Talk:Tightlacing/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As for this piece: Current tightlacers usually have a partner, called a trainer, to help and support them. The partner might take on any of the following tasks:

help the tightlacer put on and take off the corset help him or her stick to the training schedule monitor the corset wearer's health monitor body changes and keep a log [1] (http://www.waspcreations.com/tp1.htm) Current tightlacers are often - but not necessarily - in a sexual and/or loving relationship with their trainer.

I don't really like it, it is like straying off the topic, especially the part about sex... And it is not really neutral. Many tightlacers are single and/or want to do do their corsetting by themselves. At least I know my body best so I want to be the one pulling the laces. And I know many tightlacers that have reached very narrow waist measurements and doing it themselves. The section may remain but by then I want someone to add that there's many single tightlacers (or people in relations but wanting to do themselves).

I'm sorry for not doing it myself, but I feel that my English and my knowledge in this matter is not good enough (I know that I'm bad writing in English, unlike some one here....)

I don't think it is straying off the topic; the day-to-day processes and procedures that a lot of tightlacers lay down for themselves (and their trainers) are an intrinsic part of tightlacing. This is especially true when BDSM is a part of that trainer-tightlacer relationship because it adds to the elements of control and submission. Also, many corset wearers have been prompted to start tightlacing by a boyfriend or a husband, or have not pursued their interest in tightlacing until they were in a relationship - see, for example, Ethel Granger, Cathie Jung, Amy of Wasp Creations, and Sylphide. I believe that the majority of tightlacers are part of a partnership - still, I do think it's worth adding something about single tightlacers.
- Katherine Shaw 09:41, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Self Tightlacing see narcissism, but mirrors was commen in advertising of corset.
In old days the mother or boarding school support the Tight lacing.
Haabet 14:31, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)


What kind of crap is that? Please have a look at the external link! --KF 11:17, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

from the Tightlacer article:

A tightlacer is someone (typically a woman) who has a deformed liver by a tight lacing corset, as the waist been between 18 and 13 inches. However, only few people who have have been tightlacers.

I don't want to sound impatient, but I cannot make head or tail of this nonsense. It's not just the grammar / syntax that drives me crazy. I still can't figure out what exactly a tightlacer is although I can of course roughly imagine. But this is an encyclopaedia, so please let's be precise to all intents and purposes! --KF 16:48, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

from the revised version:

However, only few people have been tightlacers.

--> Does this make any more sense now? What does this mean? That tightlacers belong to a dying ("have been") minority ("only few")? --KF 12:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Haabet's debatable additions

Okay, I think the sensible thing to do is to have a debate here on the talk page rather than making a chain of changes and reversions.

I believe the statement we're looking at is: "And the this effect make the lungs bigger, and big lungs give discomfort without corset. Of this cause tightlacers sleep in the corset." I presume that the link to a medical article that Haabet added [1] is supposed to be proof for this.

My observations:

  1. The article does not address tightlacing. It only looks at general corset wearing; the largest difference given is four and a half inches, which hardly constitutes 'tight'.
  2. Nowhere in the article does it state that corset wearing increases lung capacity; it only concludes that wearing a corset causes an increase in thoracic breathing.
  3. Furthermore, the article concludes that wearing a corset reduces overall lung capacity: as the table entitled 'Table Mowing the Effect of Comets on Expansion in Fifty-two Women' (sic) lays out, there is a reduction in lung capacity from 163.21 cubic inches when not wearing a corset to 133.54 cubic inches when wearing a corset.
  4. There is no proof offered that "big lungs" cause discomfort.
  5. While some tightlacers may find it comfortable to sleep in a corset, the main reason for wearing a corset while asleep is to maintain and further the waist reduction - comfort is a secondary aspect for which I have never come across before. There is no proof offered for this.

I think that's a pretty thorough refutation. Of course, anybody is welcome to refute my refutation. For the next few days I think it would be good manners to avoid changing that portion of the article so that we can hammer this problem out.

- Katherine Shaw 10:32, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear. Haabet has been at the article again. However, I'm starting to see that he HAS a position, which has been obscured by his gibberish prose. I thought that he was pro-corset in a strange, obsessed way, but it seems that he's anti-corset. It might be possible to rewrite the article in such a way as to make it more NPOV in his eyes. Zora 20:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The difference between of healthy corset and unhealthy corset is, as the healthy corset press up, and as unhealthy corset press down.
Because the body is construct as it can bear a heavy press up by the big belly which the pregnancy.
By the pregnancy, the ribs been spread as chest been bigger, as the chest have place to that entrails, which are moved from the waist.
By a healthy corset been the top of chest bigger, the more the corset been light laced, like by pregnancy.
But, if corset have the same lace, in waist and in chest. The top of the chest cannot grove when waist been light laced, and of this cause have a healthy corset two laces, one light for waist and one loose for the chest.
A healthy corsets have need of some base to press up the chest up. By shoulders or, by hip.
1. By shoulder straps, the straps have need to been tighten and inelastically.
2. By hip part of the corset, the corset has need of cover hip too spread the pressure. And have rigid bones in the back and of course a separate hip lace.
The corsets of today do not respect this rules and are of those course unhealthy.
And the common opinion of Tightlacing is correct: Tightlacing is dangerously.
A custom-tailored corset, do not help if the tailor not follow the rules of a healthy corset.
You have a possible opinion and I have a negative opinion, but I can argue the negative opinion.
Haabet 13:53, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Sigh

What drives me nuts about Haabet is that for someone so obsessive about a subject, he provides NO references whatsoever. Normally someone so obsessive about a subject like this has a whole library for bibliography ... —Morven 23:27, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Corsets are dangerous but can been harmless.

An ordinary corset will press the front of body down, when the lace been tighten.
It is dangerous and damages nearly all organs, except teeth.
A healthy corset press the front of body up, when the lace been tighten.
It is harmless, because the front of body can be violently press up under the pregnancy.
The corset can press the front of body up by a draw over the scolders or a press on the hip.
If the corset presses the front of body up by a draw over the scolders,
the weft (woof) has need too go from the scolders to the abdomen,
and from the scolders to the lower ribs.

If the corset presses the front of body up by a draw over hip,
the hip part, of corset has need of  a separate lace.
And the back of, hip part, of corset have need of strengthened back bones,
because weft (woof) has need too go from the top of back bones to the abdomen,
and from the back bones to the lower ribs.
Haabet, your additions make me very frustrated. Firstly, your English is bad and you are careless about spelling and grammar, to the point where it is nearly impossible to understand what you are saying. Your logic is unclear and difficult to follow.
Secondly, where is your evidence? I need to be able to find PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF.
Add these two things together, and they make your statements above absolute nonsense - although, from what I can decipher, they are illogical and nonsensical anyway.
When a corset is tightly laced, there will be little difference whether the front of the body is pressed up or down: the important factor is the compression, which forces organs to shift (and I personally suspect that how the organs shift is very much dependent on the individual).
There is no proof that the corset damages "nearly all organs" (how does the corset affect the brain, exactly?) - in fact, Valerie Steel (in The Corset: A Social History) offers medical evidence that the corset does not damage internal organs. In some rare cases, extreme tightlacing may cause the liver to develop an extra lobe and the pelvic floor muscles to weaken: but these two things do not constitute organ damage.
- Katherine Shaw 10:47, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

http://haabet.dk/patent/848479/index.html http://haabet.dk/patent/903073/index.html

I presume these patents are supposed to be proof for your statements. It does not prove anything: to be registered, a patent does not have to be verified or researched in any way. All it proves is that somebody had an idea that they thought would work, and that they had the time, money and tenacity to register that idea as a patent.
The first patent claims to be a large number of things; it does not claim to be a corset. In fact, it distinctly states that it is NOT a corset: it is only a "corset-like garment".
The second patent is not really for a corset at all: it is for a shoulder brace. As the patent itself says "its object is to provide certain new and useful improvements in shoulder braces, tending to hold the body view the wearer in proper position, with a view to insure an upright, healthy carriage..." While the design is based on a waist cincher style of corset, nothing of waist reduction is mentioned (let alone tightlacing - which is what this article is about, please remember! - or 'healthy' corsets, which subject you are so obssessively pursuing in inappropriate places).
And I restate that none of the information in these patents can really be verified: they claim to do many things - whether they actually do them I doubt very much.
- Katherine Shaw 10:47, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Do any make healthy corsets, today?! Nobody!
It is entirely irrelevant to this article whether any corsets made today are 'healthy'. Besides, you are not the final authority on what consitutes a 'healthy' corset. You have no evidence for your statements, and your original research is neither published nor peer reviewed, therefore the information that you are currently contributing to the Wikipedia is invalid.
- Katherine Shaw 10:47, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

versatile_fashions

Date: Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:23 pm Subject: Corsets and Sex

ADVERTISEMENT

Thank you to all of you who have written and requested more information about how a corset might enhance the sexual experience. Instead of answering you all individually, I will post a message here so all may enjoy.

First there is the sensation for the wearer of being bound up tightly. Many women report this is the ultimate aphrodisiac. This in itself can be great foreplay, slowing down the process and creating a magnificent visual for the eyes. The wearer becomes the center of attention as her female delights are enhanced and amplified. She will feel a rush of blood to her head creating an enhanced sense of awareness.

Some prefer to keep their corset on during sex as they find it pushes blood to the head and genitals, the two main sex organs. It also creates shallower breathing which can create more powerful orgasms.

Others have their lover(s) remove the corset which not only gives a sense of release but causes the blood to rush to the skin creating an over-all "body rush". The sensation of being touched becomes greatly enhanced and the skin tingles and glows warm.

So now you know why the corset is still around after 4000 years. For the sexual adventurer, it will take you to sensual dimensions you have not yet experienced!

Of course there is no reason that a corset cannot be worn by a man. Many men have discovered the pleasures of the corset and wear one regularly. The extra protection for the back is especially helpful to those who have had injuries in that area.

when the body been glows warm. The blod came from the liver. The corset press the liver as the booddisappear.

The blod in feminine genitals came from the uterus. Haabet 10:58, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

What is this supposed to prove? Where did this 'advertisement' come from? Several of the claims made in it seem highly contentious - particularly that removing the corset is a good idea because of the "body rush"; many (probably the majority) of tightlacers know the importance of loosening a tightly-laced corset gradually and slowly to prevent discomfort and faintness.
You write about the blood as if it stays in one place, is moved around by compression when wearing a corset, and then rushes around as soon as it can! How ridiculous! If nothing else, blood carried to certain organs (the liver or the uterus, to take your examples), and is then returned to the heart - it doesn't make a full round of all the organs. (The exception, I believe, is the portal vein, which moves blood from some parts of the digestive system to the liver - which then returns to the heart).
Haabet, most of the time you post utter rubbish: illogical, ill-conceived rubbish that's difficult to understand and that you haven't thought out properly - so often you'll say one thing, retract it when challenged, and then post something different buy equally idiotic! If you have good points to make, you are stopping people from understanding them by your own methods.
- (frustrated) Katherine Shaw 10:47, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry about your frustrating, but I have need of some informations, the article say: "Modern research into corset wearing and the study of modern day extreme tightlacers has demonstrated that gradual training poses no risk to health"

I do know two Tightlacers. The one stop by Tightlacing by intense pain, but after two years by discomfort she had need to start by tightlacing again. (fracture in ribs, enlargement of lungs) The another tightlacer had problem by indigestion.

I will like to help they, and have need of your Modern research.

I am sorry to hear that some people you know have injured themselves through tightlacing. However, I stand by what I wrote, and I stress that it is gradual tightlacing that is safe. Perhaps some more information on what "gradual" tightlacing means would be appropriate, something along the lines of:
A safe training routine starts with the use of a well-fitted corset (most serious tightlacers have at least one custom-tailored corset) and very gradual decreases in the waist circumference - it will take a tightlacer at least eight months (and possibly up to eighteen) to acheive reductions of more than a few inches. Attempting large reductions in waist circumference before properly accustomed to the torso constriction can cause extreme discomfort, and possibly difficulties with indigestion and respiration.
It's not really appropriate to discuss your acquaintances' problems here. The Wikipedia is not here to help them (and other tightlacers in difficulty) by allowing you to publish your original research. I don't mean to be callous, but that's the way it is!
- Katherine Shaw 10:45, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

List of problems in the article

  • In the victorian period it was only a small upper-class who practice the tightlacing. It is not in the article.
  • In the Edwardian time was tightlacing more commen as in victorian period. It is not in the article.
  • 24/7slaves like corset because it is oppressed women. It is not in the article.
  • The tightlacing is two Body modification.
1. raised chest, as the waist been longer and higher. It is not in the article.
2. stretch of back musculature as the waist been more round, and have smaller circumference. It is not in the article.
  • By pregnancy the press from the abdomen open the edge of the lungs, for better respiration. Some corset, shoulder brace, stays and corset by shoulder brace, can give the samme press, of this cause better respiration. But many other corsets press opposite. It is not in the article.

Haabet 14:03, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

To answer you point by point:
  • There is no statistical evidence about who tightlaced in the nineteenth century. Your assertion that upper-class women were the majority of tightlacers is based on three assumptions, I think:
  1. That upper-class women were more likely to follow fashion (because they had the time and the money to do so);
  2. That the extremely small waist shown in contemporary fashion plates was the desire of every woman who considered herself fashionable;
  3. That every woman who considered herself fashionable and could tightlace did in fact tightlace.
I don't agree with any of these assumptions, for the following reasons:
  1. Fashion can be an important tool to construct identity for women of all classes, and I would say that for some groups of working-class women it might be the most important tool as it is the closest to the body (and hence the most likely to speak about identity) - unlike some other things, like social status (which is dependent on money, and is therefore less stable because of the lower clases often precarious financial position), or homes (not portable or easily adapted);
  2. There is plenty of evidence that an extremely small waist was considered vulgar, even amongst the fashionable, just as super-skinny celebrities are criticised today;
  3. Tightlacing is a long-term training regime that requires a determined personality and a fair bit of endurance - not every woman has the right character for tightlacing, I think - and while many nineteenth century women did lace themselves tight (going tighter for special occasions) this is not the same as the 'reduce reduce reduce' programme of tightlacing.
I have patents which speech about tight lacing of natural waists. I think the article have need of a historical part.

Haabet 20:42, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

A patent is not strong evidence for a widespread practice. A patent is one person's idea. Now, if you could show that a patent went into production, was advertised, and was bought by a significant number of women, then that would be proof that tightlacing was widespread and accepted practice. However, I stress again that a patent proves very, very little.
I agree that a historical perspective on tightlacing would improve the article. The problem is that it is not clear what would have been considered tightlacing in the nineteenth century. In a time when wearing corsets from a relatively young age (the early teens) was nearly universal for women, what would have been deemed tightly laced, and what would have been normal?
Today tightlacing is nearly always associated with BDSM; that was hardly the case for the Victorians and Edwardians. Staylace.com's resident doctor reckons that tightlacing is about "enhancing" body shape so that the natural woman's waist-to-hip ratio is reduced from the natural average of around 70% to under 60%.
I was wondering what kind of sizes and reduction this would represent for the average Victorian/Edwardian woman - particularly in relation to the nineteen inch corsets of which girls were reported to have boasted. I haven't been able to find any reliable data about average body size in the nineteenth century; the earliest reliable figures are for the 1950s, which would probably be a bit larger than the average Victorian woman. Anyway, using the 1950s measurements (27.5 inch waist and 39 inch hips), a 23 inch waist would give an enhanced shape, and a waist to hip ratio of under 60%. That's a reduction of only 4.5 inches, and considering that for modern women considering buying a corset they are advised to buy one with a waist measurement four inches less than their natural waist measurement, 4 inches hardly seems to qualify as tightlacing. A 4 inch reduction is relatively easy to get used to, and can be achieved even when a corset is worn only occasionally. On the other hand, the two most famous tightlacers, Cathie Jung and Ethel Granger, achieved reductions of 10.5 and 10 inches respectively - they are definitely tightlacers. So it seems reasonable to say that tightlacing means a reduction of more than 6 inches. For the average 1950s woman, this would give a waist of 20.5 inches - and given that corsets were not always laced closed, she could wear a 19 inch corset with a 1.5 inch gap at the back. (Somebody has pointed out that corsets' waist measurements were always given for when the garment was laced closed, so a 19 inch corset does not necessarily mean a wearer with a 19 inch waist!)
Of course, that's my modern perspective (and is guesswork and rough estimations). Nineteenth century women, used to wearing corsets, might have generally tolerated greater reductions because they were used to the corset.
In short, my point is that even though small waist measurements and small corsets are often reported, these are not reliable, and can be misleading, particularly when you consider that women were smaller in the nineteenth century. Nobody, as far as I know, has come to any reasonable conclusions about tightlacing in the nineteenth century. And you must remember that you are assuming that all corset wearers were tightlacers!
In light of this, I think a good historical summary might run along the lines of:
Tightlacing has its roots in the nineteenth century, when improvements in technology allowed the mass manufacture of corsets that were stronger than ever before. The Victorian and Edwardian ideal of female beauty emphasised a small waist, and it was widely accepted that corsets were used to reduce the size of the natural waist. However, it is important to note that although some nineteenth century women had waist measurements that today's tightlacers would envy, they cannot easily be classified as tightlacers. Firstly, women's bodies have increased in size since the nineteenth century, so waist measurements that seem small today might not have been considered so by Victorians. Secondly, as corset wearing was the norm in the nineteenth century it is possible that women tolerated proportionally greater reductions as a matter of course, without thinking of themselves as tightlacers. There were also factors that put women off tightlacing. Medical reports and rumours claimed that tightlacing was fatally detrimental to health, which it was not. Women with small waists were condemned for their vanity and being slaves to fashion, and it was frequently claimed that too small a waist was actually ugly, rather than beautiful.
- Katherine Shaw 12:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
http://haabet.dk/patent/GB191207474/
http://haabet.dk/patent/433095/index.html
If you look at those patents. They more think on expand the chest by Tightlacing, only a little on the waist. If you expand the chest, you get a new thinly waist over the natural waist. Becorse the distance between chest and hip been longer.
In the eighteen-hundreds the doctors have big problems because they do not know the cause of many diseases. They justify they by by saying that: cause was the corset. And some time it was correct, because a healthy corset have need of shoulderstraps or a long hip-part; or the chest prees the abdomen down.
Again, you offer patents as proof. Tell me why I should believe anything that a patent claims. Remember that the straight-fronted corset was claimed to be the healthiest style of corset ever made, and was patented as such - and then went on to cause more discomfort than any other corset! Until you can demonstrate that each patent works, I will not believe that they do. I have already explained why I do not believe patents are proof of anything; until you can persuade me otherwise, we're just going to keep going around in circles. I'm not even going to debate your statements, because there is not point until you offer proof other than patents.
- Katherine Shaw 09:41, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • It is arguable that more women did lace tight in the Edwardian period - certainly the design, construction and materials for corsets had developed to allow even greater waist reductions, and the fashions seemed to demand smaller waists - but again, without statistical evidence it's just speculation.
The article only say: The Victorian period, and any thing about the Edwardian period.
Ah, but you said above that "In the Edwardian time was tightlacing more commen as in victorian period."
- Katherine Shaw 12:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


  • Tightlacers are not necesarily oppressed, and many tighlacers would actually be offended by this assumption. Corseting can give the wearer the sense that she is controlling her body, shaping her identity, and taking charge of her sexuality - it is a very proactive thing, and not something that could easily be forced upon somebody today. Of course, if a women feels compelled to wear a corset, for whatever reason or by whoever, that can be oppressive. And what do you have to say about male tightlacers like Mr Pearl? Is he oppressed, like female tightlacers?
  • The kind of body modifications that a corset will effect are dependent very much on the design, so it's difficult to say what changes tightlacing will have specifically on the body. I'm particularly unsure about tightlacing causing a "round waist", as this would require a corset to put more pressure on the sides of the waist, instead of equal pressure all round, to pop it out of its natural oval shape - I can't think how this would be done.
The corset have the samme ressure all round the body, but in sides all pressure are on inch and in back and in the front all the pressure is scattered. Haabet 20:42, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. It's illogical that a corset could apply equal pressure all around (as you say), but for that pressure to act on the sides more than on the front or the back of the torso.
- Katherine Shaw 12:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you mean about "pressing" the edge of the lungs to get better respiration; can you give a reference so that I can cheack on this?
- Katherine Shaw 10:45, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

You say: I don't know what you mean about "pressing" [up of] the edge of the lungs to get better respiration; can you give a reference so that I can cheack on this? It is general knowledge, ask your librarian: "How did a pregnant survived by compressed lungs?" http://www.staylace.com/textarea/10things.htm Things I don't like about wearing a corset:
A little ache around the ribs if the corset has been laced a little too tightly in the upper portions. If the top of lace press in, the edge of the lungs the respiration been poor. Haabet 20:42, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

What I did not understand was your designation of "the edge of the lungs" - I suppose you mean the pressure under the lungs pressing them upwards and causing an increase in thoracic breathing?
- Katherine Shaw 12:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
the under edge of the lungs, are under the ribs, and the ribs been press up of the corset, if the corset is correctly.
You can have a thoracic breathing, without the open the under edge of the lungs. Only by a correct corset and by pregnancy the under edge of the lungs been open.
The sentence "If the top of lace press in, the edge of the lungs the respiration been poor" makes absolutely no sense - it's your bad English coming in again.
- Katherine Shaw 12:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
If the top of lace press the long ribs in, the under edge of the lungs been closed, and the respiration been poor.
Haabet 15:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
This is just your theory, supported by patents (which are no proof at all) - it is your original research. I'm not going to bother to argue about this unless you give me something concrete to go on.
- Katherine Shaw 09:41, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
The normally theory is: the Tight lacing is harmful because it block the abdominal breathing.
Me theory is: If the corset press low on the chest, the corset improve the thoracic breathing.
You have right Wikipedia can only say: Tightlacing is harmful, cruel, oppressed the woman.
Haabet 14:31, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
It's nice that you're agreeing with me, but, er, it's only an opinion that "Tightlacing is harmful, cruel, oppressed the woman" - and one that I must disagree with! (I've debated those points above.)
- Katherine Shaw 15:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Can Haabet argue?

Haabet said:

"You have a possible opinion and I have a negative opinion, but I can argue the negative opinion."

Haabet, you can't argue properly when you can't write English!

The problem with your arguments is that you have NO contemporary references, not one. You keep bringing up 100-year-old medical opinions, from the height of the anti-corset movement, as if they were contemporary. But at the present time, only a tiny sub-culture of enthusiasts practices tight-lacing. No one is upset about it, no one is worried about it, no one is crusading against it -- except you. Because of personal experiences, which we cannot properly evaluate. We don't know if your friends were proceeding with all due caution or if they were breaking all the safety rules.

Now it might very well be a good idea to have more in Wikipedia about the dress reform and anti-corset movement. I keep meaning to write the article. Perhaps also more in the tightlacing article about the anti-corset movement. But we really can't say that there's a contemporary anti-corset movement if it consists of one guy from Denmark who writes in fractured English. Zora 21:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/g/Talk%7ETightlacing_Archive_1_cbf6.html"