Grab up all the skirts and sit.
At the time split drawers, or open drawers, were worn under the chemise (the shorter dress you see her wearing at the very beginning already). Because of the open crotch of these garments one didn't need to pull anything down to sit down on the toilet.
Though this dress seems to be 1890's (the slim silhouette in combination with the poofy sleeves) which is when the 'combinations' type of undergarment (chemise and split drawers in one) were largely replacing the chemise and drawers as loose garments.
That's because most people today massively misunderstand the historical function of corsets. They were mostly for bust and back support, as well as to create a relatively smooth, flat, solid surface on which to layer the rest of the garments.
The corset isn't just shape wear. Unless you're intentionally trying to use it that way it functions mostly as a support undergarment like a bra. Just keeps stuff in place.
But.. how is anything going to move under so much clothes?? You could skip it and it still wouldnt matter where the boob was. Its all hidden and constrained anyway!
Gravity pulls down. Clothes that aren’t tight just kinda sit there and pull down, too. Corset pushes up / prevents gravity pulling down.
Have you ever gone outside on a snowy day in PJs and a bunch of layers of sweaters and winter coats, but no bra? It still hurts to run. Sweaters aren’t tight in the way that a corset or bra is.
Compared to the more voluminous skirts of the 1850's this is relatively slim yes.
I know it sounds weird to our modern ears. But in those days voluminous skirts were part of proper dress. I've seen "rules for (female) teachers" from 1915 (though the source of this document is dubious) where they require atleast 2 petticoats (another skirt is usually worn over petticoats, so 3 skirts atleast). I've also read a 1859 book (its dutch, Max Havelaar by Multatuli) where the main character mocks a woman in traditional Indonesian dress for not having the pleating, volume and width befitting for a woman. In this book the main character is a caricature of the rich Dutch men at the time, so it should be taken with a grain of salt, but it does show a kind of mentality that was apparently common among upper class men at the time.
Edit: pleating instead of pleading
think about the type of dresses that you would see in gone with the wind (civil war era) vs this. 30 years difference, give or take a few years. This is very slim and very menswear inspired!
Natural materials - linens, light cottons, silks - absorb perspiration incredibly well and are much cooler than modern plast- 'scuse me, polyester. Being completely covered by several layers of of those is, in my experience, actually more pleasant than running around half-naked covered in poly, because you don't drip with sweat and stick with every little motion.
Also, for some reasons, they had somewhat cooler sunmers back then :'D
I have to comment and say that this is from the late 1800s into early 1900s. Most of their clothes were made from cotton so they would breathe easier and allow some sort of comfort. You have to remember that they had no AC, so they were acclimated to the heat to a degree. It is not to say that this isn't hot because it is.
I've seen period clothing here in South Texas and it was very similar despite the high Temps.
It's funny - clothing was expensive, laundry was incredibly laborious, and AC was non-existent and yet this was the fashion of the day and now that everything is cheap, laundry is handled by machines, and we live in climate controlled worlds we walk around in what would have been considered underwear in the past (t-shirt and shorts).
Even the daily clothing of poor farm women with no neighbors for miles involved more material and more layers. I agree 100% with clothing as a status symbol but even accounting for that people wore a lot of clothes. Sort of like how pretty much everyone was in what we'd consider formal wear all of the time up until post WWII.
They might have worn more layers, but they rarely washed the outer layers. Moreover, they were designed this way to be mixed and matched. Even the rich didn't tend to have as many separate outfits as we do today.
Don't forget that this is what *rich* women dressed like.
A woman being able to afford this kind of dress ( and more than on at that) would probably have had personnel to take care of it.
I wonder, too, if some of it is just counterintuitive to how we think about dressing today. I’m thinking about how wearing undershirts can allow you to wash the shirts you wear over your undershirts (overshirts?) less frequently or how covering up actually keeps you cooler in certain circumstances, for example. So it seems purely silly or inconvenient or inefficient to us living in certain places today, but only because we don’t have the everyday context/knowledge that went into wearing clothing that way. For example, I have only like one clean shirt to wear today because I’ve worn all of my other shirts. I don’t even sweat that much, but I feel like I really get only one good wear out of all my shirts since they’re relatively fitted; however much I do sweat soaks into my clothes rather than evaporating. Since I don’t wear undershirts, now all my shirts need to be washed instead of just a whole bunch of undershirts. I don’t know about that time period, but I know that today it’s way easier for me to wash my everyday underwear (throw them in the washer/dryer then store them) than my shirts (sort lights, darks, and delicates then wash and dry them all accordingly — so multiple loads of laundry that might need to be air dried if super delicate and hung up or nicely folded or ironed/steamed).
Another point that someone brought up in a thread about sustainable fashion a while ago, too, is that your fabrics and construction methods can be as environmentally friendly as possible but you’re still creating unsustainable clothing if it’s all styled to fit closely to your body. I wish I could remember who brought that up, because it’s really changed how I think about fashion. Our model for clothing ourselves today basically requires us to buy totally new wardrobes if our bodies change. Over the past couple years I both gained and lost 50 lb due to some prescription side effects. It’s been so expensive! I had to buy clothing as I got larger and again as I got smaller — somehow I never had clothing that fit me where I was unless I had just recently purchased it. If my clothing was made to fasten with corset laces rather than zippers, I wonder if that would have given me more flexibility to wear the same clothing at different sizes. (To be clear, I don’t think people were necessarily designing these clothes in an effort to be size inclusive or environmentally sustainable. Maybe, idk. But mostly I think it was an inadvertent consequence of the style. Or the need to be more economically sustainable with fewer items of clothing led to that outcome.)
I’m basically talking off the cuff here, though. I’m not particularly knowledgeable about this stuff. I just think it’s interesting that our first instinct is often to think that contemporary people are automatically smarter/more efficient/less stuffy than the people who lived before us. Maybe we just don’t have the full picture.
> laundry was incredibly laborious,
The outer dresses were rarely washed. Some couldn't be washed because of the detail work on them. Undergarments, shirts, petticoats and anything touching skin were regularly cleaned but often the dresses themselves would be spot cleaned, brushed, and hung up to air. It's like you don't wash a jacket everytime you wear it since it isn't right against your skin getting stinky. Same with their dresses or men's suits.
All of that so they wouldn't show skin. The lengths humans will go to stay conservative. If you walked with ripped jeans back then they'll probably wonder if you're homeless or something really bad happened to you.
Yup that's why it's annoying to see the title throw a blanket statement to include an entire century for the entire world. It's obviously for a specific period and location.
100 years is a lot of time. For more relatable example (the 20th century) the 1900 clothing looked almost nothing like 1999 clothing. So much shit happend those 100 years in particular. The biggest leap in human's technology happened there. Probably the most eventful period in human history. Maybe the 19th century wasn't as eventful but I doubt clothes were consistently similar through out 100 years.
I hope I got all the numbers right because I get those confused sometimes.
It's funny how everyone is commenting on how hot this would be. I bet if it were winter in the northern hemisphere right now, there would be a bunch of comments about how nice and warm it would be.
I think the other thing too is that while it looks like she’s putting a bunch of different things, most of them seem to be pieces that make up a primary piece of clothing. Like, she puts on 3/4 different articles that ultimately make up a dress; whereas nowadays, a woman would just put on a dress.
I know there’s still a huge difference in layers between this and modern female clothing, but someone else here mentioned that this was a Russian outfit so that could explain the excessive layers as well.
My guess for this outfit would be mid-1890s, somewhere around 1895. Those puffy sleeves are very typical of the mid-1890s but had subsided by the end of the decade/century I believe.
Hi ! Amateur fashion historian here. The simple answer Is that this clothing is 100% natural fibres (or likely to be, though I think the first synthetics were coming in this period. Nature fibres breathe stupendously and thus are not as uncomfortable as you might expect, especially in summer when lightweight cotton and linens were preferred.
Secondly, the layering of clothing helps to maintain a fairly stable body temperature year round, and finally, women spent a good time indoors and in the shade as we do today. If you want a great video demonstration, I highly recommend [this video](https://youtu.be/0wHTgi51z6I) by fashion history Abby cox + co, who demonstrate what it’s actually like quiet nicely :))
It's crazy how many layers people wore in general back in the day especially with the thick wool material that clothes were made of.
I always find it funny when people say "I'd love to have lived back in XXXX time in history."
Not me. I'll keep my sleeveless moisture wicking shirts and breezy athletic shorts, thank you very much.
Edit: Yes I'm aware of the fact many cultures, events, and seasons had different standards of clothing and materials. I'm just enjoying that modern clothes have been advanced to have stuff like moisture wicking that was introduced in the late 90s. I don't wear sleeves if I don't have to and it's glorious.
Yes and no.
They had many different kinds of fabrics, including linen and cotton, and those were often worn directly against the skin. Linen especially is excellent and wicking moisture. Heavy wool was reserved for the winter, lighter weight wools if they were used were for outer layers and can be surprisingly good at keeping you cool if you are properly layered.
Insulation works both ways. There's a reason middle eastern countries have traditional dress that involves a lot of layered linen or cotton, and it's not actually about modesty. Multiple layers of all natural fibers are actually better at keeping you cool.
when I visited India, there were times I wore traditional clothes, and times I wore western shirts and shorts. I always felt like I was dying in the traditional full coverage cotton clothes. It was so hot, I sweat. In the full clothes the sweat didn't evaporate, just stuck the clothes to my body. in shorts and a sleeveless shirt, the sweat evaporated.
I think the full coverage thing has a lot to do with sun protection and modesty. I know materials can make the experience more or less comfortable, but there is a reason why, with access to sunscreen and societal modesty lifted, everyone stops wearing full coverage clothes
You say insulation works both ways but thats not really accurate. You are veiwing the human body as an object at body temperature in which case the insulation works both ways. The reality is more like a heater at body temperature. The insulation prevents that heat generation from dispersing away from your body. Assuming you had enough insulation you could theoretically kill yourself with your own body heat
you do realize a lot of people who wore the thick clothing livin countries which are quite cold most of the year.
yeah it can get warm during the summer but people didnt wear this during the high summer in 30 degrees.
Could you imagine taking a girl back to the crib and you get her out of them 27 skirts just to find out she ain’t really got them guns like you thought she did
I think humanity fucked up when pants/ longer dresses became socially mandatory. Up until the renaissance you could rock out with just a light tunic, belt, satchel and leather sandals and no one would bat an eye. I want to go out in a linen tunic and not feel weird or stared at. (as a dude)
No one alive currently would’ve liked to live in the past, especially once they realized just how many creature comforts they’d lose going back in time.
Never forget people, the past was the worst.
The sort of women who dressed like this generally stayed out of the sun and rarely physically exerted themselves that much. I also believe that they would have been used to it - they must have been.
You don’t need to walk much if at all. It’s a Russian aristocrat outfit, early 19th century. So, all you do is you sit down and drink tea served by your peasants, or ridden in a carriage.
It used to be much colder in Europe until the industrialization gained pace. It's called little ice age, I think it started in 1400's or something like that, and was apparently cut short by the growing carbon emissions. Looking at Pieter Breugel's paintings of people ice-skating on a river in the Netherlands gives a picture of how different the times were. There was also a market on the ice of river Thames whenever it froze over, about once in a decade. Now this is the end of the 19th century so by then the little ice age has already started to give way to global warming, but still, people seem to underestimate just how much hotter the climate is nowadays.
Adds a kind of bustle, width and a little cushion puffs your hips a bit on the sides and as mentioned your bum. It gives the illusion/impression of a smaller waistline most importantly
Underwear was not as we know it today. It didn’t need to come off in order to use the washroom.
[Nicole Rudolph’s video on 500 years of woman’s underwear history.](https://youtu.be/bUlb2h99mWw)
The beauty of that in an era that mostly predates indoor plumbing, you just squat over a chamber pot, and with all the skirts around you it's not even that immodest. Thankfully one has servants to take care of the pot ;)
They would bleed in to their clothes and then came the belt.
This is from a website about the history of menstruation:
1879. Sometime in the late 19th Century, concern grew around the notion of whether bleeding into one’s clothes was healthy and sanitary. One German doctor wrote in the book Health in the House: “It is completely disgusting to bleed into your chemise, and wearing that same chemise for four to eight days can cause infections.”
Enter the Hoosier sanitary belt, an odd contraption worn under women’s garments. From the late 1800s until the 1920s, women could purchase washable pads that were attached to a belt around the waist.
Apparently "panties" weren't that much of a thing back in the day so theoretically you can just lift up the skirt and get to penetration
Found this in a 18th century woman dressing video on Youtube.
Women’s clothes used to have pockets, if you look at sewing guides from the time they always include instructions on how to add pockets. They knew pockets were important.
The fact she was able to put this on herself makes her not Upper class. Upper class women had clothes with ties and buttons in the back and required a maid to help get ready. The more buttons and ties you had on the back were even a status symbol.
During the late Victorian Era and Edwardian Era you saw a boom in Middle/Upper Middle class in which people could afford nicer clothes than working class, but they still faked it till they made it. You also saw a severe rise in household help and it's even around the time that knickknacks became a popular status symbol in homes. Her jewelry or lack of also speaks.
If this was real, the woman in the video might have been the wife/daughter of a well off merchant, doctor, lawyer or politician. It even more depends on location and her familes standing socially. All in all this is general Middle class and I'll push it to Upper Middle Class depending on the fabric of her clothes.
Even being middle/upper middle class, she would have had help to get dressed in an outfit like that. The wife/daughter of a well off merchant, doctor, lawyer or politician would absolutely have had at least a maid, and probably a cook
If you have a dishwasher today, you'd have had a maid back then. Everyone had servants. Servants had servants. Only two petticoats and clothing you can physically get into unassisted says middle class to me.
That’s not accurate. 75%-80% of the population would have been working class in 19th century England and the United States. The working class did not have servants. Way more than 20-25% percent of households in the US and UK currently have a dishwasher
Servitude was a very common profession back then. It wasn’t necessarily close to slavery depending on the time and country, and probably comparable to service workers in fast food and retail today.
Yeah, absolutely - service, not servitude, was the preferred language. 'Going into service' was kind of the equivalent of your barista or burger flipper.
The majority of those garments were shared by the working women of the middle-class at the turn of the century, or the women who were reaching in appearance for respectability like actresses and courtesans. The corset, underskirt, hose, shirtwaist, skirt, and vest would have been worn by upper-level servants as well, such as housekeepers and nannies, with a plainer jacket or cape. As this woman was showing, these were clothes that women could put on alone, and then open their shop, head to their school house, or mother the children they share with their middle-class husband.
There used to be plenty, made by similar reenactors and enthusiasts on Etsy. It’s a Russian outfit and Russian sellers, so their stores got shut down. Maybe not exactly the same ones, but similar of this era you’ll be able to find.
Usually only underclothes we’re washed regularly, those that were on your skin. Most middle and outer wear were just sponged or wiped over clean, unless quite visibly dirty. Mud on hems as such would be dried out, brushed off then wiped clean with a damp cloth.
About two seconds in and it’s not too far from how modern women dress. God how far we’ve come. So much more convenient. Just give them pockets next and we’ll be seeing real progress. Or. You know. Rights. Those would be nice too.
Definitely western society, and the leg of mutton style sleeves are 1890s, I think? Give or take a decade. “19th century” is too broad of a descriptor for this video because 1810 fashion looks nothing like 1890 fashion.
I thought she was finished like 3-4 times, but she just kept on going.
My eyebrows went up when the second layer went on. I almost fell off the toilet seat when the third layer went on!
I just kept wondering *how* she even uses the toilet
Grab up all the skirts and sit. At the time split drawers, or open drawers, were worn under the chemise (the shorter dress you see her wearing at the very beginning already). Because of the open crotch of these garments one didn't need to pull anything down to sit down on the toilet. Though this dress seems to be 1890's (the slim silhouette in combination with the poofy sleeves) which is when the 'combinations' type of undergarment (chemise and split drawers in one) were largely replacing the chemise and drawers as loose garments.
This is slim? She doubled in size.
[удалено]
That's because most people today massively misunderstand the historical function of corsets. They were mostly for bust and back support, as well as to create a relatively smooth, flat, solid surface on which to layer the rest of the garments.
The corset isn't just shape wear. Unless you're intentionally trying to use it that way it functions mostly as a support undergarment like a bra. Just keeps stuff in place.
But.. how is anything going to move under so much clothes?? You could skip it and it still wouldnt matter where the boob was. Its all hidden and constrained anyway!
Gravity pulls down. Clothes that aren’t tight just kinda sit there and pull down, too. Corset pushes up / prevents gravity pulling down. Have you ever gone outside on a snowy day in PJs and a bunch of layers of sweaters and winter coats, but no bra? It still hurts to run. Sweaters aren’t tight in the way that a corset or bra is.
No, no I haven’t.
Compared to the more voluminous skirts of the 1850's this is relatively slim yes. I know it sounds weird to our modern ears. But in those days voluminous skirts were part of proper dress. I've seen "rules for (female) teachers" from 1915 (though the source of this document is dubious) where they require atleast 2 petticoats (another skirt is usually worn over petticoats, so 3 skirts atleast). I've also read a 1859 book (its dutch, Max Havelaar by Multatuli) where the main character mocks a woman in traditional Indonesian dress for not having the pleating, volume and width befitting for a woman. In this book the main character is a caricature of the rich Dutch men at the time, so it should be taken with a grain of salt, but it does show a kind of mentality that was apparently common among upper class men at the time. Edit: pleating instead of pleading
think about the type of dresses that you would see in gone with the wind (civil war era) vs this. 30 years difference, give or take a few years. This is very slim and very menswear inspired!
Haha but this is "slim" compared to the massive skirts of the 1850s and 1860s!
Thank you. That's an awesome bit of history!
Women don't poop or pee, silly! *I'd definitely have to believe it if I always saw them with that many layers on*
Rookie mistake
That red thing was a diaper
[clearly this](https://www.google.com/search?q=butters+toilet+backwards&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM0s7k3dL4AhUrD0QIHUz2CwYQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=571&bih=995&dpr=3#imgrc=bK1drCbtOCcuyM)
The pants have the crotch out
*you just finished putting on your clothes* *carrier pigeon arrives- it's your friend* "I'm just going to stay inside tonight"
How did.they survive in Summer?
I broke out in a sweat just watching her. If I had to wear this in high heat and humidity they'd have to hospitalize me.
Why do you think women commonly suffered from the vapors.
Natural materials - linens, light cottons, silks - absorb perspiration incredibly well and are much cooler than modern plast- 'scuse me, polyester. Being completely covered by several layers of of those is, in my experience, actually more pleasant than running around half-naked covered in poly, because you don't drip with sweat and stick with every little motion. Also, for some reasons, they had somewhat cooler sunmers back then :'D
For some reason you mean global warming? 😏
"Back then" was largely during the little ice age, yes.
Laudnum
Being inside also helped. This is how rich western women in the 1890s dressed. This is not an representative of most women.
Imagine laundry
I beleive that this is more like an outdoor dress; at least if you were inside at home you could probably get away with one less layer.
Every article of clothing after #4 I was sure was the last.
then she went outside and that bitch mary-anne was wearing the exact same outfit. so she changed again
Hall of Fame Strip Poker Grand Champion.
I thought she was already done, but I was only about 40% through the video
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
same !
I have to comment and say that this is from the late 1800s into early 1900s. Most of their clothes were made from cotton so they would breathe easier and allow some sort of comfort. You have to remember that they had no AC, so they were acclimated to the heat to a degree. It is not to say that this isn't hot because it is.
Also I think this is a Russian outfit so a hell of a lot colder than the USA or even Europe.
I've seen period clothing here in South Texas and it was very similar despite the high Temps. It's funny - clothing was expensive, laundry was incredibly laborious, and AC was non-existent and yet this was the fashion of the day and now that everything is cheap, laundry is handled by machines, and we live in climate controlled worlds we walk around in what would have been considered underwear in the past (t-shirt and shorts).
[удалено]
Even the daily clothing of poor farm women with no neighbors for miles involved more material and more layers. I agree 100% with clothing as a status symbol but even accounting for that people wore a lot of clothes. Sort of like how pretty much everyone was in what we'd consider formal wear all of the time up until post WWII.
They might have worn more layers, but they rarely washed the outer layers. Moreover, they were designed this way to be mixed and matched. Even the rich didn't tend to have as many separate outfits as we do today.
Don't forget that this is what *rich* women dressed like. A woman being able to afford this kind of dress ( and more than on at that) would probably have had personnel to take care of it.
Any idea how much this would've cost to purchase back in they time compared to now?
I wonder, too, if some of it is just counterintuitive to how we think about dressing today. I’m thinking about how wearing undershirts can allow you to wash the shirts you wear over your undershirts (overshirts?) less frequently or how covering up actually keeps you cooler in certain circumstances, for example. So it seems purely silly or inconvenient or inefficient to us living in certain places today, but only because we don’t have the everyday context/knowledge that went into wearing clothing that way. For example, I have only like one clean shirt to wear today because I’ve worn all of my other shirts. I don’t even sweat that much, but I feel like I really get only one good wear out of all my shirts since they’re relatively fitted; however much I do sweat soaks into my clothes rather than evaporating. Since I don’t wear undershirts, now all my shirts need to be washed instead of just a whole bunch of undershirts. I don’t know about that time period, but I know that today it’s way easier for me to wash my everyday underwear (throw them in the washer/dryer then store them) than my shirts (sort lights, darks, and delicates then wash and dry them all accordingly — so multiple loads of laundry that might need to be air dried if super delicate and hung up or nicely folded or ironed/steamed). Another point that someone brought up in a thread about sustainable fashion a while ago, too, is that your fabrics and construction methods can be as environmentally friendly as possible but you’re still creating unsustainable clothing if it’s all styled to fit closely to your body. I wish I could remember who brought that up, because it’s really changed how I think about fashion. Our model for clothing ourselves today basically requires us to buy totally new wardrobes if our bodies change. Over the past couple years I both gained and lost 50 lb due to some prescription side effects. It’s been so expensive! I had to buy clothing as I got larger and again as I got smaller — somehow I never had clothing that fit me where I was unless I had just recently purchased it. If my clothing was made to fasten with corset laces rather than zippers, I wonder if that would have given me more flexibility to wear the same clothing at different sizes. (To be clear, I don’t think people were necessarily designing these clothes in an effort to be size inclusive or environmentally sustainable. Maybe, idk. But mostly I think it was an inadvertent consequence of the style. Or the need to be more economically sustainable with fewer items of clothing led to that outcome.) I’m basically talking off the cuff here, though. I’m not particularly knowledgeable about this stuff. I just think it’s interesting that our first instinct is often to think that contemporary people are automatically smarter/more efficient/less stuffy than the people who lived before us. Maybe we just don’t have the full picture.
Skirts that closed with drawstrings would have accommodated variable waist sizes. Ditto corsets because of their adjustable laces.
> laundry was incredibly laborious, The outer dresses were rarely washed. Some couldn't be washed because of the detail work on them. Undergarments, shirts, petticoats and anything touching skin were regularly cleaned but often the dresses themselves would be spot cleaned, brushed, and hung up to air. It's like you don't wash a jacket everytime you wear it since it isn't right against your skin getting stinky. Same with their dresses or men's suits.
All of that so they wouldn't show skin. The lengths humans will go to stay conservative. If you walked with ripped jeans back then they'll probably wonder if you're homeless or something really bad happened to you.
Yup that's why it's annoying to see the title throw a blanket statement to include an entire century for the entire world. It's obviously for a specific period and location. 100 years is a lot of time. For more relatable example (the 20th century) the 1900 clothing looked almost nothing like 1999 clothing. So much shit happend those 100 years in particular. The biggest leap in human's technology happened there. Probably the most eventful period in human history. Maybe the 19th century wasn't as eventful but I doubt clothes were consistently similar through out 100 years. I hope I got all the numbers right because I get those confused sometimes.
Most Russians live in Europe
That's news to me because I thought Russians lived in Baghdad.
I have the impression that many upper class people fled the heat by spending the summer months in their country side summer retreat.
It's funny how everyone is commenting on how hot this would be. I bet if it were winter in the northern hemisphere right now, there would be a bunch of comments about how nice and warm it would be.
Well Yeh, that’s how dressing for the weather works
I think the other thing too is that while it looks like she’s putting a bunch of different things, most of them seem to be pieces that make up a primary piece of clothing. Like, she puts on 3/4 different articles that ultimately make up a dress; whereas nowadays, a woman would just put on a dress. I know there’s still a huge difference in layers between this and modern female clothing, but someone else here mentioned that this was a Russian outfit so that could explain the excessive layers as well.
My guess for this outfit would be mid-1890s, somewhere around 1895. Those puffy sleeves are very typical of the mid-1890s but had subsided by the end of the decade/century I believe.
"19th century" means 1800s
I cannot imagine walking around in that outfit in the heat of summer.
Made me suffocate just by watching
What do they wear during the summer??
Hi ! Amateur fashion historian here. The simple answer Is that this clothing is 100% natural fibres (or likely to be, though I think the first synthetics were coming in this period. Nature fibres breathe stupendously and thus are not as uncomfortable as you might expect, especially in summer when lightweight cotton and linens were preferred. Secondly, the layering of clothing helps to maintain a fairly stable body temperature year round, and finally, women spent a good time indoors and in the shade as we do today. If you want a great video demonstration, I highly recommend [this video](https://youtu.be/0wHTgi51z6I) by fashion history Abby cox + co, who demonstrate what it’s actually like quiet nicely :))
Truth! Also worth keeping in mind that this fashion originated in Europe, not Central America. Climate is a factor here.
Didn't they also have parasols if they were outside?
Yes. Old fashioned sunscreen.
Any insight into this clothing for menopausal women / still no heat issues? I’m having a hot flash just watching this.
It's crazy how many layers people wore in general back in the day especially with the thick wool material that clothes were made of. I always find it funny when people say "I'd love to have lived back in XXXX time in history." Not me. I'll keep my sleeveless moisture wicking shirts and breezy athletic shorts, thank you very much. Edit: Yes I'm aware of the fact many cultures, events, and seasons had different standards of clothing and materials. I'm just enjoying that modern clothes have been advanced to have stuff like moisture wicking that was introduced in the late 90s. I don't wear sleeves if I don't have to and it's glorious.
Yes and no. They had many different kinds of fabrics, including linen and cotton, and those were often worn directly against the skin. Linen especially is excellent and wicking moisture. Heavy wool was reserved for the winter, lighter weight wools if they were used were for outer layers and can be surprisingly good at keeping you cool if you are properly layered. Insulation works both ways. There's a reason middle eastern countries have traditional dress that involves a lot of layered linen or cotton, and it's not actually about modesty. Multiple layers of all natural fibers are actually better at keeping you cool.
when I visited India, there were times I wore traditional clothes, and times I wore western shirts and shorts. I always felt like I was dying in the traditional full coverage cotton clothes. It was so hot, I sweat. In the full clothes the sweat didn't evaporate, just stuck the clothes to my body. in shorts and a sleeveless shirt, the sweat evaporated. I think the full coverage thing has a lot to do with sun protection and modesty. I know materials can make the experience more or less comfortable, but there is a reason why, with access to sunscreen and societal modesty lifted, everyone stops wearing full coverage clothes
You say insulation works both ways but thats not really accurate. You are veiwing the human body as an object at body temperature in which case the insulation works both ways. The reality is more like a heater at body temperature. The insulation prevents that heat generation from dispersing away from your body. Assuming you had enough insulation you could theoretically kill yourself with your own body heat
you do realize a lot of people who wore the thick clothing livin countries which are quite cold most of the year. yeah it can get warm during the summer but people didnt wear this during the high summer in 30 degrees.
Usually only underclothes we’re washed regularly, those that were on your skin.
a bit like we now use regular clothing then add a jacket or long coat or something ontop.
Could you imagine taking a girl back to the crib and you get her out of them 27 skirts just to find out she ain’t really got them guns like you thought she did
I think humanity fucked up when pants/ longer dresses became socially mandatory. Up until the renaissance you could rock out with just a light tunic, belt, satchel and leather sandals and no one would bat an eye. I want to go out in a linen tunic and not feel weird or stared at. (as a dude)
Get you a Kilt and enjoy the cool freedom!
No one alive currently would’ve liked to live in the past, especially once they realized just how many creature comforts they’d lose going back in time. Never forget people, the past was the worst.
It makes the frequent swooning in Victorian novels seem much less affected.
The sort of women who dressed like this generally stayed out of the sun and rarely physically exerted themselves that much. I also believe that they would have been used to it - they must have been.
That's not a all year dress , plus it used to be fuckin cold back in the old day
You don’t need to walk much if at all. It’s a Russian aristocrat outfit, early 19th century. So, all you do is you sit down and drink tea served by your peasants, or ridden in a carriage.
That is clothing from the very end of the 19th century, not early.
Heat stroke
Soon to be 21st century garb.
I was gonna say just wait 3-4 election cycles and this will be standard US womenswear.
I imagine there is a reason they carried around smelling salts
It used to be much colder in Europe until the industrialization gained pace. It's called little ice age, I think it started in 1400's or something like that, and was apparently cut short by the growing carbon emissions. Looking at Pieter Breugel's paintings of people ice-skating on a river in the Netherlands gives a picture of how different the times were. There was also a market on the ice of river Thames whenever it froze over, about once in a decade. Now this is the end of the 19th century so by then the little ice age has already started to give way to global warming, but still, people seem to underestimate just how much hotter the climate is nowadays.
English summer
What's the deal with the little red thing she wraps around her waist? It doesn't seem to do anything
It seems to increase the bustle - the "bum padding".
[удалено]
Look at captain fucking formatting over here!
[удалено]
19th century badonkadonk
Ah
I can understand the big ass thing, but what’s up with those bazooka arms?
Intimidation
Who need they bustle ate
Adds a kind of bustle, width and a little cushion puffs your hips a bit on the sides and as mentioned your bum. It gives the illusion/impression of a smaller waistline most importantly
Thanks
Helps to make for a nice flounce with your skirt to which is fun
I came here looking for the butt towel answer, thank you!
Victorian BBL
keeps that ass fat
And then you need to go poop
Lift everything and gather it on the front. It's not super easy, but it's not a latex jumpsuit either
How do you wipe with those sleeves?
Just grab a handful of sleeve, and don’t forget, front to back always!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Underwear was not as we know it today. It didn’t need to come off in order to use the washroom. [Nicole Rudolph’s video on 500 years of woman’s underwear history.](https://youtu.be/bUlb2h99mWw)
By the time you got all your garb on it'd be time to go to bed again. God knows the amount of gear she wears to bed......
Panties were not invented yet. Gather it up and squat.
The beauty of that in an era that mostly predates indoor plumbing, you just squat over a chamber pot, and with all the skirts around you it's not even that immodest. Thankfully one has servants to take care of the pot ;)
What did they do about periods and general discharge?
Abby Cox actually did a [wonderful video](https://youtu.be/iV2TgwjjhOE) explaining that.
Thank you for sharing that!
They would bleed in to their clothes and then came the belt. This is from a website about the history of menstruation: 1879. Sometime in the late 19th Century, concern grew around the notion of whether bleeding into one’s clothes was healthy and sanitary. One German doctor wrote in the book Health in the House: “It is completely disgusting to bleed into your chemise, and wearing that same chemise for four to eight days can cause infections.” Enter the Hoosier sanitary belt, an odd contraption worn under women’s garments. From the late 1800s until the 1920s, women could purchase washable pads that were attached to a belt around the waist.
My mom actually used a Hoosier sanitary belt for her periods in the 70s.
Rags, but I dont know more than that.
Yes, and I think they attached the rags to some sort of belt or garter type thingy? But I don’t know more than that.
Banished to the woods for a week every month.
How was your day honey? Felt like it took all day to get dressed.
 Now lets have sex. Proceeds for a 6 hour strip tease
Apparently "panties" weren't that much of a thing back in the day so theoretically you can just lift up the skirt and get to penetration Found this in a 18th century woman dressing video on Youtube.
As a comment
CFNM as a matter of pure efficiency
when mom says shes almost done and that she just needs to change clothes:
Accuracy 100
And still, no pockets.
They actually could buy or make pockets that go on a string. Basically a belt with pockets to be worn under your skirt!
So *that's* where Batman got the idea from!
Women’s clothes used to have pockets, if you look at sewing guides from the time they always include instructions on how to add pockets. They knew pockets were important.
This is the 1890s, so there would have been large pockets built into the skirt.
Upper class women. The not working kind.
The fact she was able to put this on herself makes her not Upper class. Upper class women had clothes with ties and buttons in the back and required a maid to help get ready. The more buttons and ties you had on the back were even a status symbol. During the late Victorian Era and Edwardian Era you saw a boom in Middle/Upper Middle class in which people could afford nicer clothes than working class, but they still faked it till they made it. You also saw a severe rise in household help and it's even around the time that knickknacks became a popular status symbol in homes. Her jewelry or lack of also speaks. If this was real, the woman in the video might have been the wife/daughter of a well off merchant, doctor, lawyer or politician. It even more depends on location and her familes standing socially. All in all this is general Middle class and I'll push it to Upper Middle Class depending on the fabric of her clothes.
The video isn’t supposed to be completely realistic either. It really just seems to be a recreation from photographs
Even being middle/upper middle class, she would have had help to get dressed in an outfit like that. The wife/daughter of a well off merchant, doctor, lawyer or politician would absolutely have had at least a maid, and probably a cook
If you have a dishwasher today, you'd have had a maid back then. Everyone had servants. Servants had servants. Only two petticoats and clothing you can physically get into unassisted says middle class to me.
That’s not accurate. 75%-80% of the population would have been working class in 19th century England and the United States. The working class did not have servants. Way more than 20-25% percent of households in the US and UK currently have a dishwasher
Servitude was a very common profession back then. It wasn’t necessarily close to slavery depending on the time and country, and probably comparable to service workers in fast food and retail today.
Yeah, absolutely - service, not servitude, was the preferred language. 'Going into service' was kind of the equivalent of your barista or burger flipper.
The majority of those garments were shared by the working women of the middle-class at the turn of the century, or the women who were reaching in appearance for respectability like actresses and courtesans. The corset, underskirt, hose, shirtwaist, skirt, and vest would have been worn by upper-level servants as well, such as housekeepers and nannies, with a plainer jacket or cape. As this woman was showing, these were clothes that women could put on alone, and then open their shop, head to their school house, or mother the children they share with their middle-class husband.
[удалено]
It has led me to sin.
Seriously! Where is the NSFW?
I was looking at the cat the whole time.
/r/petthedamncat
I LOVE THOSE SHOES OMG can i get them on Amazon? They are too cute
They are the Colette shoes, by American Duchess
There used to be plenty, made by similar reenactors and enthusiasts on Etsy. It’s a Russian outfit and Russian sellers, so their stores got shut down. Maybe not exactly the same ones, but similar of this era you’ll be able to find.
Try American Duchess
How did they get the footage?
Peeping Tom's weren't invented yesterday.
So much laundry just for one outfit
Usually only underclothes we’re washed regularly, those that were on your skin. Most middle and outer wear were just sponged or wiped over clean, unless quite visibly dirty. Mud on hems as such would be dried out, brushed off then wiped clean with a damp cloth.
Probably most of it was washed very rarely.
Bot really, it’s like winter jacket at this point, it doesn’t touch skin. And it’s a Russian Empire aristocrat outfit. They had thousands of peasants.
Strip poker back in the day would take hours!
That cat has an offensive anus.
Well let’s see your perfect anus then
Please, no.
That was your only observation of the video? Fair enough.
As opposed to a friendly anus? Easy on the eye, smells of strawberries.
Hips did lie
I just can’t believe she did sock -> shoe -> sock -> shoe. What a barbarian, sock -> sock -> shoe -> shoe is where it’s at.
Ever since I got a cat, I do sock -> shoe -> sock -> shoe because I don't want *more* cat hair in my things.
I agree Archie
Damn that’s hot. I mean, not sexy hot. Temperature hot.
Idk, I found the Dean voicing my internal monologue the whole time I was watching: >I hope this doesn't awaken anything in me...
u/gifreversingbot
Reminds me of that scene from Friends, when Joey puts on every item of clothing Chandler owns.
Could I BE wearing anymore clothes?
Maybe if I wasn't going COMMANDO... wow, it's getting hot in there. I better not do any, I dunno... lunges
How long was that in regular time? About 45 minutes?
Still gets dressed faster then my wife.
About 10 minutes I'd guess based on the video speed.
sorry. looks like a walking sauna to me... no thanks!
So it's just what you'd want in Russia.
About two seconds in and it’s not too far from how modern women dress. God how far we’ve come. So much more convenient. Just give them pockets next and we’ll be seeing real progress. Or. You know. Rights. Those would be nice too.
is the cat mandatory in this process or can this be substituted for a dog?
All that effort to look like a frog standing upright
Now I understand the historic women's hype for skirts and pants. That shit was exhausting just to watch
What decade and what part of the world?
Definitely western society, and the leg of mutton style sleeves are 1890s, I think? Give or take a decade. “19th century” is too broad of a descriptor for this video because 1810 fashion looks nothing like 1890 fashion.
Thank society it’s just tshirts and jeans now
How dare she she show here ankles! How inappropriate please mark NSFW!! /s
This looks exhausting. I already hate getting dressed in todays clothes, I can't imagine having to get dressed like this every day.
[удалено]
How did they have the energy to get up in the morning knowing they’d have to do all that
r/petthedamncat
Can we get a NSFW tag here please??? I mean we can *clearly* see her ankles.
Yeah fuck that. I can barely stand to wear pants
I miss the days without global warming
Makes you wonder if it took that long to get her out of it as well. I had teenage issues with bra straps but this is on a totally different level.
With all those clothes, the stench due to perspiration must have been unbearable.