I’ve seen this image going around, and I feel compelled to point out that it’s only half-right. It’s true that high heels were originally a masculine fashion, but they weren’t originally worn by butchers - nor for any other utilitarian purpose, for that matter.

High heels were worn by men for exactly the same reason they’re worn by women today: to display one’s legs to best effect. Until quite recently, shapely, well-toned calves and thighs were regarded as an absolute prerequisite for male attractiveness. That’s why you see so many paintings of famous men framed to show off their legs - like this one of George Washington displaying his fantastic calves:

… or this one of Louis XIV of France rocking a fabulous pair of red platform heels (check out those thighs!):

… or even this one of Charles I of England showing off his high-heeled riding boots - note, again, the visual emphasis on his well-formed calves:

In summary: were high heels originally worn by men? Yes. Were they worn to keep blood off their feet? No at all - they were worn for the same reason they’re worn today: to look fabulous.

so then how did they become a solo feminine item of attire?

A variety of reasons. In France, for example, high heels fell out out of favour in the court of Napoleon due to their association with aristocratic decadence, while in England, the more conservative fashions of the Victorian era regarded it as indecent for a man to openly display his calves.

But then, fashions come and go. The real question is why heels never came back into fashion for men - and that can be laid squarely at the feet of institutionalised homophobia. Essentially, heels for men were never revived because, by the early 20th Century, sexually provocative attire for men had come to be associated with homosexuality; the resulting moral panic ushered in an era of drab, blocky, fully concealing menswear in which a well-turned calf simply had no place - a setback from which men’s fashion has yet to fully recover.

FASHION HISTORY IS HUMAN HISTORY OK

Thank you, history side of tumblr. That “stay out of blood” thing has been driving me mad.

Wait. So, you’re telling me that the reason straight boys dress horribly is because they’re not over a 100 year old gay panic?

You’re telling me that the gross, baggy, shapeless menswear that has been almost singlehandedly ruining my life is the result of a bunch of dudes in the 1900’s collectively going ‘AAAAH WHAT IF THEY THINK WE’RE GAY’

Fuck that shit. BRING BACK MENS HEELS

BRING BACK MENS TIGHTS

MAKE MEN SEXY AGAIN

I literally could not agree more with this post

History Tumblr to the rescue once again!

New favourite post.

COUNTER // CULTURE

For my photography class I did series of self-portraits in which I attempted to portray culture and counterculture for the past 10 decades. This is the product of that idea…

Layering in the Edwardian Era, by shoomlah

I’ve seen a few fashion posts trying to expand the “Marie Antoinette is not Victorian” rant, but this stuff can get complicated, so here is a semi-comprehensive list so everyone knows exactly when all of these eras were.

Please note that this is very basic and that there are sometimes subcategories (especially in the 17th century, Jacobean, Restoration, etc)

And people wonder WHY I complain about History/Art History periodization. Note how much overlap there is to the above “eras”, and how many exceptions and extensions there are to these categories.

Oh, and by the way…

Tudor:

Elizabethan:

Stuart:

Georgian:

Regency:

Victorian:

Edwardian:

Because you wouldn’t want to be historically inaccurate.

Holy shi—the middle lady in the Victorian pic looks like my godmum! And the lady, on the right, in the Edwardian one looks almost like she could pass as one of my relatives!

…this is so eerie…but cool.

^^And that’s a big part of the reason why I do this. Everyone should be able to see images like these and feel like they, too, are a part of history.

People can quibble about minutiae as much as they’d like, and I honestly don’t mind the discussion, but when it comes down to it, medievalpoc is really about making an immediate visual impact that has changed how I view history, and I hope the same can be said for people who read these posts.

Tumblr made this post better.

Fashion timeline 1750s-2000s. 

“With these old shirts, it’s extremely difficult to get the studs through—it makes you aware of what it was like to get dressed in the early 1900s and why you would maybe need a valet to help.”

Behind the Scenes: Jeffrey Eugenides on becoming Henry James for Annie Liebovitz’s Vogue Magazine shoot at Edith Wharton’s estate in the Berkshires. 

Check out that swagger on Teddy Roosevelt. 

This is the best thing that has happened in Vogue. Ever. 

Images from 1860 showing a woman getting dressed.

These lace and linen undergarments date back to hundreds of years before women’s underwear was thought to exist. They had lain hidden in a vault beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle since  the 15th century. Despite their state of decay, the knickers bear more than a passing resemblance to the string bikini briefs popular today, while the bra has the fitted cups and delicate straps of its modern-day counterparts. While it was known that medieval men wore undergarments like modern-day shorts, it was thought that their womenfolk simply wore a smock or chemise, and that knickers didn’t make an appearance until  the late 18th century. Bras were thought to be an even more modern invention, not appearing until around 100 years ago. However, Hilary Davidson, fashion curator at the Museum of London, said the discovery ‘totally rewrites’ fashion history, adding: ‘Nothing like this has  ever come up before.’

IMPORTANT UNDERWEAR NEWS.

1852, 1857, 1867, and 1887, please. 

I pick 1877.

merci

én is voltam a mult hetvegen

ed: What/where is this from??

I would have this on my wall at home.

You know, if I had tons of empty wall. Or any empty wall.

laughingsquid:

I take back what I said about that other video. This made me at least, if not more, happy.