And now you know…..

How did they not die of heatstroke?

Still, it’s strangely arousing, almost as much as if they were taking her clothes off.

This entry was posted in Babes, History, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to And now you know…..

  1. Andrew says:

    It’s pretty damned simple how they lived. They had servants. Servants didn’t wear as much, so had more mobility and better, ah, lung expansion.

    Then there’s also the fact that they trained for this. This wasn’t something a random Jane off of the modern street can hope to do right off the bat.

    And England was colder, as it was still coming out of lower temps caused by Icelandic volcanos. Europe in general tends to be cooler than the States due to the cooling effect of the Gulf Stream, once it hits the artic ocean and cools down.

    And it is sensual as all hell to watch ladies dress and undress in this stuff. Sometimes being a reenactor can be really fun.

    • formwiz says:

      No, most women had husbands. This was the uniform, regardless of class.

      Maybe a bit simpler among the lower classes, but this was how women dressed.

      The corset had the same function as the bra does; keep the bazoobs from flapping all over the place.

      • Bacon says:

        Sorry formwiz, but no. Andrew and Concerned Mama got it right.

        1. This was the upper class uniform, the lower classes dressed somewhat differently.
        2. It’s true that the lower classes aspired to these styles and attempted to copy certain aspects of them, but most of them couldn’t afford either the time or the materials to copy them fully.
        3. The corset was not primarily a bra, it was designed to accent the hourglass shape. The mammary benefits were a side-effect.

  2. rick says:

    Women still do this, just without the whalebone. Pushup bras and tight jeans, they still wish to create the wasp waist with stuft chest pillows. The menfolk do not disagree although the feminist who cry for liberty and the milquetoast male who support them.

  3. rick says:

    Damn, I could not finish the video. I fancy myself more the ruffian to head butt her courtesan, shove a pistol into the side of he who opposed me, to fling the gal over my shoulder to ride on until she thanked me for saving her. Then I shall have my way with her. And she will thank me. Methinks I am born of the wrong age.

  4. rick says:

    5:54 Damn! Now tell me which of you men do not find this exceedingly sexy. And which of you women do not also agree this is the goal of fashion, to make the female figure desirable to men.

  5. fisshdawg says:

    Call me old fashioned, but accenting the curves yet covering much of the skin allows for imagination to kick in. That was when women were women… not dressing like men or porn stars. I was born in the wrong era I guess.

  6. John Deaux says:

    From this to the women of walmart
    We’ve fallen a long way

  7. Angel says:

    The corset was responsible for “fainting” couches and “the vapors” (farting because your digestive system was all squished). Weirdly enough, they’re enjoying a resurgence in popularity as “waist trainers.”

  8. formwiz says:

    This was why so many families had 5, 8, 10, 13 kids.

    By the time Mom was ready for bed, Dad was about to explode.


    • Elmo says:


      But simple, hard working pioneer women were sexy, too. There was one episode of Little House on the Prairie where Michael Landon went away to make some money after a bad year on the farm. When he returned Caroline was plowing behind a mule, and the camera shot up close showed her hair tousled and her skin glistening with sweat under an open blouse. That was the first time I ever though of Karen Grassle as being a complete babe.

      Maybe I’m just a sucker for women that actually do something other than dress up.

  9. JB says:

    Agreed on the above! Becky certainly was a delight to behold. But I must say the woman who was narrating and helping was positively lovely! I enjoyed looking and listening to her more than I enjoyed looking at Becky.

    Now…..pardon the ‘guy talk’ but did anyone else notice the ‘shift’, for lack of a better term, in the video? It started right around the time she started lacing up the corset. There appeared to be an almost 3D effect taking place. It was weird. Happened again near the end too.

    • Concerned Mama says:

      With an underbust corset, which is what the model was wearing, the shift acts as a soft cup to support the bust. I’ve seen some incredible buoyancy caused from an underbust and a shift. Eyepopping really.

  10. thos317 says:

    I always wondered why underwear were called ‘drawers.’ Now I’m curious about where the expression, ‘Get to the bottom of it’ came from.

  11. kdts says:

    There has to be some software a person could get that would play this backwards.

    On a side note, I dated an Amish girl and she’d whisper in my ear, I’m only wearin 5 under garments.

  12. Concerned Mama says:

    A few things notes on this:

    Natural fibers breathe really well. I’ve worn clothing from various eras, Elizabethan -1845 ish, and when my clothes are made from natural fibers, they breathe, and I’m not nearly as hot as when I’m in a pair of jeans and a synthetic blend t-shirt.

    Most women could dress themselves with minimal help through most eras of time. Unless you were seriously upper class, you dressed yourself or had a spouse help with fiddly bits.

    Women who tightlaced were the exception, not the rule Elisabeth of Austria (Sissi) was a famous example, but for typical wearing of corsets, there is a 2-5 inch gap in the back. Throughout most of time, stays (the predecessor to Victorian corsets,) and corsets were for shaping, not compression.

    There is no noticeable lung compression in a properly done corset, nor are internal organs smashed. They did an MRI on a fetishist tightlacer a few years ago to see what a corset does, (with non metal bones in it,) and there was no organ deformation. Women did everything in corsets from the 1100’s- about the 1940’s/1950’s (although the name changed to girdles.)

    Information about fainting spells and such were usually from people who didn’t understand the female body, and who had products they wanted to sell.

    Women did NOT remove ribs to get smaller waistlines. It’s an incredibly risky surgery today, and I’ve never come across mention of a woman doing it eons ago. Especially when women were dying of perpureal fevers, anesthesia was non existent, and people feared the dentist like the plague. Who would elect to slice out bones and have stitches when the established medical practice of the time was sub par?

    Don’t even get me started on the order in which she dressed her model, nor the representations of the items, and her information being dispensed. Her clothes are a nod to historical clothing, with a huge cosplay/bodice ripping romance novel added in.

    Having said all of that, the presenter and model are beautiful in their clothes, and I agree with all the other commenters. It is so much nicer to leave something to the imagination. Seeing the curves without the skin is truly beautiful. And lest it sound like I dislike their outfits, I don’t. I just dislike having something non historically accurate clothes passed off for historically accurate. Appreciate each for what it is. I tend to do Victorian details in the clothes I make for myself, because I love the femininity of it.

    Historically accurate clothing is also beautiful. I’ve studied enough collections to have seen some truly incredible items. It’s a thing of beauty to see how women in different periods of time looked. Especially how they were so beautiful without bearing it all for everyone.

    Okay, end rant. Lol

If your comment 'disappears', don't trip - it went to my trash folder and I will restore it when I moderate.