Corsetted (2011). Model: Carrie Pennington
A girl should be two things: sexy and fabulous. –Coco Chanel
[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Society seems to have always been obsessed with the shape of women’s bodies and women have always been looking for ways to alter their body shape to meet whatever the current fashions might dictate. Pretty much every body type imaginable has been “in” at one point in history or another. Never mind what might be natural or healthy, manipulating body proportions has been a consistent issue for women forever, presumably even dating back to the earliest cave dwellers. The ability to find a mate once depended on how a woman’s shape for her child-producing potential. If the woman didn’t meet that current standard, she could well be left out of the clan and would have to forage for herself. Women’s body issues go all the way back.
No one is exactly sure when women started undergarments designed to alter their shape, but there certainly have been many over the years. Petticoats and hoop skirts both created the illusion of broader hips while, presumably, protecting a woman’s purity. Precursors to the bra actually pushed down a woman’s breast to keep them from appearing too large. Most have, thankfully, gone so far out of style that they are now nothing more than museum pieces. Yet, at least since the 16th century, one piece has adapted and endured to become a cherished piece of a woman’s lingerie collection: the corset.
While there’s no documentation as to when corsets were first used, we do know that some of the earliest versions bordered on cruelty. The ribs were made of iron and pulled impossibly tight. Some speculation exists that they might have originally been meant as an orthopedic device, which makes a little sense despite the fact they were probably not very effective. By the mid-16th century, corsets, which were then known as stays, were more decorative and worn as external pieces over the bodice of a dress, but by a century later they were demoted strictly to underwear, beneath the bodice or other clothing.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Corsets softened considerably and became much more kind during the 18th century, though pulling one tight could be both comical to watch and deadly to experience. By the early 20th century, they were all but forgotten until photographer Horst P. Horst took the iconic photo of a woman in a corset that is the inspiration for today’s photo. That photograph brought new attention to the corset as a fashion piece with a number of variations being developed that were less restrictive to the abdomen and more supportive of the breasts.
Popularity waxed and waned over the mid-century decades, but then designer Jean-Paul Gaultier brought the corset back as an external garment in the 80s and they’ve not gone away since. Every season someone tries a slightly different variation, working them into styles from evening wear to casual streetwear. Look around and one can find a corset, or corset-type garment, for just about any occasion. They have almost become a standard part of a woman’s wardrobe and look sexy and alluring on many different body types, which give them a universal popularity.
We see a lot being said today about body shaming and its detrimental effects. While there is unquestionable validity to the movement, what ultimately matters is how a woman feels about herself. Corsets are attractive and for some women help them to feel more sexy and confident. While no one should ever feel forced to wear anything or feel obligated to look a certain way, one needs to feel good about themselves and corsets help do that. Whether over, under, or as the only garment, corsets produce a shape that is as unforgettable as the person wearing it.[/one_half_last]
Independent Thought
Tied To TV (2006)
“No man is great enough or wise enough for any of us to surrender our destiny to. The only way in which anyone can lead us is to restore to us the belief in our own guidance.” ― Henry Miller
[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Our obsession with media was predictable, and widely predicted. Even by 1964, when television was allegedly in its Golden Age, children’s author Roald Dahl saw the enslavement factor so obvious as to include it in one of the characters in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Saying matters have only grown worse since is a severe understatement. Not only have we become more enslaved by media, but we continually create new forms of media to keep our minds, and our opinions, closely tied to whatever output mechanism manages to keep our highly unreliable attention for more than five seconds. We know we’re addicted and that our habit is bad for us, but we are absolutely unwilling to even attempt to break the cord, firm in the belief that we are better off with the knowledge that media imparts.
Granted, there was one a time when media such as printed pamphlets and newspapers were beneficial. In fact, one can reasonably argue that our country’s Declaration of Independence from England would never have happened if not for the influence and information distributed by Thomas Paine is his Common Sense pamphlet. Since 1837, the press has wielded sufficient influence as to be referred to as the fourth estate (a reference to pre-revolution French society divided into the estates: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners). As the reach of the press grew, so did its influence. In 1897, Francis P. Church validated the presence of Santa Claus by telling little Virginia that, “If you see it in the Sun, it must be true.”
As the reach of the press grew, so did its influence. In 1897, Francis P. Church validated the presence of Santa Claus by telling little Virginia that, “If you see it in the Sun, it must be true.” Edward R. Murrow was the voice of all that was true in the 1950s and following him Walter Cronkite became known as “the most trusted man in America.” Not that everything in the field of journalism was always reliable, but there was a basis of trust and expectation of honesty that allowed people to ingest their information with a sense of security.[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]The media monster to which we are now tied has no sense of security to it at all. We have gotten to the point that we allow the media we consume to do all our thinking for us. If something is not validated by our preferred source, then it simply cannot be correct. That multiple sources are never in agreement doesn’t seem to bother us. We choose sides and assume that one is always wrong while the other is always correct, when often the truth of a matter is nowhere near what we’re being told by any major source.
Thomas Paine said something that I think is poignant:
Notice what is missing from that definition: external influence. Not that Paine expected people to just automatically know everything, but rather he expected that they would take information, such as what he produced, and use that to think, reflect, and come to a reasonable opinion of one’s accord. There’s not accommodation here for allowing any external party to make our opinions for us. In fact, Paine and his peers would find the degree to which we’ve surrendered our thought process to be quite alarming.
Declaring Independence from media is difficult. One has a need to be reasonably informed and the expectations of today’s society are such that one’s need for information is almost immediate. At the same time, though, we should never allow that media to do our thinking for us. Talking heads spouting opinion rather than fact need to be severed from the public arena and not fed their diet of shares and likes and hashtag mentions. We need to take time to step away, to reflect on what we’ve been told and form our own opinion, then see what thoughts might bolt into our minds of their own accord. [/one_half_last]
Share this:
Like this: