It would appear that while the normal posture may call for a line from the back of the buttocks to the back of the shoulders with the shoulders not more than an inch in front of the perpendicular, yet a few women are found whose scapular line is three inches anterior to the curve of the nates and who show neither ache, nor rigidity of back muscles nor of gastrocnemius. Add to this attitude, however, the "weak back" or the "feminine type" of Reynolds, which is big-hipped and thin-bodied, and backache is general. These forward swings, it seems to me, do not impera-
tively demand adjustment toward the perpendicular provided the shoulders and chin are well held up, and no pain or spasm is present. Here one treads warily, however, since it is outside of one's province.
Unlike Dr. Reynolds, I call no corset good. For the purpose of altering an attitude a well devised appliance may be "good," but no body prison for healthy persons can be called beneficent, any more than that other restriction of our civilization, city life, can be called wholesome. Corrective, yes. Neutral, relatively harmless, well tolerated, yes. But not "good." I would class corsets as corrective—such as the therapeutic corset of Reynolds—as neutral, and as harmful, and vicious. I would forbid them to a few,
