Forum: Author Hangout

I meant nothing under the camisole. She is not large on top and doesn't need a corset.

The function of a corset is to restrict/narrow the waist, not to support the bust. In fact there were/are corsets that don't cover the bust at all. Just the thing for a woman with not much bust. Gives her that hourglass figure despite the lack of bust.

As to men's underpants, the Union suit isn't the only option. Drawers were around for both men and women. These were a light weight cotton pants with a tie closure for the waist available in both full leg and shorts (that would have been the precursor to modern elastic waist boxer shorts).

http://www.ushist.com/mens_1800s_clothing/lfhp-drawers_drawers_longjohns_unionsuits.shtml

And yes, Union suit is capitalize, as it's the proper name of the outfit, even if it's not a product or company title.

So my imagination combines that statement with;

In fact, in New England, it would get so cold, that few bothered taking them off for the entire winter (another use for the drop drawers in the back and the piss-buttons in the front).

And hey presto, the name Union suit came about because in those winter climes a man and woman could button the flaps of their suits to each others suits so as to enable frostbite free copulation. A true Union suit if ever there was one...

:)

The 'Union suit' was primarily designed for Northerns (anywhere from New England to Virginia

My understanding is that they came in lighter versions for summer wear. The name comes from them being standard issue for the Union army. They were necessary even in summer because the course materials of the outer uniform would cause skin irritation/chafing problems, so the soldiers needed long sleeve and long legged under garments, not for protection from the weather, but for protection from their uniform.

The function of a corset is to restrict/narrow the waist, not to support the bust. In fact there were/are corsets that don't cover the bust at all. Just the thing for a woman with not much bust. Gives her that hourglass figure despite the lack of bust.

For anyone wanting to see a pretty girl getting dressed, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmO7rBMdoU

That video says that the purpose of stays (the old name for corset) was 'to support the bust, rather than restrict the waist'.

Whether this is wrong, or changes, by the Wild West I have no idea.

That video says that the purpose of stays (the old name for corset) was 'to support the bust, rather than restrict the waist'.

It depends on the time period I suppose.

http://thedreamstress.com/2013/08/terminology-whats-the-difference-between-stays-jumps-a-corsets/

As waistlines dropped in the late 1810s, boning returned to undergarments. Corset, however, remained in use as a term for supportive undergarments, but now referring to the more boned, waist-cinching undergarments, rather than the soft waistcoats they had originally indicated.

It became the fashion in the mid 19th century for women to wear very tightly laced corsets specifically to make their waists narrower.

So tight, that they could make breathing difficult. When you hear references from that period about women passing out from 'the vapors', an over tight corset was probably the real cause.

That's probably what became the girdle.

Yep, the corsets of that era were closer to what would be called a girdle today than they were to the stays of earlier times.

That's probably what became the girdle.

A corset has stays, a girdle does not.

Whilst to a point their effects are similar, they are not interchangeable. Wearing a corset is VERY different to wearing a girdle.

And didn't girdles have garter clips to hold up stockings?

Some did yes, as did some corsets. So garter clips isn't helpful in defining which is which.

However, don't let me interrupt you, by all means get back on to the "Old West".

The ideal of the day was an 18 inch waist. Even though women then were physically smaller than today that would still take quite a bit of restriction for most women.

that would still take quite a bit of restriction for most women.

Enough restriction to result in chronic oxygen deprivation, and thus the reputation for women fainting at the drop of a hat.

Women didn't always wear underpants in those times.

This actually stopped in the early 19th century.

You might find this article interesting: https://recollections.biz/blog/bloomers-pantaloons-and-knickers-oh-my/

The solution was easy. No panties. Yep, for a large part of history, women didn't wear underwear (as we know it) at all.

See now, that "as we know it" is a huge qualifier that makes a lot of difference.

Did you look at that link I posted?

Pantaloons, drawers, knickers, and bloomers. What do all of these items have in common? During the 1800's all were adopted by women as a necessary article of clothing. During the early nineteenth century women did not typically wear anything under their skirts and petticoats. However, during the empire period early in the century, women's clothing became lighter and thinner, and the fabric very sheer. Modesty and warmth dictated that another garment be worn under these sheer gowns, and the practical solution was to adopt a warm undergarment called pantaloons, which was already worn by men. These pantaloons were made of a light material that was flesh-toned, Extended from the waist to the ankle, and gave the appearance of having nothing on under the dress.

And this:

These undergarments were sewn as two separate pant legs, which were joined only at the waist, leaving the crotch open. (Thus – we get the term a pair of pants) A very full cut ensured that this open seam would remain closed while being worn.

It should be noted that men's pantaloons, also made that way were outerwear, not underwear.

My female character is wearing crotch-less pantaloons.

They aren't exactly crotch-less. There's no crotch seam, but there's enough material there that if she was standing in front of you in just her pantaloons, you wouldn't be able to see her crotch.

There's actually more material (from each pant leg) in the crotch than in modern pants, it's just not sewn together.

I believe that burlap was not favored, being too rough. I think they preferred old flour sacks, much softer.

Women didn't always wear underpants in those times. But I believe the pantaloons were open at the crotch so that works out good. As to the guy, he rode on horseback from his ranch to her house in town. He needs underwear.

I think you are right about the pantaloons being open. The might not have been completely open though. Think of two overlapping sections of fabric, similar to the opening in men's tighty-whities, but looser. Ladies didn't want to need to completely undress when 'making water'.

The might not have been completely open though.

It's completely open in the sense that there is no connection/seam between the two legs. This is where a "pair" of pants comes from.

In the same way the ladies then wouldn't have needed to undress to 'make water', they wouldn't have to undress for sex.

I don't believe that had anything to do with the design.

So? The law of unintended consequences.

It's completely open in the sense that there is no connection/seam between the two legs. This is where a "pair" of pants comes from.

In the same way the ladies then wouldn't have needed to undress to 'make water', they wouldn't have to undress for sex.

I think we are both describing the same thing in different ways.
:)

Getting back to the Old West, I discovered that elastic was around back then so stockings (cotton or wool) could stay up on their own. I thought they needed garters (suspenders) back then.

Some needed suspenders, some didn't I would imagine that back then stockings with elastic that could stay up on their own were rather a bit more expensive than stockings that required a garter.

Stocking as in sock. Not stocking like nylons.

You refer to cotton stockings, nylons wouldn't exist at that point, but I'd bet that silk stockings were available.

I want to call them socks, but they seem to be referred to as stockings.

I believe length is the key difference. Knee-highs or shorter are socks. Thigh highs, anything where the top is above the knee are stockings. The material, wool, cotton, silk, or nylon is irrelevant.

My understanding is that garters would only be used with thigh highs.

One article mentioned that they would often leave a red mark when taken off.

I would expect that. With early elastics, they wouldn't have as much experience with what is tight enough to stay up but not too tight to cause potential problems.

In the movie clip of the woman dressing, she tied a ribbon over the stocking

If you are talking about the Youtube link posted on this thread, the stocking went to just barely above the knee, but then she tied a ribbon around it just under the knee.

If the purpose is to hold it up, that was a good spot. it's above the bulge of the calf muscle, so the ribbon wouldn't need to be tight to keep the stocking up.

One article mentioned that they would often leave a red mark when taken off.

Any tight clothing tends to leave marks, ask any model or photographer of nudes. Elastic or simple ties, makes no difference.