The Columbian | Serving Clark County, Washington

They cinch up, but sometimes ride up. They boost things, but sometimes a little too much. They’ve been long, drab, itchy and uncomfortable, but now are formfitting. Some are — ahem — barely there.

They’re those unmentionables.

And Saturday, historian Rebecca Morrison-Peck gave a nearly two-hour talk at the Clark County Historical Museum on the “Politics of Underwear” and how undergarments have evolved and were influenced by American culture between 1750 and 1950.

The Yacolt costume designer told the packed crowd of mostly women, young and old, that she’s talked before about woman’s underwear, but never delved into the politics.

As she explained, however, underwear is a good insight into how women were viewed during a certain time period and what was expected of them.

“Women dressed to suit what men were interested in at the time,” Morrison-Peck said. “They relied on men to support them and take care of them,” so it would follow that they would wear undergarments that reflect men’s view of beauty.

Her appearance was the first public event in conjunction with the museum’s new exhibit, “Road to Equality: The Struggle for Women’s Rights in the Northwest.” The exhibit runs through December 2011.

There was a lot to talk about over 200 years, but the historian covered a lot of ground and showed off a lot of props on her mannequin, “Victoria.”

Beginning in the late 1700s and into the 1800s, underwear was a “torture device,” Morrison-Peck said, with lots of layers and constricting pieces. First, there was the corset, which had steel plates sewn into the bodice to keep women’s posture straight.

There was a saying that a woman’s waistline should equal her age. So an 18-year-old, for instance, should have an 18-inch waist. The corsets were unbearably uncomfortable, Morrison-Peck said, and restricted women from bending or sometimes even sitting down.

“You always had to wear corsets, even during pregnancy,” she said, eliciting gasps from the audience.

With the corsets came multiple layers of petticoats. In the late 1800s, some women wore 20 petticoats, totalling 40 pounds. The intention was to create a desirable hourglass figure attractive to men: Small waists and bigger hips were in.

“No, they wouldn’t ask the question: ‘Does this make my butt look big?’” Morrison-Peck said amid laughs.

That all changed during and after World War I. When women earned the right to vote in 1920, they also earned the freedom to wear more comfortable underwear.

“There was a sense of liberation,” she said. “Women were finding their way with looser garments.”

The corset in the 1920s, for instance, became looser and smaller (think a night shirt) and evolved into the girdle. And women threw out their petticoats for small bloomers.

After World War II — when there was more fabric available — came the inception of the crinoline petticoat and cone bra, creating a feminine and modern look.

One audience member asked the historian what she thought today’s underwear fashion said about politics. Morrison-Peck hesitated and smirked.

“The most minimal is the most liberating,” she said. “I don’t know if I necessarily agree with that.”

Laura McVicker: 360-735-4516 or laura.mcvicker@columbian.com.

Print this article