Tight-lacing wasn’t just the wearing of corsets. It was the use of corsets to produce spectacular reductions in women’s waistlines, with waists as small as 16 inches and even in a few celebrated cases as small as 14 inches. Some women even claimed 13-inch waists.
The conventional interpretation of tight-lacing is that it was an example of patriarchal oppression of women, with women forced by men into tight-lacing. This interpretation is still the orthodox feminist position. Kunzle explodes this interpretation in devastating fashion, and he backs his arguments with overwhelming evidence.
Kunzle demonstrates that the entire patriarchal power structure (and in particular the male medical establishment) conducted a vicious and hysterical campaign against tight-lacing. The whole phenomenon was driven almost entirely by women who, despite opposition from men, wanted to tight-lace. It was also mostly a lower class and lower middle class thing. The motives of the women were mixed but there was certainly an indirect erotic element. Or perhaps it would be better to say, a sensual element. It was a fetish, but not an overtly sexual one.
Surprisingly enough tight-lacing was also widely practised by men.
Kunzle also explores other clothing fetishes such as extreme high heels, which were also things that women stubbornly insisted on wearing in spite of male opposition, and they insisted on it because they actually enjoyed it.
Another popular misconception is that erotic fetishism is an almost exclusively male obsession, and this is another myth that Kunzle busts. It’s a myth based on an unwillingness to accept unsettling aspects of female sexuality.
The author gives us an historical overview and a glimpse into the hidden world of 20th century fetishism, as well as plenty of interesting details on the treatment of clothing fetishes in the popular press and in fiction.
Kunzle does have a tendency to overdo the political interpretations (sometimes a corset is just a corset), but in this respect he’s nowhere near as bad as most modern academics. One mistake that he does not make is to make assumptions about women’s choices based on political beliefs about what women should think. He’s prepared to accept their own testimony about the reasons for their choices.
It’s a rather loosely structured book but that turns out to be its greatest strength. He’s not trying to argue a case or win an argument. He’s simply acting as a fascinated but impartial observer.
Fashion and Fetishism is a must-read for anyone with an interest in 19th century social history or fashion history. Highly recommended.
Surprisingly enough tight-lacing was also widely practised by men.
Kunzle also explores other clothing fetishes such as extreme high heels, which were also things that women stubbornly insisted on wearing in spite of male opposition, and they insisted on it because they actually enjoyed it.
Another popular misconception is that erotic fetishism is an almost exclusively male obsession, and this is another myth that Kunzle busts. It’s a myth based on an unwillingness to accept unsettling aspects of female sexuality.
The author gives us an historical overview and a glimpse into the hidden world of 20th century fetishism, as well as plenty of interesting details on the treatment of clothing fetishes in the popular press and in fiction.
Kunzle does have a tendency to overdo the political interpretations (sometimes a corset is just a corset), but in this respect he’s nowhere near as bad as most modern academics. One mistake that he does not make is to make assumptions about women’s choices based on political beliefs about what women should think. He’s prepared to accept their own testimony about the reasons for their choices.
It’s a rather loosely structured book but that turns out to be its greatest strength. He’s not trying to argue a case or win an argument. He’s simply acting as a fascinated but impartial observer.
Fashion and Fetishism is a must-read for anyone with an interest in 19th century social history or fashion history. Highly recommended.
I've seen this book on Amazon, and wished my library had it. I think I'll put in a request, and see if they can find it via interlibrary load, because your review makes it sound like something I'd *really* like to read.
ReplyDeleteyour review makes it sound like something I'd *really* like to read.
DeleteI think you'd love it.
Make sure you get the 2003 edition, not the 1982 edition. The 2003 edition has a lot of extra stuff about corsetry in the 20th century.