Talk:Catsuit

Untitled

I removed the "Catwomen" movie picture from this page for the simple reason that Catwomen is not actually wearing a catsuit in that picture. A Catwomen picture from one of the earlier Batman movies would work, but I'd still advise against it, as it's possible that some readers might get confused over the more general meaning that way (ie, they'd confuse the cat characteristics of the character with the actual meaning of the term). - RedWordSmith 21:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed the reference to latex catsuits covering 'every millimeter of the wearer's skin' as being a gross exaggeration. Besides, you typically don't want to cover the face, and definately not the nose- you don't want to suffocate in the thing, now do you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.13.97 (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Catwomen nor the Seven of Nine images can legally be used here under fair use. These images can only be used to illustrate an article on the image's subject, namely the movie or the Star Trek character. Other use could get Wikipedia in trouble, potentially making it difficult to use fair use images anywhere. —johndburger 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced rubber comments with some speculated history. :)

The latex catsuit comment didn't say anything that wasn't also true about catsuits made out of anything else, but it seems worth noting that the earliest catsuits were probably made of latex.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.76.66 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Williams

That Serena Williams comment seems out of place, and should not be in the introduction to this article (where only the most important information is put). Checking the pictures, she's not even wearing a catsuit anyway! Yes it's leather, but it has no sleeves OR legs to it! How can that be defined as a catsuit? 80.47.182.131 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added music videos

Hi guys. I added a few catsuit videos. If you find some of them hard to verify, then look for the Gerlinky forum, which contains an active library of nearly all popular fetish. I haven't linked them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bipedia (talk • contribs) 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed most of these additions. Like the rest of the listcruft in this article, they add nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic—they are non-notable (and largely unverifiable). They make about as much sense as an Appearances in popular culture section in the Mug article:

Sleepless in Seattle—Meg Ryan drinks coffee from a mug
A Christmas Carol—Bob Cratchett pours hot cider into a mug.
etc.

Unless we want to move this article to List of catsuits in popular culture, these need to be thinned down considerably. —johndburger 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such information makes more sense than analogous information in Mug article would make, because catsuits are MUCH less common than mugs. However, it should be moved to Catsuits in popular culture, with some information left here in non-list format (like fifth paragraph in "Modern history" section in currently Corset article made from "Corsets in popular culture" section). And on top of the section should be {{main}} template linking to the list article after it will be created. --Qsaw ^(talk) 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it, especially since the list article will then likely be deleted, because it's simply not notable. —johndburger 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete the lists, there is nothing much in the article at all. I agree with your comments on notability: nothing is ever noteworthy enough to put on Wikipedia; but as to "verifiablity", that is a particularly strange comment. You are either calling me a liar, or you are too lazy to check. I would have thought it was easier to verify catsuits in music videos, than consipracy theories. I think lists are valid on wikipedia, because the regular internet often does not contain some types of lists - people being too lazy to make them. Qsaw is right. Your mug analogy was irrelevent. Stick with notability, as you are on firm ground there, since it is your opinion entirely.Bipedia (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than personal attacks, please address the comments. (With respect to laziness, see the comment that begins this section.) Please explain how the list adds to the reader's understanding of the concept—references to wp:Lists in Wikipedia and/or wp:Listcruft might be useful for making your case. In particular, the latter notes: In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. If you can't argue for the notability of a separate article on Catsuits in music videos, then a list of same is similarly non-notable. I'm afraid I don't understand your argument that lists are valid on wikipedia, because the regular internet often does not contain some types of lists. This reasoning would suggest that anything not on the regular Internet belongs on Wikipedia.

With respect to verifiability, since you did not even provide a link to "the Gerlinky forum", I can't judge the quality of any hypothetical references to it, but perhaps you can explain where it fits in on the spectrum of sources that wp:verifiability discusses. Is it a peer-reviewed academic publication? Hopefully it is not a self-published source, as that guideline points out that these are next to useless. —johndburger 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article needs to be scraped

I feel like this article needs to be rewritten from the top down. I have personally seen catsuits worn often as undergarments for many purposes and many more times than i have seen it in a fetish style. This purpose is not even mentioned in the article. Most catsuits are made of lycra not latex. Many Many magicians, circus performers, actors and musicians use catsuits as part of their costumes and I am sure that they compromise more of society than fetishists. Karisuestokes (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please, mention and describe those other purposes in the article, because this article (when not taking "Appearance in popular culture" section into account) is very short and it seriously needs some expanding, but valuable information about this garment is very hard to find, so any addition would be welcome. :) --Qsaw ^(talk) 12:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. To me it is primarily a fashion or functional garment. 78.149.179.197 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Burgler

It should be noted that these suits are commonly used (at least in pop culture :) ), for committing crimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.212.38 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article too fetish orientated

To me a catsuit is a high fashion or a functional garment, with fetish use only by a minority. Yet both the photos here are of fetish garments, and the article inncorrectly suggests that catsuits are primarily a fetish garment. Its like having an article about raincoats being written primarily about their fetish use by a small minority of people. "Catsuits can be worn by both genders, but are usually seen worn by females in a sexual fetish context" - what do you mean "seen"? Do you mean "seen in porn on tv"? The fact that they are worn so often by pop singers is solid evidence that they are mostly a high-fashion item, with fetish use in the monority. 78.146.27.49 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Shirley Bassey's stage costume as an example of a softer version, whether Emma Peel is fetishistic I suppose is in the eye of the beholder.--Nyctc7 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a late follow-up to this assessment, I fully agree that the lead pic pushes the article to look more "fetish" than is due, at least at first glance. Especially given that it includes a head piece, which by definition is not part of the catsuit and gives a wrong impression. I would propose to move that pic down from its prominent position, and put the "original" catsuit of Shirley Bassey at the top. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, although I was incorrectly referring to Bassey when I meant Meriwether. If someone disagrees, feel free to change it back. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unitards and catsuits

There seems little difference between their construction, although catsuits seem to be more streetwear than unitards. Perhaps there should be a logic-table about the various types of similar garments, to help distinguish between them. For example all these categories could be checked or unchecked: skin-tight or loose, long legs or short legs, long arms or short arms, streetwear, sportswear, stagewear, functional, outerwear or not, etc. That produces many different categories of garment, not all of which will have distinct names or exist. 78.147.108.54 (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question

The article mentions that a catsuit is sometimes worn as thermal underwear in cold weather. But what if you only wore a catsuit in cold weather? Would you be freezing or does the catsuit keep you warm by itself? (I am just wondering) thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.69.147 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeveless and legless garments

I would just like to point out that if a "catsuit" is described as sleeveless and/or legless, then it is NOT, by definition, a catsuit. A catsuit is a form-fitting, all-in-one garment with typically wrist-length sleeves and ankle-length legs (hence the name, as it reflects the sleek form of a "cat"), otherwise it becomes another garment entirely. Whilst the top image of the fetish model accurately reflects what a catsuit is, as does references to the likes of Emma Peel and Catwoman, I find the image of the promotional models to be an incorrect example, as are references to Serena Williams black spandex outfit, Shirley Bassey's sleeveless costume, or any outfit that is made up of two pieces of clothing (e.g. Milla Jovovich's Ultraviolet outfit). Can we please bear in mind that, just because an outfit is form-fitting or made of leather/latex/spandex etc., it does not automatically make it a catsuit! 90.220.152.125 (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a reliable source for this definition? BMK (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about we try to get by with a little common sense? Otherwise, any and every tight-fitting garment imaginable can be proclaimed some kind of "catsuit". A leather top and trousers combo (a "two-piece catsuit"?) A latex swimsuit (a "sleeveless, legless catsuit"?) How about a leather mankini (a "sleeveless, legless, chestless catsuit", perhaps?) 90.220.152.125 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, since you want to limit the article, you must have a definition backed by a reliable source. Anything esle is WP:OR. BMK (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First image

What is this fetish photo doing as an example here? That's some weird homemade fetish photo that feels out of place almost like if seeking attention. 2A02:A312:C742:6C00:71A1:D553:BD00:43AB (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point there actually, IP. Do you have a different picture you would suggest? From Commons, I mean. The problem might be that there are actually not that many pictures that are not heavily cosplay-ish. If you want, you could take a look at the Commons category C:Category:Women wearing catsuits (technically you could also look for males, but there's only a handful photos for them) and suggest something better. –LordPeterII (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]