clearly has no idea what they are talking about