Hour Glass figures

[AllaboutEve]

"at the turn of the century, a girl's eligibility was said to be judged by the size of her waist - which should be "twice the circumference of her neck, which, in turn, should be twice the circumference of her wrist"

Thought you might find that quote amusing!!!!

Got chatting in the Underwear Help forum and started to wonder what all your thoughts were on the changing shape of ladies over the last 50 years or so? I'm thinking more shape than size here as it seems modern clothing has forgotten that we have waists and busts?
I love to hear your thoughts...

 

[VivianRegan]

I've noticed, at least on magazine covers, that hips have disappeared.
It's like curves have gone out of style. Maybe if we wait long enough, they'll
come back in vogue. Except for busts, shapes have been supressed. Or do you disagree?

 

[ITG]

I agree with both. Seems most pants seem to be made for gals without hips and cut low as well and the shirts for short torsos (the result is having a shirt that doesn't meet up with or overlap the pants). One pair of jeans I've found rather comfy and having a hip allowance are New York Co. jeans (fomerly known as Lerner stores). Target stores has a site where you can custom order jeans, but I haven't tried those.

 

[Lauren]

Personally, I think the changing silhouettes have a lot to do with social circumstance or fashions of thinking. For example, the broad shoulders of the 40's was trying to show we could be "manly" while the men were at war. The curvy lines of the 50's meant that now that the boys were back we were trying to find our place as women again. The 60's came and we rebelled again, figuring we didn't fit in to the stereotypes we did perwar (so the a-line became fashionable), the 70's and we showed too much skin... etc.

But maybe it's just me.

So where are we now? I'm guessing we're getting tired of being "one of the guys" and are slowly finding our feminine side again. Sure, models are super thin, but I think we all know that that's not how the average american woman is. There's been a lot more lace, skirts, satin, and velvet than we've seen since the 80's... when there was a renewed interest in the "family" and the old ways. Are we returning to that again? Probably not. We're trying to figure out how to look girlish and be scandelous all at the same time. A very confusing combination.

 

[Annalai]

Read this http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1027942004
A lot has to do with the fashion but also the fact the female body is changing. Most women today does not wear any girdle or corset creating the hourglass shape like women did in the 40's and 50's this I think is the biggest difference.
Annalai

 

[LaMedicine]

Hmmm. Being one who started out with bras and girdles in the early 60s, and having seen the decline of formshaping undergarments personally, if you want to attribute the decline of curves in the past 30 years or so to a few select words, I think I can say it with just one. Twiggy. You may or may not have heard her name, but to fashion-conscious women of the late 60s-early 70s, her debut and success as a model was a shock in that she just about erased all the curves on both women and clothes. The boney and straight, no bust, no hips boyish figure, and the mini skirt that went with it. She was a sharp contrast to the glamorous models of haut couture until then. Her timing was in sync with the female liberation movements that started around then, and I guess everything about her, and the fashions hoisted on her, symbolized the broader social--meaning education, career, family, business etc.--prospects for women.
As Lauren says, much of the femal fashion reflects the social circumstances surrounding women, whether it is thrust on us by others, or is chosen by us. The rise and fall of skirt length is pretty typical, I'd say, and each time some form of "liberation" is in the air, the skirts get shorter...as with Twiggy.

In my experience, garments without waistbands tend to allow us to forget about our waistlines, resulting in their expansion. I sure want skirts with waistbands back.

 

[Lauren]

You're definately right about that! Twiggy looked kind of bizarre, if you ask me. Most people think of the stick thin girl as Audrey Hepurn, but I betcha even Audrey wore a girdle. Even the "good girls" wore foundation undergarments on a constant basis- something thought to be "gothic" or for only risque women today. It's too bad. We've lost our femininity for exchange for sexuality. This is, of course, arguable, but I feel that sexiniess is not the only sign of femininity.

But back to Twiggy. Her, the hippie movement, and the feminist movement helped to burn our bras, girdles, etc. And then there's *shudder* pantyhose. Designed oftentimes to flatten our hips and buttocks, they create an apaulling silhouette when worn with a tight evening dress without appropriate waist restraints- be it a girdle or merry widow.

 

[AllaboutEve]

You're definately right about that! Twiggy looked kind of bizarre, if you ask me. Most people think of the stick thin girl as Audrey Hepurn, but I betcha even Audrey wore a girdle. Even the "good girls" wore foundation undergarments on a constant basis- something thought to be "gothic" or for only risque women today. It's too bad. We've lost our femininity for exchange for sexuality. This is, of course, arguable, but I feel that sexiniess is not the only sign of femininity.

But back to Twiggy. Her, the hippie movement, and the feminist movement helped to burn our bras, girdles, etc. And then there's *shudder* pantyhose. Designed oftentimes to flatten our hips and buttocks, they create an apaulling silhouette when worn with a tight evening dress without appropriate waist restraints- be it a girdle or merry widow.

I agree Lauren, I think that we really have thrown the baby out with the bath water with this one. Don't get me wrong I think that principles behind the women's liberation movement were largely sound, I think it went wrong when we forgot that we are inherently different from men.
Different mentally, different biologically, and a different shape!! and different doesn't make us second rate it makes us all fantastic.
I think that the way that women have chosen to dress over the last 20 years has developed into an odd kind of uniform for a lot of unhappy ladies who finally "got it all" and are now worn out and wondering what went wrong. In London the next generation of teenage girls are going about in low slung trousers and baggy tops. What is shocking is that they really don't know where their waists are. I asked my partner's 14 year old daughter the other day why on earth she thought that she was fat and she said that her waist was bigger than her Dad's (she is a very little lady) I was amazed to see her whip out a tape measure and procede to measure around HER HIPS!!! So much for the legacy of the low rise jean. I have pointed out to here where her waist actually is now.
It's odd but I actually feel more "powerful" in a pair of heels and a nipped in waist than a pair of jeans,.......if "power" is what we were all looking for.

 

[Lauren]

I had two very similar experiences lately!

I was dressing people up for halloween (I usually get a call or 2 for costumes), and the girls instantaneously would put their pants or skirts low on their hips. When one girl asked for a belt I brought it forth, she tried to put it around her hips and then professed it was too small! It would have fit her waist, where it was meant to be worn in the first place!

Another friend took an old pair of men's trousers, slunk them down low, then asked about fit. She called me later and said "Did you know that men used to wear their pants high? Wierd! Do you think that will ever come back?" And I mentioned I thought it was on it's way. It was wierd for her to think they weren't lower on the hips until the 60's! It was fun to try to describe Hollywood waist pants to her at that point

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I think a lot of the problem actually has to do with the adoption of jeans as the standard uniform. Jeans simply do not look good on the majority of women/girls. The women who look spectacular in jeans are usually the type who would look good in anything.

But for some bizarre reason everybody wants to wear them, resulting in girls sabotaging their entire "look" and making themselves look worse.

 

[LaMedicine]

Most people think of the stick thin girl as Audrey Hepurn, but I betcha even Audrey wore a girdle. Even the "good girls" wore foundation undergarments on a constant basis- something thought to be "gothic" or for only risque women today.

You have the "even" wrong. The fact is, back in those days, until Twiggy, foundation undergarments were a *must* for the "good" girls. It was the "bad" girls who did not wear them, and flaunted their sexuality. Audrey most certainly wore foundation undergarments, and all she is is super slim, she has an hourglass figure in comparison to Twiggy! Twiggy was just as her name is, bones and sticks. You'd have had to be there to understand that, at that time, she was a breath of fresh air in a world that was becoming stuffy, the alluring curvacious figure seeming to be a symbol of submissiveness to our opposite gender, to girls who aspired to make something of themselves in the world. I suppose to some quarters during the liberation of women in the 70s, foundation undergarments were tantamount to being the symbol of our bondage in servitude to men. The release from the confining garments, the shunning of elegance, was a symbol of the rebellion of women against being confined without choice in the traditional female role.
As AllaboutEve says, the thought behind the movement was sound, and neccessary for the world. But there is no denying the biological differences that abound, and the resulting experiences that shape us. Part of women's liberation went into denial of that, trying only to compete, instead of male and female complimenting each other. Just like the symbol of Ying and Yang compliments and completes.

It's too bad. We've lost our femininity for exchange for sexuality. This is, of course, arguable, but I feel that sexiniess is not the only sign of femininity.

I think femininity is a subtle form of sexuality. Being elegantly clad increases the atmosphere and allure of the mystery of the female, and the veil that hides and occasionally give peeps of what we are, is what makes us even more attractive. The tromp l'oeil that attracts, and the hidden surprise that consolidates.

And then there's *shudder* pantyhose. Designed oftentimes to flatten our hips and buttocks, they create an apaulling silhouette when worn with a tight evening dress without appropriate waist restraints- be it a girdle or merry widow.

Ahhh, I have to confess, I am a regular user of pantyhose... My first experiences were with girdles and stockings, and trying to get everything straight in a hurry in the mornings sometimes was flustering, and pantyhose was like an answer to a prayer in those times. Of course, a girdle went over the pantyhose, and still does. Besides, the catch for the stockings (I forget their proper name) sometimes showed up as a bulge against your legs, even with a slip or a petticoat on. That's one thing you don't have to worry with pantyhose.

As for Vladimir's comment on jeans, I'm inclined to think it's more effect than cause. Mini skirts came first, then pants, both becoming hip bones designs, and then, jeans became acceptable attire. And it was those designer high fashion jeans that first became acceptable on the social scenes, before regular jeans popped up all over. And, as with any material, proper designing, patterning, and sewing, jeans can be attractive on any person, whether men or women. All that has to be done, is for them to be designed individually and precisely for the individual. Which, of course, is going to be costly, so we all have to put up with ones designed for figures other than our own.

I was also thinking while at work today, that, it isn't the reduction of the hips, but rather, the expansion of the waistline that's contributed more to the loss of our female curves.

 

[AllaboutEve]

I was also thinking while at work today, that, it isn't the reduction of the hips, but rather, the expansion of the waistline that's contributed more to the loss of our female curves.[/QUOTE]

This link is to The Guardian newspaper article that first got me thinking, I think that you will find it really interesting.http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1574583,00.html

Gosh hasn't this thread sparked some different ideas!!!

 

[LaMedicine]

This link is to The Guardian newspaper article that first got me thinking, I think that you will find it really interesting.http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1574583,00.html

Gosh hasn't this thread sparked some different ideas!!!

Well, you made me bring out the tape measure to see where I stand. My neck is half an inch thinner than twice my wrist(I have a thin and long neck, lucky me), but my waist is a bit thicker than twice my neck...at least, it's actually only half an inch more than 4 times my wrist, my waist hip ratio 0.75, but with a waist cincher, I can lop off an inch or two, which will put the ratio at 7/10, and my BMI is 22.2, so I guess I'm doing well enough
And I figure, I'm old enough to get away with things by blaming them on middle age fat and gravity.

Seriously, while this article is fashion oriented, I've been long aware of the medical aspects implied. I'm a general internist/diabetologist, so weight gains and the loss of the indented waistline is quite a grave concern of mine.
Just this evening, I ran across this.

http://cbs11tv.com/health/health_story_308131958.html

So, maybe I should change my signature to,
"Get your hourglass figure back, get your health back",
or,
"Hourglass figure for better health"

 

[Lauren]

I love this thread

Very good points on all sides! And I agree with everyone!

But I do confess that seeing girls in jeans is better than other things- top on my list right now is the slowly reviving spandex pants under skirts. I'm a big fan of jeans, myself. It all depends on how you wear them.

 

[LaMedicine]

But I do confess that seeing girls in jeans is better than other things- top on my list right now is the slowly reviving spandex pants under skirts. I'm a big fan of jeans, myself. It all depends on how you wear them.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that! I think jeans aren't that bad on girls, either. Just so long as they ain't all torn up, or so low that you can see them dimples on the back

 

[AllaboutEve]

I love this thread

Very good points on all sides! And I agree with everyone!

But I do confess that seeing girls in jeans is better than other things- top on my list right now is the slowly reviving spandex pants under skirts. I'm a big fan of jeans, myself. It all depends on how you wear them.

I agree that jeans can look amazing, I mean how many of us can deny that Marilyn looked just stunning in hers in River Of No Return. They were firmly up around her tiny little waist and looked like they'd been sewn onto her.
I have a problem with the recent trend of the visible G-string (is that what you call them in the States?) seen over the top of the waist band this has become huge here. The general uniform of the aged 14-45 year old female in London is low slung jeans that strangle the middle of the hips, visible underwear, a tatoo across the bottom of the back and a tee-shirt. Yuck!
What really gets me is that half of the women that wear these things would look so much nicer if they had fitted things on that showed off their best attributes.
Isn't it odd that women are almost estranged from their sexuality in what they wear. Very low strung jeans create an androgenous profile on most people who wear them. Its such a relief to see the recent trend in fashion has swung a little way back towards the waist.
It's really interesting what LaMedicine says too. I mean it's kind of telling that it isn't just how heavy people are becoming it's the actual distribution of fat that has health implications.
You don't have to be stick thin to be healthy either though, or sexy. I mean look at Sophia Loren, Diana Dors......(do you guys know who she was?)
We don't want to be Twiggy......just happy, and healthy and glamourous...am I right??????


:cheers1:

 

[Lauren]

Amen!:clap

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

It is just sort of scary that the average female waist in Great Britain is 34 inches as that article states.

 

[swankysister]

I am one of those females mentioned in the article with a more masculine shape. I'm overweight now (BMI = 29), but even when I was slim (BMI = 20), I found that men's shirts fitted me best, with my broad shoulders, lack of waist and relatively straight hips. I had what would politely be referred to as a swimmer's physique.

I've given up looking for vintage clothes and am working towards making repro gear (or interpretations of 1920s to 1950s gear), as I have come to accept that I won't find stuff to fit my figure and lack of waist - with or without girdles and corsets.

 

[magneto]

Changing shapes.

Well, it's nice to find that I am not alone in being a non-hourglass...I think my shape without whalebone-and-lastex manipulation may charitably be likened to a carrot.
I was just wondering about "spread" today in regards to feet. Where I live, everyone--I mean, so-called ladies in so-called business suits--wear shower shoes (aka 'flip-flops') day and year round (magneto winces in distress) and I notice their feet all look bizarrely wide. Symptom, or cause? Hmmm.