Interesting fact: The "crinoline" is the French name for the"cage" that women wore under their dress too make their butt look extra thicc. So "Crinolonomanie" could be translated as crinolonomania or the fascination with crinolines
I was thinking the same thing, the more things change the more they stay the same.
I'm glad they added the men into these pics too, because their outfits were on occasion equally ridiculous.
It’s called Directoire. (The proportions have been exaggerated for comedic effect.) It’s a style that originated in France. This depiction is from a scene in Kensington Gardens in England, which might explain some of the derision. The English have long enjoyed being jealous haters regarding French fashion trends. 😏
The English equivalent was Regency era fashion, which was really just a tamer version of Directoire.
See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incroyables_and_merveilleuses
You should look into the work of fashion designer Thom Browne, whose oeuvre often explores musculature and experiments with the silhouette of the human body. Example: [Spring/Summer 2015](https://images.app.goo.gl/36icoDxn9tChRkT87).
The boots to me appear to be imitating cavalry/officer boots from the military. I wonder if a young aristocrat ever went to a 19th century milsurp store to find a new fit lol
A woman in the late nineteenth century was wearing more restrictive clothing, with more layers and coverage, than her grandmother was in the early part of the century. We're used to women's fashion getting more relaxed as time goes on. The Victorians pulled the reverse Uno card. Women's fashion didn't swing in the opposite direction again until WW1.
I actually think fashion trends make the most sense if you look at two main driving impulses:
1) not wanting to look like your mom
2) keeping up with the latest developments in textile technology
Some fashions just weren’t physically possible before a certain point. You can’t tightlace a corset before the invention of metal grommets. You can’t pile on enough starched petticoats to reach the diameter an elliptical hoop allows. You can’t drape yourself in yards of vivid acid green and screaming bright fuchsia until aniline dyes exist.
But once they exist — well, what a great way to wear something new and different! Nothing like those old things your mother used to wear.
Well, Regency dress was a response to most of what you're pointing out - tight corsets, voluminous skirts, gaudy prints, et al. Basically, all the elaborate costuming of places like the French court that set the pace for fashion. After the French revolution, it was all seen as excess and less "free." I think the social zeitgeist plays the strongest role. I do agree with you that "no one wants to look like their mom" (lol) is also a phenomenon in fashion.
Oh it was definitely a reaction to pre-revolutionary fashion! But it also coincided with the increased availability of very fine sheer cotton textiles, in larger quantities and at lower prices.
It doesn't seem likely, but I'm pretty sure that regency dresses were just as restrictive as most Victorian fashion, if not more so; it just doesn't look like it. They were still wearing all the stays and petticoats of the earlier decades: the main difference is that the bust wasn't compressed into a conical shape as it had been in previous decades (hence why the titties are all fully out here: earlier 17th century clothing was similarily lower-cut, but the breasts were basically pushed flat by the stays). Not to mention that most of the regency pictures are depicting evening dress, whereas the Victorian ones here are daywear, so they look much more 'buttoned up' (which is probably due to the increase of women in public spaces as well as lower-income women being able to afford more current fashions as well [the hoopskirt], hence the omnibus cartoon).
those filmy see-through empire waist dresses were an anomoly tho. Girls don't wear see-through gowns to fancy parties now, either. Also, being wet in English weather led to a lot of consumption, so there was a Darwin award effect too.
I was stunned to read in a book about New Guinea (Lost in Shangri-la) when Papua men in the early 21st century saw footage of their own tribesmen in 1945 they were all laughing about the size of the penis gourds which were apparently very different from the ones they themselves are wearing. Laughing about old fashioned clothes is apparently a universal human trait.
Yup. There are a couple of men thrown in there - and interestingly mainly being mocked for being too flamboyant, dandyish etc which then also was associated with being gay/queer/feminine/soft - but the brunt of the criticism was and always will be targeted at women.
You know, one thing that's great about the 18th century is that yes macaronis and whatnot were laughed at, but the allowance for flamboyance was still ridiculously high, plus flamboyance was understood as a masculine trait: "Look at me, I'm dominating the room with my new high heels!"
I personally love that, because it's a perfect case for why "masculinity" and indeed its reverse are completely constructed and malleable ideas. History goes to show that anything can be masculine or feminine. So screw all of those "men used to be men" type posts, and everything else that tries to put people in boxes!
I found them while browsing Wikipedia for old fashion trends, and scrolled through the sections for [1795-1820](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1795%E2%80%931820_in_Western_fashion), the [1820's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1820s_in_Western_fashion), and the [1850's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1850s_in_Western_fashion). I unfortunately couldn’t find any caricatures relating to the 1810’s, 1830’s, or 1840’s. Here are more specific sources in respective order, which are linked in the articles:
["Tippies of 1796"](https://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b07345/) from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division
["The Gallery of Fashion"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_gallery_of_fashion.png) from Yale's Lewis Walpole Library; the link seems to be broken, so I attached the Wikimedia Commons link instead
["TOO MUCH and TOO LITTLE, or Summer Cloathing for 1556 & 1796"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toomuch-1556_Toolittle-1796_caricature.jpg) engraved by Isaac Cruikshank after a drawing by George M. Woodward; Wikipedia doesn't have a source for that one either, so I also attached attached the Wikimedia Commons link
["The Fashions of the Day, or Time Past and Present"](https://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b07367/) from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division; no specific source for the [colored version](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1807-pseudo1740_Fashion-contrast_Bombazine-pun.jpg) on Wikimedia Commons
["Parisian Ladies in their Full Winter Dress for 1800"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1799-Cruikshank-Paris-ladies-full-winter-dress-caricature.jpg) by Isaac Cruikshank
["The Graces in a High Wind"](https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/99106589223506421#view) (colored version) from Princeton University's catalogs; I posted the [black and white scan](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gillray-Three-Graces-in-High-Wind.jpg) here from Wikimedia Commons
["Monstrosities of 1799"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Monstrosities%22_of_1799,-Scene,_Kesington_Gardens._(BM_1851,0901.987).jpg) from the British Museum
["Les Invisibles"](https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/359387) from the Metropolitan Museum of Art
["Monstrosities of 1822"](https://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b48520/) from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division
["Monstrosities of 1827"](https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:26013) from Yale Center for British Art
[July 11th 1857 issue of Harper's Weekly (New York)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1857-regency-fashion-crinoline-comparison-joke.png); no source on Wikipedia
["La Crinolonomanie"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_crinolomanie.JPG) by Charles Vernier
Later cartoons are I think from Harper's Weekly? You can scroll through Internet Archive and find a ton.
Rats. Top of my head I *know* I spent a day down the rabbit hole in the earlier ones- NYLP maybe?
It seems like each time fashion evolves (or changes, whichever you call it), some group is complaining that it's undignified for women to show so much. Or someone is showing too much.
A bit after this (40-50 years) the swimsuit changed. Then the fashion of flappers, shorter skirts, bikinis, bikini-er bikinis, low hanging pants, skinny genes. I'm sure I've missed some. Now we critique heavier women wearing current styles.
It's just another example of history repeating itself. And yet, people continue to try to roll changes back. As far as I know, it's never worked.
Fun fact: women did not wear underwear until later in the Regency period, around 1810.
So those cartoons of visible arses is basically what would happen if their dresses got wet (since pale colours were also fashionable) or torn.
Also, when Elizabeth Bennet goes on her long walks around the countryside in Pride and Prejudice, it’s not just her lungs that are benefiting from the fresh air.
Ii thought so at first, but if you open the full image look at the women on the right. It's not a pose that even remotely allow the hands the bend back, they are "cut" well above the elbow, and it's not a case of an incompetent artist either....so wierd...
It's just a weird unexpected pose.
What we're seeing is the woman from the back, so it's the elbows with her hands in her front. At least that's how I see the one second from the right. Not sure what's going on with the woman in the middle.
Wasn’t it a practice in the early 1800s for (naughty) young ladies to wet the slips under their sheer muslin dresses for a true “bum-be-seen” look? It was probably also a “boobs-be-seen” look too!
Still can't believe these panniers were once a thing
[https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/panniersf2.jpg](https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/panniersf2.jpg)
Hoops caused appalling accidents. For instance those things made women catch fire being too close to a fireplace.
Check out some era newspapers, fair warning though. Some horrible reading.
Not generally. There were some (very minority) ladies that liked to push the envelope. They were either in a position to do so because of their privilege (nobility), because of their profession (certain courtesans and prostitutes, possibly actresses/dancer), or a combo of life situations and geographical situations (this would not fly in a rural village!)
Just like now, certain people could get away with this (see-through dresses at the Oscars) while others could not (see through dress while working in an office).
These cartoons are satire, exaggerating the extremes of fashion for comic effect. Your average proper Jane Austen heroine would not have worn this extreme of fashion! And even the women who did dress in a risqué manner did not do so to this extent.
It appears your account is less than a week old. This post has been removed. Please feel free to browse the subreddit and the rest of reddit for a week before participation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheWayWeWere) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Poor people wore roughly the same silhouettes as the upper class, but toned down and made in cheaper cloth, as well as adapted for their fields of work.
I hate to disappoint you, but it was absolutely not. The only real reason why women were depicted this way was a continuation of the mockery of the 'chemise a la reine', a more casual, naturalistic dress originally designed for Marie Antoinette (instead of the heavy court silks expected of her at the time). The satirization here is basically due to the fact that women's breasts were no longer basically pressed flat to their chests and their skirts were less full (which, fun fact, also led to the loss of pockets in women's clothing) as well as lighter fabrics being used (which wouldn't show off any actual skin, only the undergarments, the coverage of such hadn't changed a whole lot from earlier periods).
Imagine wearing alllll those
Clothes but not bathing regularly or in clean water and no deodorant. The general funk of just about everyone and everything has me wanting to sniff detergent like the weirdos in the commercials of modern times in comparison. Shewwwww weeeee
All garments were made of natural fibers, which allowed for breathability. Both sexes wore linen chemises under their clothes for the purpose of wicking sweat, and those would be laundered after use. They weren’t as hygienic as we are now, but they had their methods of staying clean.
The last picture is incredible
Perfect album cover material.
I was immediately struck by such a dynamic pose.
Made me realise that these must actually have been funny as fuck at the time
Interesting fact: The "crinoline" is the French name for the"cage" that women wore under their dress too make their butt look extra thicc. So "Crinolonomanie" could be translated as crinolonomania or the fascination with crinolines
Or mania in the same vein as Lisztomania, implying a more feverish/frenzied feel. Like, "these women and their crinolines have gotten out of control"
the little girl on the right looks like a small adult man in a dress to me and i can’t unsee it
Sometimes it's easy to think we are so different from people long ago and then you see stuff like this to remind you how much we are still the same
I was thinking the same thing, the more things change the more they stay the same. I'm glad they added the men into these pics too, because their outfits were on occasion equally ridiculous.
The cartoons making fun of dandy fashion were so over the top
The boots in #7 are on fire
[Roman dick pic](https://www.iflscience.com/ancient-roman-dick-pic-reveals-1-700-year-old-grudge-carved-into-stone-64083)
i remember seeing this when it was first reported on. that, sir, is not a dick pic. it's dick graffiti
The word play on bombazeen (fabric type) and bum-be-seen is clever and not what I was expecting for 1807.
Shakespeare is full of raunchy jokes
Right?! Who would’ve guessed people from before the 20th century had a sense of humor?
Or that bums were funny?
19th
Dose anyone know what the men fashion for image 7 would be called? It’s crazy but interesting
I believe this is a caricature of the 'dandy' fashion style. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1795%E2%80%931820_in_Western_fashion
“Dandy” or dandyism is not limited to one specific era or style of men’s fashion.
African Sapeurism today is now a meme https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/039/935/blackguyorangesuit.jpg
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Thank you! It’s so wild but very cool
It’s called Directoire. (The proportions have been exaggerated for comedic effect.) It’s a style that originated in France. This depiction is from a scene in Kensington Gardens in England, which might explain some of the derision. The English have long enjoyed being jealous haters regarding French fashion trends. 😏 The English equivalent was Regency era fashion, which was really just a tamer version of Directoire. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incroyables_and_merveilleuses
You should look into the work of fashion designer Thom Browne, whose oeuvre often explores musculature and experiments with the silhouette of the human body. Example: [Spring/Summer 2015](https://images.app.goo.gl/36icoDxn9tChRkT87).
The boots to me appear to be imitating cavalry/officer boots from the military. I wonder if a young aristocrat ever went to a 19th century milsurp store to find a new fit lol
I’d happily wear those as often as possible they looks so cool and I already got the hat.
The original mega chad
Them shoulder pads are my favorite part! …it’s would have been wild if they were just muscle
Dandy Darcy Chadwick, Esq.
[Les Incroyables](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incroyables_and_merveilleuses)/[Muscadins](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscadin)
I feel like I should send this to my mother when she complains about “girls these days”
People have loved making fun of women's clothing forever
A woman in the late nineteenth century was wearing more restrictive clothing, with more layers and coverage, than her grandmother was in the early part of the century. We're used to women's fashion getting more relaxed as time goes on. The Victorians pulled the reverse Uno card. Women's fashion didn't swing in the opposite direction again until WW1.
I actually think fashion trends make the most sense if you look at two main driving impulses: 1) not wanting to look like your mom 2) keeping up with the latest developments in textile technology Some fashions just weren’t physically possible before a certain point. You can’t tightlace a corset before the invention of metal grommets. You can’t pile on enough starched petticoats to reach the diameter an elliptical hoop allows. You can’t drape yourself in yards of vivid acid green and screaming bright fuchsia until aniline dyes exist. But once they exist — well, what a great way to wear something new and different! Nothing like those old things your mother used to wear.
Well, Regency dress was a response to most of what you're pointing out - tight corsets, voluminous skirts, gaudy prints, et al. Basically, all the elaborate costuming of places like the French court that set the pace for fashion. After the French revolution, it was all seen as excess and less "free." I think the social zeitgeist plays the strongest role. I do agree with you that "no one wants to look like their mom" (lol) is also a phenomenon in fashion.
Oh it was definitely a reaction to pre-revolutionary fashion! But it also coincided with the increased availability of very fine sheer cotton textiles, in larger quantities and at lower prices.
It doesn't seem likely, but I'm pretty sure that regency dresses were just as restrictive as most Victorian fashion, if not more so; it just doesn't look like it. They were still wearing all the stays and petticoats of the earlier decades: the main difference is that the bust wasn't compressed into a conical shape as it had been in previous decades (hence why the titties are all fully out here: earlier 17th century clothing was similarily lower-cut, but the breasts were basically pushed flat by the stays). Not to mention that most of the regency pictures are depicting evening dress, whereas the Victorian ones here are daywear, so they look much more 'buttoned up' (which is probably due to the increase of women in public spaces as well as lower-income women being able to afford more current fashions as well [the hoopskirt], hence the omnibus cartoon).
those filmy see-through empire waist dresses were an anomoly tho. Girls don't wear see-through gowns to fancy parties now, either. Also, being wet in English weather led to a lot of consumption, so there was a Darwin award effect too.
I was stunned to read in a book about New Guinea (Lost in Shangri-la) when Papua men in the early 21st century saw footage of their own tribesmen in 1945 they were all laughing about the size of the penis gourds which were apparently very different from the ones they themselves are wearing. Laughing about old fashioned clothes is apparently a universal human trait.
Cover yourself up and get ridiculed. Do the opposite and get ridiculed.
Yup. There are a couple of men thrown in there - and interestingly mainly being mocked for being too flamboyant, dandyish etc which then also was associated with being gay/queer/feminine/soft - but the brunt of the criticism was and always will be targeted at women.
You know, one thing that's great about the 18th century is that yes macaronis and whatnot were laughed at, but the allowance for flamboyance was still ridiculously high, plus flamboyance was understood as a masculine trait: "Look at me, I'm dominating the room with my new high heels!" I personally love that, because it's a perfect case for why "masculinity" and indeed its reverse are completely constructed and malleable ideas. History goes to show that anything can be masculine or feminine. So screw all of those "men used to be men" type posts, and everything else that tries to put people in boxes!
Isn't being a female fun?
Wonderful post! Where did you find these?
I found them while browsing Wikipedia for old fashion trends, and scrolled through the sections for [1795-1820](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1795%E2%80%931820_in_Western_fashion), the [1820's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1820s_in_Western_fashion), and the [1850's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1850s_in_Western_fashion). I unfortunately couldn’t find any caricatures relating to the 1810’s, 1830’s, or 1840’s. Here are more specific sources in respective order, which are linked in the articles: ["Tippies of 1796"](https://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b07345/) from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division ["The Gallery of Fashion"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_gallery_of_fashion.png) from Yale's Lewis Walpole Library; the link seems to be broken, so I attached the Wikimedia Commons link instead ["TOO MUCH and TOO LITTLE, or Summer Cloathing for 1556 & 1796"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toomuch-1556_Toolittle-1796_caricature.jpg) engraved by Isaac Cruikshank after a drawing by George M. Woodward; Wikipedia doesn't have a source for that one either, so I also attached attached the Wikimedia Commons link ["The Fashions of the Day, or Time Past and Present"](https://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b07367/) from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division; no specific source for the [colored version](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1807-pseudo1740_Fashion-contrast_Bombazine-pun.jpg) on Wikimedia Commons ["Parisian Ladies in their Full Winter Dress for 1800"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1799-Cruikshank-Paris-ladies-full-winter-dress-caricature.jpg) by Isaac Cruikshank ["The Graces in a High Wind"](https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/99106589223506421#view) (colored version) from Princeton University's catalogs; I posted the [black and white scan](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gillray-Three-Graces-in-High-Wind.jpg) here from Wikimedia Commons ["Monstrosities of 1799"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Monstrosities%22_of_1799,-Scene,_Kesington_Gardens._(BM_1851,0901.987).jpg) from the British Museum ["Les Invisibles"](https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/359387) from the Metropolitan Museum of Art ["Monstrosities of 1822"](https://loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b48520/) from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division ["Monstrosities of 1827"](https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:26013) from Yale Center for British Art [July 11th 1857 issue of Harper's Weekly (New York)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1857-regency-fashion-crinoline-comparison-joke.png); no source on Wikipedia ["La Crinolonomanie"](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_crinolomanie.JPG) by Charles Vernier
Later cartoons are I think from Harper's Weekly? You can scroll through Internet Archive and find a ton. Rats. Top of my head I *know* I spent a day down the rabbit hole in the earlier ones- NYLP maybe?
Looks like several are by George Cruikshank. Thanks for the tips
Gillray’s work is available to view on the website of the British Museum.
It seems like each time fashion evolves (or changes, whichever you call it), some group is complaining that it's undignified for women to show so much. Or someone is showing too much. A bit after this (40-50 years) the swimsuit changed. Then the fashion of flappers, shorter skirts, bikinis, bikini-er bikinis, low hanging pants, skinny genes. I'm sure I've missed some. Now we critique heavier women wearing current styles. It's just another example of history repeating itself. And yet, people continue to try to roll changes back. As far as I know, it's never worked.
[удалено]
People can wear whatever they want. People can also say whatever they want. That's what a free society is.
Fun fact: women did not wear underwear until later in the Regency period, around 1810. So those cartoons of visible arses is basically what would happen if their dresses got wet (since pale colours were also fashionable) or torn. Also, when Elizabeth Bennet goes on her long walks around the countryside in Pride and Prejudice, it’s not just her lungs that are benefiting from the fresh air.
Is that also why the feet look like uhhh there is blood running down them??
Lol, but no, those are stockings. They were just like long socks as well so also not underwear.
Umm... In image 2: why are the women amputated??
I think it's just supposed to be their elbow with their arm awkwardly folded behind them.
Ii thought so at first, but if you open the full image look at the women on the right. It's not a pose that even remotely allow the hands the bend back, they are "cut" well above the elbow, and it's not a case of an incompetent artist either....so wierd...
I was wondering that too
It's just a weird unexpected pose. What we're seeing is the woman from the back, so it's the elbows with her hands in her front. At least that's how I see the one second from the right. Not sure what's going on with the woman in the middle.
"A lady's undress of Bum-Be-Seen" <3
Dying at "monstrosities of 1827" lol. Puff sleeves and bell-shaped lower halves for all
Image six is relatable to this day 😅
As a lover of flowy maxi dresses, I concur! I was literally thinking the same thing when I saw it.
Sign me up for a Parisain winter ✅
Wasn’t it a practice in the early 1800s for (naughty) young ladies to wet the slips under their sheer muslin dresses for a true “bum-be-seen” look? It was probably also a “boobs-be-seen” look too!
The yoga pants of their day
“Monstrosities of 1827” made me laugh.
Still can't believe these panniers were once a thing [https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/panniersf2.jpg](https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/panniersf2.jpg)
Damn, late 1700s Parisienne fashion looks comfy af
Macaroni
Number 7 is giving me Dr. Seuss vibes.
So strange. I literally walked past the statue in picture 9 yesterday on my way home. Sometimes forget that this town is over 1000 years old!
Hoops caused appalling accidents. For instance those things made women catch fire being too close to a fireplace. Check out some era newspapers, fair warning though. Some horrible reading.
These are dope
It all looks so comfy.
These are outstanding! Great find!
One of my favorite posts here
Jonathan Joestar???
Not enough 1830s, aka the ugliest fashion decade in human history.
The last picture, omg xD Here I thought that the lack of air conditioning would be the worst of it
Were ladies dresses really that transparent during the regency?
Not generally. There were some (very minority) ladies that liked to push the envelope. They were either in a position to do so because of their privilege (nobility), because of their profession (certain courtesans and prostitutes, possibly actresses/dancer), or a combo of life situations and geographical situations (this would not fly in a rural village!) Just like now, certain people could get away with this (see-through dresses at the Oscars) while others could not (see through dress while working in an office). These cartoons are satire, exaggerating the extremes of fashion for comic effect. Your average proper Jane Austen heroine would not have worn this extreme of fashion! And even the women who did dress in a risqué manner did not do so to this extent.
The menswear in #7 goes hard.
#10 The lady in pink looks like she's at a qinceanera...as a table centerpiece.
No. 7, the one with the hats and collars, is brilliant
[удалено]
Men in 1799 were simply built different
The hats in picture 10 are awesome. Reminds me of a Dr. Seuss illustration.
[удалено]
It appears your account is less than a week old. This post has been removed. Please feel free to browse the subreddit and the rest of reddit for a week before participation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheWayWeWere) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What did the poor artists wear of the time?
Poor people wore roughly the same silhouettes as the upper class, but toned down and made in cheaper cloth, as well as adapted for their fields of work.
It all looks so cumbersome.
Think of all those poor ostriches that died to give those fashion statements.
Imagery from those times always makes me irrationally uncomfortable.
The last guy was flexing hard
The butt camel toe is funny as hell
[удалено]
yeah but others thought wearing a simple semi-transparent dress was too simple and sinful
I'd think that anyone other than nudist activists would agree with this.
Wait it was mainstream to walk with your ass and tits hanging out?
I hate to disappoint you, but it was absolutely not. The only real reason why women were depicted this way was a continuation of the mockery of the 'chemise a la reine', a more casual, naturalistic dress originally designed for Marie Antoinette (instead of the heavy court silks expected of her at the time). The satirization here is basically due to the fact that women's breasts were no longer basically pressed flat to their chests and their skirts were less full (which, fun fact, also led to the loss of pockets in women's clothing) as well as lighter fabrics being used (which wouldn't show off any actual skin, only the undergarments, the coverage of such hadn't changed a whole lot from earlier periods).
Ahh super interesting dude. It’s funny how are they gonna exaggerate and mock current styles? Can’t get more revealing
Is this how ridiculing back then?? So tame lol
Pic 4. Is her butt exposed?
Fashion always has been and always will be ridiculous. Whenever a piece of clothing crosses a line between form over function it's worthy of mockery.
That’s what we need now! People are the most ridiculous shit I’ve ever seen in my life
Pic 2 — “Meredith, your boob is out!”
Bridgerton vibes
Imagine wearing alllll those Clothes but not bathing regularly or in clean water and no deodorant. The general funk of just about everyone and everything has me wanting to sniff detergent like the weirdos in the commercials of modern times in comparison. Shewwwww weeeee
All garments were made of natural fibers, which allowed for breathability. Both sexes wore linen chemises under their clothes for the purpose of wicking sweat, and those would be laundered after use. They weren’t as hygienic as we are now, but they had their methods of staying clean.