9 Long-Gone “Sexy” Undergarments In Honor of Victoria’s Secret’s Closing Catalog

Victoria's Secret catalog, circa 1979.

Purveyor of mildly provocative underthings Victoria’s Secret announced last month that it would no longer print its iconic catalog—you know, the one that’s been piling up on America’s coffee tables and bookshelves since 1977. The change is just the latest reminder that what society deems sexy in the world of undergarments is never set in stone—or silk, in this case. To bid the catalog Angels a fond farewell, we busted out some other flirty (and often faint-inducing) favorites of yesteryear.


With its chamber pots and various horrific diseases, the Medieval era probably never struck anyone as particularly sexy. But archaeologists digging in Austria in 2008 discovered a few clues as to the type of garments ladies were hiding underneath their dresses. Linen fragments that look a little like modern bras were uncovered, which seemed to be “breastbags,” a pretty straightforward name for a piece of clothing that both supported the bust and could at times be tightened to either enhance or flatten the chest.


Imagine the feeling of going commando, even if you were technically wearing drawers. Or at least, pseudo-commando underneath layers upon layers of petticoats, stays, and other garments. Panties are actually a relatively new invention. Before the late 1800s, ladies’ drawers had two separate legs with an opening between them.


Because men were the only ones who wore closed-crotch underwear up to that point, it was pretty scandalous when women started incorporating the style in the 1870s and '80s (the idea being that women wanted you to see their fancy new underwear). The voluminous precursor to modern day panties was born.


Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, 1860. Getty

Queen Victoria’s secret may have been the sexy (for the day) undergarments she kept tucked under her royal dresses. The idea that underwear could be sexy as well as practical really took hold around the time the influential ruler was on the throne, as women were just beginning to view themselves as more sexual beings and Paris Impressionists were shocking polite society with their paintings of mistresses and friends in their skivvies. (This, of course, is in contrast to the buttoned-up image Victorians are often associated with. It was a complicated time.) Naturally, even the queen couldn’t resist the tempting trend. According to a piece in Home Journal magazine at the time, Victoria nabbed a red petticoat to “reawaken the dormant conjugal susceptibility of Prince Albert.” It must have worked—they had nine children together.


The S-Curve corsets produced these silhouettes. Deluxx via Flickr // CC BY-NC 2.0

Long before women were squishing themselves into Spanx, corsets were molding female bodies into whatever was deemed the ideal shape at the time—without the help of today’s super-stretch elastic. Around 1900, that enviable form was an S: breasts forward, arched chest, accentuated hips. While the Edwardian S-curve corset would become notorious for forcing the spine into an unnatural state, it was actually an improvement on the faint-tastic Victorian corset. One 1902 magazine described this new corset as "[not only giving] more room for the digestive organs, but the breathing apparatus is freer and permits the lungs to be inflated properly."


Unlike their Victorian forebears who used an extra-curvy silhouette to rev their beaus' buggies, women in the 1920s opted for a straight, boyish figure to complement their freewheeling Flapper ways. That meant looser-fitting dresses, shorter hemlines, and flattening bosoms with bandeau-style bra bands instead of emphasizing them.


Jayne Mansfield, circa 1955. Getty

Bombshells Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe launched a cup-shape craze in the 1950s. Legend has it director Howard Hughes developed a torpedo-shaped bra to accommodate Jane Russell’s bust for his 1943 movie The Outlaw (though Russell claimed she refused to wear it, opting for one she fashioned herself), and though the look broke the era's decency codes, the military-inspired garment seriously caught on in the years that followed. The fierce fashion has enjoyed more than one renaissance since—perhaps most notably when Madonna donned a set of cones designed by Jean Paul Gaultier in 1990.


In the early 1960s, designer Rudi Gernreich launched the lightweight, wireless No-Bra. The minimalist design was fitting for the changing times: Women were pushing back against the buttoned-up prudishness of the 1950s and embracing a more natural, budding-feminism-friendly aesthetic in the undergarment department, if they even wore bras at all. (No wonder they called it the Swinging Sixties.)


Women in the 1980s took their cues from Jane Fonda aerobics videos and Cher concerts and made high-cut bodysuits a thing. The suggestive style made legs look longer and embraced the era’s shift away from basic “granny panties” and toward more fashionable everyday underwear. Victoria’s Secret seized the same empowered moment, and around this time, the company shifted its focus from marketing toward husbands and lovers to marketing toward its female customers who wanted to wear sexier undergarments each day. And though the styles come and go, Victoria's Secret's popularity has not: The company is responsible for 40 percent of the intimate apparel market, and even if the bi-weekly catalogs are no longer collecting in America's mailboxes, we'll always have the fashion shows and semi-annual sales to help stay abreast of the latest lingerie fads.

Original image
Big Questions
Why Do Shorts Cost as Much as Pants?
Original image

Shorts may feel nice and breezy on your legs on a warm summer’s day, but they’re not so gentle on your wallet. In general, a pair of shorts isn’t any cheaper than a pair of pants, despite one obviously using less fabric than the other. So what gives?

It turns out clothing retailers aren’t trying to rip you off; they’re just pricing shorts according to what it costs to produce them. Extra material does go into a full pair of pants but not as much as you may think. As Esquire explains, shorts that don’t fall past your knees may contain just a fifth less fabric than ankle-length trousers. This is because most of the cloth in these items is sewn into the top half.

Those same details that end up accounting for most of the material—flies, pockets, belt loops, waist bands—also require the most human labor to make. This is where the true cost of a garment is determined. The physical cotton in blue jeans accounts for just a small fraction of its price tag. Most of that money goes to pay the people stitching it together, and they put in roughly the same amount of time whether they’re working on a pair of boot cut jeans or some Daisy Dukes.

This price trend crops up across the fashion spectrum, but it’s most apparent in pants and shorts. For example, short-sleeved shirts cost roughly the same as long-sleeved shirts, but complicated stitching in shirt cuffs that you don’t see in pant legs can throw this dynamic off. There are also numerous invisible factors that make some shorts more expensive than nearly identical pairs, like where they were made, marketing costs, and the brand on the label. If that doesn’t make spending $40 on something that covers just a sliver of leg any easier to swallow, maybe check to see what you have in your closet before going on your next shopping spree.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at

Original image
Musee YSL Marrakech
A Pair of New Museums Will Honor Fashion Icon Yves Saint Laurent
Original image
Musee YSL Marrakech

In 2008, the legendary Yves Saint Laurent—the 20th century fashion luminary whose designs were inspired by fine art, menswear, Moroccan caftans, and peasant garb, among other influences—passed away at the age of 71. Now, nearly a decade after his death, fashion fans can pay homage to the iconic designer by visiting two new museums dedicated to his life and work, according to ARTnews.

Morocco's Musée Yves Saint Laurent Marrakech pays homage to the designer in a place he famously loved. (He first bought a house in the city in 1966, and his ashes were scattered there after his death.) In 1980, he and his partner Pierre Bergé bought Marrakech's Jardin Majorelle to prevent its destruction by developers, turning it into an immensely popular public garden. Located near the garden—along a street that is named after him—the new museum's permanent and temporary exhibits alike will feature clothing items like the designer's influential safari jackets and smoking suits along with sketches, accessories, and other archival items.

The Moroccan museum will serve as a sister institution to the new Musée Yves Saint Laurent Paris, which is located at the site of Saint Laurent’s historic atelier and office in France. Following an extensive renovation of the building, the Paris institution will house thousands of sketches, photos, and fashion items related to the designer. The first exhibition will be a themed retrospective, “Yves Saint Laurent’s Imaginary Asia."

Both museums are scheduled to open in October. We’re already donning our smoking jackets.

[h/t ARTnews]


More from mental floss studios