1) Were girdles regarded positively by most women or seen as something necessary but unwelcome?
The girdle, which became worn by younger women in the late 1920’s, really became popular in the post-War era as the development of reliable elastic materials, and latterly Lycra by DuPont, allowed for a supporting garment other than a corset. For the vast majority of women until the late 1960’s, there was no alternative to a foundation garment, which by then implied a girdle. Corset wearers were already a small percentage of this population.
The girdle was neither positively nor negatively regarded, it was just worn; it was a ’way of life’. Certainly, some women would rather have died than been seen un-girdled and whether the girdle was tight, effective, pretty or just plain badly fitting and uncomfortable; it would be worn, whatever. A woman will suffer agonies for her looks.
The typical point of view would be that the girdle was positively regarded because it enhanced (really or in the imagination) the wearer’s looks. After 18 hours (despite Playtex’s claims) most women would have regarded their foundations as both unnecessary and unwelcome.
In Herman Wouk’s ‘The Winds of War’, there’s an interesting comment as the hero ‘Pug Henry’ observes his wife dress for dinner. “..I'm bulging a foot. I look six months' pregnant and I’m wearing my tightest girdle. What shall I do?” cries his wife. Pug can see no difference from normal but wisely avoids interjecting. If a woman feels she is bulging, then in her mind she is. No lady in the 1940’s, when the novel was written, would have dined without a girdle.
2) Were girdles generally worn for the entire day or only for going out?
Girdles were worn all day, from getting dressed to go out, say to work or do the shopping, and they wouldn’t be removed until going to bed which might be 14 – 16 hours later. Special girdles, meaning more expensive and tighter (because of less frequent wearing) might be worn for a party, a special dinner or wedding. However, the regular girdle would normally be worn all the time. By the end of the 1960’s (in Britain), the girdle for the younger generation would indeed become an object worn only for something special.
3) Would girdles have been considered mandatory under pencil skirts of the early to mid 1960's?
Definitely! The pencil skirt, or any fitted garment looks far better when fitted over a foundation. Until the late 1960’s most well-dressed women understood that their bodies fluctuated in shape depending on many influences. Well-fitted clothes were fitted to the figure confined by its foundations which limited such fluctuations. The corset was, of course, the ultimate foundation, but clothes in general hung so much better on a figure correctly girdled. As Jane Russell (in her 60’s) breathed candidly to a reporter, the secret to maintaining her good figure was “underwear”.
4) What distinguished light/ medium/ firm control girdles and at what point/age did women generally move into firm control girdles?
The levels of control have decreased through the years. In the 1970’s, a woman born at the turn of the century would probably have retained her corsets or a firm control girdle, however, that girdle would be beyond anything marketed today. In the 1950’s, a firm control girdle would be similar to a corset without the lacing. One of the strongest girdles of the 1960’s, yet best designed, comfortable and remarkably glamorous in appearance was the Marks and Spencer all satin-elastic girdle. This girdle was a design based on the Dior girdle of the late1940’s and would have been described as medium/firm control at the time but by today’s standards such levels of firmness no longer exist outside the traditional corset.
This brings us to the item referred to as the ‘roll-on’. This un-boned girdle has its origins pre-War, however, it was a softer post-War variation of the standard boned girdles, so part of their Mothers’ life, that daughters adopted in the 1960’s. Tights had not yet caught on and a girdle, if nothing else, was required to hold ones stockings up. In Britain in the 1960’s, a light control girdle would have implied a roll-on (see next article).
The invention of tights (UK), panty-hose (USA) probably have far more of an influence on the girdled woman than is commonly realised. At the turn of the last century, the corset was a shape-maker and incidentally, it provided a position from which to support the stockings by means of suspenders (UK), garters (USA). When the corset was replaced by the girdle, the function of the garment as the only support for the stockings was still highly important. With the invention of inexpensive tights (UK; late 1960’s, USA early 1960’s), suspenders became unnecessary and thus so did the conventional girdle. Panty-girdles afforded the support that would ultimately become nothing more than the elasticated underpants that girdles have become today. For more than a decade, panty-girdles carried suspenders (either internally within the long legs or externally if shorter legged) almost as a comfort to those woman who disliked tights, however, latterly it became a sort of throw-back to a dying era in the same way that the traditional bow of material in the standard brassiere represents the lacing of the corset.
So firm and light control definitions have varied through the decades as has the age when women might wear them. In the early 1960’s, a woman in her early 20’s would wear a medium control girdle as standard and firm control for special occasions.
5) "My girdle is killing me!" is the typical anti-girdle comment. In practice, how comfortable was a properly fitted girdle? Was the wearer always aware of wearing it, or did you just forget about about it during the day?
"My girdle is killing me!" was not so much of an anti-girdle comment. It was a very feminine expression handed down from mother to daughter at the end of a long day when the desire to look one’s best was being over-ridden by the constriction of the garment. This was not an everyday girdle; this would be the girdle for that ‘special occasion’, and because it was rarely worn, it would indeed be uncomfortable after a day’s wearing.
A properly fitted girdle is very comfortable, however, even the best will make their presence felt at the end of a long, hard day. It is very similar to a good pair of shoes.
Roll-ons, Step-ins and Belts
According to Elizabeth Ewing (Dress and Undress), BT Batsford Ltd, London 1978: "The most notable immediate result of the process of extruding rubber elastic was the introduction of the 'roll-on', the most famous corset of its time, with the additional distinction of having added a word to the English language, as well as a new item to the history of underwear. The first roll-on dates from 1932 in Britain and probably a year earlier in the USA. It replaced the hook-side or busk-fastening corset for the younger and lighter figures, and for many more too, so great was its comfort. It dominated the 'light control' market for many years. If you belonged to that market you didn't talk of a corset anymore; you said a 'roll-on' and got rid of what was already an unpopular word."
The panty-girdle was introduced in 1934, and was very popular in 1935. My reading suggests by the mid-50s it had largely displaced the roll-on in the USA, though I gather it never achieved the same popularity in the UK. I think that by then all the prewar roll-on wearers would have graduated to something heavier in the USA, while the new generation went straight into panty-girdles.
In the Fifties I don't think girdle wearing was as universal in Australia (and even in England) as it was in the States, and I think Australian girls were somewhat slower to switch to panty-girdles than American girls.
The term 'Roll-on' also served a euphemistic purpose as a letter from Dene suggests:-
At a time when any mention of ladies underwear in mixed company, was very questionable, this term could provide an allowable and slightly light-hearted solution. I heard an older lady saying “At my age I need something more than a roll-on.” Again on expressing my amazement at the change in appearance of a lady acquaintance, I was told “Yes, but that time she was wearing her roll-on”. Finally, there was the amazement of a boy friend to be told “Sorry, but I can’t hurry as I have a new roll-on“, to be followed remarkably soon afterwards by “I have to go shopping on Saturday, I need a new roll-on.”
Whether the euphemism was used through coyness or guile, the woman wishing to understate the power of the foundation that she actually wore, I do not know.
'Step-in' seems to be an expression like 'roll-on' which never achieved the same popularity. It referred to the standard girdle or pantie-girdle that could be donned without lacing, zips or hooks. It is mentioned in Tom Sharpe's humorously anarchic book 'Indecent Exposure'. The girdle in question, however, has been borrowed by a man from his wife, which moves us towards the topic of 'the Other Side of Corsetry' . In Mr. Sharpe's book, the Major's wife's step-ins are also referred to as corsets and as a girdle in successive paragraphs.
As for 'belts', this seems to be another euphemism, that developed in the 1940's and 1950's, to divert the client's attention from the fact that they might be buying or even needed to wear, a girdle.
By 1965, Twilfit had dropped the 'girdle' word entirely from their catalogue unless the construction of zips, bones and hooks demands that one 'bites the bullet' and admits that, indeed, this is a girdle and nothing you can call it will persuade one otherwise. The Twilfit catalogue only mentions the 'girdle' word when it becomes a hook-side model. At the end of the catalogue, Twilfit's usual selection of corsets are called corsets. After all, it was the younger clients that needed convincing, not the older ladies that had been wearing corsets for many decades.The term 'belt', even as early as 1965 in the halcyon days of girdle sales, reveals that the marketing department had a feeling that sales of foundation garments to the younger generation needed a new image, and the girdle was not part of that image.
By today's standards, this Twilfit girdle would hardly be described as a light garment worthy of the 'belt' appellation.
Spencer was far more specific. Their 'belt' was a six buckle corset designed to return the post-natal abdomen to its former proportions.
One interesting consequence of the 'roll-on' was due to its mode of removal. Let me explain. The classic zippered girdle often had an un-zippered equivalent, very flexibly boned at the back and sides (left M&S - 1979). The only effective way to remove this garment without stretching the elastic was to roll the top down against the tendency of the bones to remain straight. As the bones folded over, the top of the garment would invert, and then be quite easy to pull down. Like all M&S garments, these girdles would last for years, and turn up like new with regularly washing (that’s why so many appear in the auctions today). The only give-away sign of this regular inverted removal would be a tendency of the bones to become concave with the girdle in repose. This is clearly evident on the girdle shown. The Berlei Gay Slant was notorious for this, however, it did not diminish the power of these classic foundation garments. Even zippered garments, if rolled-off, would display this permanent set of the waist bones (right - USA 1972).
My ballet pink cotton 1930s number from Sears has arrived! It's very complicated with a busk and skirt hooks in the front, and enclosed lacing at the back - very ingenious! No loose ends! Breaking it in last evening and today I wore it with my bell-bottoms on errands. Haven't looked like this since I was 12!
My panty-girdle pattern arrived as well, so I'm going to order some extra-firm powernet and satin for that and making an all in one, and for the back of the strapless longline bra (all dyed ballet pink of course.) I have become as obsessed with underwear as Janie Bryant - the costumer for Mad Men. I now look at girdles and corselettes and say 'Oh that's a Spirella' or 'a Rago'.... It's like knowing wineries.
I think of my mother-in-law, a stout lady who nevertheless always had a gorgeous figure and looked marvelous, because she wore this sort of thing. I think too of Jane Russell, who when asked in late middle age about the secret to her lovely figure, said 'underwear.' And Princess Diana. Later in her life when she was once more no longer a stick figure (and people seemed to have forgotten that she was once a healthy English girl) her dressmaker was asked if that was all really HRH in that dress. He said 'yes, but she has some help in the structure of the garment.'
Now I look at women out in the world and think 'Poor thing, she would look so smashing if she had proper foundations.'
Here's to structure!
No comments:
Post a Comment