I dunno, it sounds pretty clear to me.
> The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure the health.
> The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure the health.
Dress is form of self expression - intrinsicly so.
Rationalism is absurd, and this is a great example of why.
Humans almost never do anything on a purely rational basis. Everything we do is directed by subjectivity, emotion, aesthetics etc. - it's better to be honest about this and embrace it, rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective.
They make sense for other reasons as well, but corsets are enough.
Yes! And the women in Victorian England had no choice in that (did you even read the article?). Shunning the dress norms had serious consequences for the woman. It's easy to forget that when you live in a society where (1) people can more or less dress as they wish, and (2) even the socially accepted norm is not overly constricting of movement or damaging to your health.
> rather than fooling one's self that one's aesthetic preferences are anything more than subjective
Freedom of motion, in a very concrete example, enough to ride a bicycle, is a very objective thing.