Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A Social History of the Bra

By John Walsh, Independent UK. Posted August 29, 2007.


One hundred years ago, Vogue coined the term 'brassiere' and launched a billion-dollar industry that changed the way women dress for ever.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by John Walsh

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The bra was invented by an engineer of German extraction called Onto Titzling in 1912. He was living in a New York boarding house, and one of his neighbours, a voluptuous opera singer called Swanhilda Olafson, complained that she needed a garment to hoist her vast bosom aloft every evening -- so Titzling obliged, using some cotton, elastic and metal struts. Unfortunately, he failed to patent the device and, in the early 1930s, a Frenchman named Philippe de Brassière began making a suspiciously similar object. Titzling took him to court, but the unscrupulous Frenchman won the day. And that's why the garment all the ladies are wearing is called a brassiere, not a titzling.

Bette Midler sang about this court case in the film Beaches, so obviously it's true, isn't it? Don't be ridiculous. It's a total fabrication, based on a spoof 1971 history by Wallace Reyburn, and is just one of a thousand tales and myths that punctuate the history of the small double-dome of cloth that encases the female chest.

The bra is a thing of wondrous variety. It has been called the Hemispheres of Paradise and, less flatteringly, the Over-the-Shoulder Boulder Holder. Its function has been, paradoxically, both modest concealment and brazen revelation. It has been praised as a revolutionary garment that freed women from constriction, and has been (allegedly) burnt in public as an emblem of oppression.

It's available in a riot of forms, including lacy, push-up, sporty, plunge-line, strapless, pointy, Cross Your Heart, conical, and Wonder. It's a billion-pound industry in the UK, and a $15bn mega-industry in America. No other garment has so closely shadowed the history of the status of women. No other garment has had the power to reduce intelligent, rational men to drooling boys and awestruck slaves.

Exactly a hundred years ago, in 1907, the word "brassiere" was used in Vogue for the first time. But its evolution goes back three millennia. Historians have found that, while Roman women sometimes wore a band of cloth over their breasts, to restrict their growth or conceal them, the Greeks favoured a less uptight approach. Some enterprising designer realised that such a belt worn under the breasts might accentuate them, to pleasing effect. (In the hierarchy of ideas that have made the world a better place, this is up there with light bulbs and indoor plumbing.)

The brazen Minoans were streets ahead of the Greeks, however: women in Crete wore material that both supported and revealed their bare breasts, in emulation of the snake goddess -- 3,000 years before the invention of glamour modelling.

While the French Revolution freed women from the corset (it was outlawed because of its fatal association with the aristocracy), elsewhere its rule continued. The big change came in the early 20th century, as women played more sport, and the corset divided into the girdle and the "bust bodice" , like a really scary bikini.

Early feminist organisations, such as the National Dress Reform Association in America, had warned against the health risks of corset-wearing and called for "emancipation garments". By 1900, several proto-bra experiments had been conducted. Henry Lesher of Brooklyn offered ladies a rigid metallic structure, like a dustbin, to hold their bits in place. Clara P Clark's "improved corset" came up with shoulder straps in 1874. Olivia P Flynt's "bust supporter" offered to hold each breast in a "fabric pocket" supported by wide straps.

In 1885, Charles Moorhouse romanced lady customers with his "inflatable breast-enlarging garment," with its rubber straps and cups. And in 1889, Herminie Cadolle invented the "soutien-gorge" (the name meant "throat-support") as part of a two-piece undergarment, patented her idea and showed it off at the Great Exhibition. It was 1905 before she thought of selling the upper section separately.

The word "brassiere" was once a military term meaning "arm protector" (le bras being French for arm), and, by extension, " breastplate". It was first used in the sense we understand it during the 1890s. Manufacturers used it in 1904, but it took a mention in the pages of Vogue in 1907 to make it a milestone in fashion history. It first appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1911. In that year, Britain's new king, George V, visited France with his queen, Mary. Because of her small stature beside the king, she was known to hilarious Parisians as " La Soutien-George".


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bra, brassiere, history

John Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Strange
Posted by: bookie on Aug 29, 2007 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This seems a strange place to post an article on the history of the bra. Is alternet getting that desparate for news? I did find the article interesting however.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boobies...
Posted by: Smiggsy on Aug 29, 2007 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is great....I've been waiting for an alternet article where it was appropriate to use the following term...booby holders.

Boobies....haha!

Finally an article that is shallow enough to attract sexist comments & a bit of immaturity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boobies... Posted by: talkville
Importance, Significance and Actuality
Posted by: talkville on Aug 29, 2007 3:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, we survey a history of an article - actually an artifact - of apparel, dress and masks.

Feminists still struggle with the issue of appearance (presentation to others or oneself) and and be-ing. What the woman 'looks like' and who the woman is. The reverberations of this heavily exploited dichotomy are and have been and it seems always will be momentous. After all, we've had the "Dress for Success" movement given heavy accent since at least the '70's if not earlier. A woman cannot hide, deny, suppress or in any other manner minimize the fact that breasts are part of her. In this our re-constituting and re-capitalizing age where women are included into the class of bourgeois Capital-ism, it once again becomes important to re-visit the issue of who one is versus what one appears to be. It has heavy ideologic import. Not ALL females have breasts which "demand" the containments of artifacts like these; but capitalism must EXTEND the idea; there's money to be made! How best to do this? Why by eroticising the commodity (not the breasts themselves!!); then imparting the message to ALL females that, without this expensive and various and multi-purpose artifact, they cannot possibly SUCCEED in making a living for themselves. Commodity fetishism it used to be called but that is Marxism and ipso-facto dis-countable.

This is an issue for actual and serious "feminists" (of either sex or gender) and it hopefully will draw some sharp analyses. OUR society and our social relations are involved. These days we discuss our products rather than ourselves. There's a short step from speaking ABOUT bras or ipods or ties or suits or internets in communications or cars or any number of things to talking WITH them. The History is enlightening; what we do about it is an entirely different question. Aren't we, ourselves, today commodities - just like bras and any other number of things?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Importance, Significance and Actuality Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
I'm Changing My Religion
Posted by: Dadster3 on Aug 29, 2007 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the Minoans were on to something with that snake goddess thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm Changing My Religion Posted by: dayenta
» RE: I'm Changing My Religion Posted by: Badger1492
haven't worn a bra since high school
Posted by: deborama on Aug 29, 2007 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have tiny little tits and the best thing about them is I don't have to wear a bra, EVER. They are incredibly uncomfortable and expensive to boot. I think LOTS of women could go without them if it were not for the relentless pressure to wear them. Just more useless things for us girls to spend our little money on.

Ann Landers used to say, if you put a pencil under your boob and it falls down (i.e. the boob can't hold it up), you don't need a bra. I have never passed the pencil test except when I was breastfeeding! (which is really what boobs are for, not for sexual titillation, but that sells more bras, and more stuff in general).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And your point was . . . ? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Riight, and... Posted by: kiel
» RE: haven't worn a bra since high school Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
what fun!
Posted by: ankhet on Aug 29, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
great fun! a light article on the history of clothing as a barometer of social attitudes and gender profiling. Enjoyable and enlightening, and not as trivial as some might think.

Now, if we could only all grow up and get comfy with the word, "breast/s", and not keep resorting to contemptuous slang terms like "boobs", "tits", and such. Those are more constricting than a bra ever was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Was that a booble entendre? Posted by: Pat Kittle
Thanks...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Aug 29, 2007 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for keeping us 'abreast' of another useless article on Alter-not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks... Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Thanks... Posted by: MyLeftFoot
urban legend
Posted by: pzbrawl on Aug 29, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um, it's not 1 April. According to Wikipedia, O Titzling is an urban myth, nothing more. AlterNet, get yo'selves a fact checker!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: urban legend Posted by: hagwind
Question for physically active, big-breasted women:
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 29, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would you ever consider giving up bras for the rest of your life? the rest of the week? the next ten minutes?

Me either. Go for a run, boogie down at a party, dash up the stairs, do a sitting trot on horseback without a bra on? No way. A good sports bra is a joy forever. Two things I don't skimp on are footwear and bras, and for the same reason: feet that don't hurt and boobs that don't bounce are liberating.

P.S. to anyone who doesn't understand what this article is doing here: Clothing is a political issue, the way food and pharmaceuticals and just about everything else is. When women start getting uppity, one of the first things we focus on is how clothing constrains us. Remember Amelia Bloomer? More to the point, remember the hysterical reaction to the idea of middle-class women wearing pants? Go back further in English history and you'll find that when class distinctions began to blur, laws were passed that forbade commoners to wear certain colors and articles of clothing that were reserved for the aristocracy. If you pay attention to clothing, to what's "in" and why, and who's pushing what, you can learn a lot about a society and maybe about your own role in it too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Question for physically active, big-breasted women:
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 29, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As this article points out, bras aren't an item of modesty, but something which sexualizes the breast. By not wearing them I'm saying that my boobs are mine and not something to please anyone else. Plus, I save several hundred a year by not buying them :)

Well, the author may not realize that bras can have a purpose other than concealing or sexualizing -- the omission isn't all that surprising, because I don't believe he's ever been a physically active, big-breasted woman. (If I wrote an article about jock straps, I might miss some points too.) [g]

Before sports bras, I often considered my breasts a major nuisance, but no more. OTOH, I'm lucky: the only times they've caused me physical pain is when they went their own way at high speed.

Also -- I'll happily pay $35 for the right bra, but I don't believe I've ever spent more than $100 a year on bras, and it's a rare year I spend that much. The good ones last. (Any woman out there who hasn't discovered Title Nine, the women's sportswear company, check them out!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tit Sling ?
Posted by: R.I.P. on Aug 29, 2007 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indeed? Rip Tragle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This story is useless without pictures.
Posted by: jules_siegel on Aug 29, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» To inspire what? n/m Posted by: fork
Breast Cancer-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Aug 29, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read that some studies link wearing bras to breast cancer. The bras can restrict blood flow-

I suggest leotards. They can give some support while not binding the breasts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Breast Cancer- Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: Breast Cancer- Posted by: Gisele
» RE: Breast Cancer- Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Breast Cancer- Posted by: fork
Corsets Were Better
Posted by: The Western Confucian on Aug 29, 2007 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So said historian Ruth Goodman, quoted by Megan Lane in Lessons from our ancestors about the countryside:

8. Corsets, not bras. "By that I don't mean Victorian corseting," says Ms Goodman. "Corsets support your back as well as your chest, and don't leave red welts on your skin like bra elastic does. They made it hard to breath walking up hills, but I get short of breath doing that anyway. And most people feel sexy in a corset."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not to mention Posted by: hurricane hugo
how about an article on
Posted by: bluebirdella on Aug 29, 2007 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the history of the jock strap? Oh, that's right - we don't talk about men's bodies. No politics there. Women's bodies are in the public domain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: how about an article on Posted by: hairy legs
» yes, it's true Posted by: bluebirdella
» Ever see Posted by: hurricane hugo
» Poor Men, Indeed! Posted by: pdxstudent
» Consider the audience Posted by: hagwind
» RE: how about an article on Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: how about an article on Posted by: skybluesky
why the history of bras written from a male perspective?
Posted by: hairy legs on Aug 29, 2007 3:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clothes are political. Sexualization of womens' bodies is
political. And important. A social history of the bra is a valid topic for alternet to cover.

This article, however, seems like an excuse for the author to drool over mental images of women in bras.
When the author says, "Some enterprising designer realised that such a belt worn under the breasts might accentuate them, to pleasing effect. (In the hierarchy of ideas that have made the world a better place, this is up there with light bulbs and indoor plumbing.)", the author announces that he is a hetero male and that the article is written for males and for the pleasure of males.

The author further emphasis the centrality of the male gaze when he tells the story (myth?) of men crashing their cars because they were distracted by breasts. In major conurbations across the UK, cars mounted the pavement or crashed into bollards as motorists tried -- and failed -- to drag their eyes away from Ms Herzigova's perky frontage.

This story belittles women and does nothing to deconstruct the social structures that women are "bound" by.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, when do get a piece on the jock strap?
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 29, 2007 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have yet to meet one that actually works as advertised, dammit. Oh well, I'm not much interested in that useless garment either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lovely! And beware . . .
Posted by: pete ess on Aug 30, 2007 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a lovely article - and what lovely posts afterwards. Hilarious! What do we learn from this? It is VERY easy for the manipulators to distract the populace!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Urban legend alert!
Posted by: GretaChristina on Aug 30, 2007 3:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Otto Titzling thing is a total urban legend. Here's the full story from Snopes.com, the urban legend debunking website.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Urban legend alert! Posted by: Badger1492
When I Come Home From Work
Posted by: Denver Dem on Sep 1, 2007 3:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bra comes off. I can't get away not wearing one at work. However I don't think they are uncomfortable. Just have to wear the right fit. Now shoes, shoes are uncomfortable and I NEVER wear shoes at home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

boobies? you could be on to something there.
Posted by: c.e.stokes on Sep 2, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when i first read this article, i was like, oh come on! i thought this was inapropriate for alternet. but, now that i think of it, boobies could save the world! they definately remind me, of how wonderful life is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check out these bare naked boobies.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Sep 2, 2007 10:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hubba hubba! :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]