Talk:Geisha/Archive 1

NPOV Check
Sorry guys, i challenge the impartiality of this page.

See

http://joi.ito.com/archives/2003/04/28/are_geisha_prostitutes.html

ALso, Arthur Golden, the guy who wrote 'Memoirs of a Giesha' said in an interview:

For example, all apprentice geisha go through something they call mizuage, which we might call, "deflowering." It amounts to the sale of their virginity to the highest bidder. Back in the '30s and '40s, girls went through it as young as thirteen or fourteen--certainly no later than eighteen. It's misleading not to call this prostitution, even child prostitution. So we can't say that geisha aren't prostitutes. http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307275165&view=qa

The San Francisco Chronicle ran an interesting article which also supports the view: The thinking goes that there used to be legalized prostitution in Japan, and that geisha were paid to entertain men, so therefore geisha were prostitutes http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/20/PKGBF74BU61.DTL

Giesha sell there virginity, that makes them prostitutes, albiet high class, cultured, expensive, educated ones.

Geisha do not go throw this 'mizuage' ceromony. Arthur Golden mistook the mizuage ceremonies that oiran go through for the same-named one Geisha go through. Actual geisha did not sell their virginity. Mineko Iwasaki touched upon this very thing in her book, Geisha, A Life. 65.5.244.109 01:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)anon


 * The sources you cite are of questionable authority. Try reading Liza Dalby's geisha.  She was probably the only westerner to penetrate deeply into their secretive world and examine their customs from the inside.  Dalby is one of the most reliable sources of information on Geisha.  Make sure you check the backgrounds of your sources.  The geisha world is not well understood by outsiders, and people who jump to summary conclusions and round-off complex issues based on misinformation are doing a disservice to those genuinely interested in the subject.

First of all, young maiko are no longer called upon to part with their virginity in accordance the custom called mizuage. That custom that is now obsolete. Second, it takes more than an obscure, once in a lifetime event to brand a person a prostitute by trade, which is misleading. Third, Geisha don't earn their living by getting paid for sex. Finally, citing Arthur Golden as an authority on geisha is like citing George Lucas as an authority on space travel. Golden is a romantic novelist who was was sued by his own source of information, a geisha named Mineko Iwasaki, for misrepresentations.

In most Asian cultures, people who sold themselves (whether it be talent or sex) was still considered a prostitute and a disgrace to their family. Read my contribution under section "Geishas and Prostitution".


 * Dalby is certainly a credible source, but her account is no where near complete. If one considers the role of hot springs resort geisha, the line between prostitution and geisha is perilously thin.  I reference G.G. Rowley, translator of Sayo Masuda's memoirs on this subject:
 * The romanticiziation of geisha life as dedicated principally to the pursuit of traditional arts ignores the poverty that drove many parents to indenture their daughters ot geisha houses. Such romanticization also erases certain geisha from the collective memory and overlooks the bottom line of the whole geisha business.  The geisha thus erased are hot-springs-resort-geisha, and the bottom line of the geisha business is, of course, sex for money.  At the glamorous high end of the geisha world, in the Pontocho and Gion districts of Kyoto and Shinbashi in Tokyo, sex may seem a less obtrusive aspect of the geisha business.  But at the lower end, in a hot-springs resort like Suwa where Masuda worked, sex with geisha was the expected end of every evening.
 * One of Masuda Sayo's aims in writing her autobiography was to describe this bottom line.
 * Here, in no uncertain terms Rowley makes the claim that underlying all forms of the geisha profession was sex, and sex for money at that. There may have been ritualized considerations to the matter, but at core, it would be difficult to deny that, historically, the profession is at base prostitution.24.124.14.65 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I read several novel on geisha, written by Japanese writers, and in all of them, the geisha do have sex with their client. For example, memories of Geisha from Y. Inoue. I understand that as a fiction, this is not a reference, but I find the whole thing "geisha do not have sex with customers in exchange of money" quite dubious. 220.41.100.37 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Golden as a source for anything.

Currently, the section on this topic reads: While in the past some geisha did sell sexual favors occasionally to some clients, their main purpose was to entertain their customer, be it by reciting verse, playing musical instruments or light conversation.[1] Geisha do not engage in sex with clients.

Which is it? Occasionally, exceptionnally (in the past) or not (at all)? The second sentence either needs an extra clause such as Currently, geisha do not engange... or Normally, geisha do not engange or should be dropped completely since implied by the first sentence. (There is a third possibility in which both sentences are correct: when the term "sexual favors" is to be understood not to include actual sex. If that is the case, this should be more specifically stated.)

As for what I read Geishas are able to earn even 30 thousand dollars a night with entertaining their guests with dancing, traditional music and having a cultivated conversation. So Why should they need to be prostitutes anyway? As for me it is over question.

— Adhemar 12:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In most Asian cultures, people who sold themselves (whether it be talent or sex) was still considered a prostitute and a disgrace to their family. Not in this case. In the Momoyama period, girl from a very poor family might be sold into prostitution by her father, mother, or brothers, or she could be rented out for several months and then returned to her family. Some girls later became perfectly respectable married women, but had worked as prostitutes for a number of years to earn enough her dowry. (Wendell Cole, 1967, Kyoto in the Momoyama) In theory, wouldn't the money gained from the selling of a filial (Confucian) daughter to support her family be looked upon as an "honorable" sacrifice? It's a difficult question. Claw789 07:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition
Not wanting to be too salacious here. I'm sure I have the traditional, Western idea of what a geisha is. I wouldn't be surprised that it is wrong. :-)

The article says "Geisha are not prostitutes." So, was there no sexual activity between a geisha and a customer? Or, was sex not an expected part of the transaction, but it often happened? Or, .... (I'm too embarrassed to list out all the variations, gradations, and permutations that come to mind.)

Also, I don't quite understand this sentence:


 * Although in the past the right to take their virginity (an event called a mizuage) was sold, they were not obliged to have sex with any customers, even the men who paid dearly for their virginity.

Somebody paid for the right, but then there was no obligation? Perhaps these might not the usual Western meanings of those words?

DanielVonEhren 00:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Real" geisha (that is, not "hotsprings geisha," who were/are prostitutes) were/are not prostitutes, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. They did often have danna, that is lovers/benefactors with whom they had sexual relationships--often longterm--and who paid many of their expenses, however. Exploding Boy 19:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's kind of what I expected. Perhaps you should try to incorporate your knowledge into the article. (I'd do it, but I have have any knowledge.) Something like that although many geisha did have liasons with their customers, they were not prostitutes in the common Western sex-for-money sense of the word. I would think that words along that line would better fit the Wikipedia's spirit of a NPOV. It might even help explain the right and obligation thing that is still seems contradictory.

DanielVonEhren 22:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody provide a source for the mizuage/danna/sex thing? I know this comes from Arthur Golden's "Memoirs of a Geisha", but that's fiction. Mineko Iwasaki strongly contradicts it in her book "Geisha of Gion". Vashti 13:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of a source and Iwasaki's statement that no one's virginity was ever auctioned off in Gion, I have removed the references to mizuage from the article. CKarnstein 02:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can recommend Sayo Masuda's "Autobiography of a Geisha" (translated by G.G. Rowley), describing the (now former) hotsprings geisha. This book does describe how the system with danna, selling the geisha's mizuage (even multiple times!) etc. worked in prewar Japan. The way I read it, the hotsprings geisha were also expected to engage in sex with their customers, and could risk some kind of corporal punishment if they didn't. 80.196.148.217 20:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Liza Crihfield Dalby is another confirmation source for the outdated [i]mizuage[/i] ceremony. When she was living and working among the geisha of the Pontocho district (the primary rival district of Gion) in the mid 1970s, she was told about [i]mizuage[/i] by several older geisha and longterm clients. Even at the time, she was told it was an old-fashioned ceremony which was no longer pursued. She discusses the stories in her thesis, which was later published as the book [b]Geisha[/b]. The book was re-issued in 1998. As far as I am aware, [i]mizuage[/i] was never much of a "controversial" subject nor so hotly denied until Mineko -- understandably angry at what she perceived as a betrayal of trust by Arthur Golden -- made her claims that he made it up. Very clearly, he did *not* invent it for his novel.

I removed the following part of a sentence "Geishas are not prostitutes... the only exception would be the Geisha from mainland China." That statement is extremely POV and a common Japanese stereotype against non-Japanese Asians, and is also levelled against Korean geisha as well. It is not factual, and should not be considered for putting back into the article unless someone can provide proof and links and there has been a discussion on this talk page. --154.20.68.142 06:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sing-song_girls

~/~/~/~/~/~/ Mizuage is a really controversial issue. Most of what I've read says that mizuage is when a geisha offers her virginity to the highest bidder. This and when they have a danna (basically a geisha's boyfriend except they pay for her expenses) are the only times that geisha have any sexual relations. The man who wins her mizuage doesn't have any obligation to become her danna or anything like that. But Iwasaki (author of geisha of gion) says that its a misconception and mizuage isn't too different from a sweet 16. The geisha changes her hair and her clothes and it's just another stage in the artist's life.


 * I found the direct quote from Iwasaki. I think she makes it pretty clear that mizuage does not involve virginity for a geisha. :"Q: Talk to me about the mizuage ceremony. What is it, and why is there so much confusion about it?
 * A: This again goes back to the separation between the pleasure quarter and the entertainment quarter. Mizuage is really a coming-of-age ceremony, and apparently there was some selling of the virginity that went on in association with that ritual ceremony in the pleasure district a long time ago. However, that has never been true for the geisha. For the geisha, it was simply when they were becoming a young woman, similar to a sweet 16 in the West, and it was symbolized by the change in hairstyle, into a more womanly, grown-up hairstyle. And also certain subtle changes in the ensembles. There are a lot of rites of passage, but for some reason this one has been really latched on by people, and maybe it’s because of this misunderstanding.
 * Also, it is true that as with many of the rituals and rites of passage, once one has become a maiko [geisha-in-training], or a geiko, it’s very expensive, because every time you go through an entire change of kimono, for example, or of hairstyle and you need different hair ornaments, these are expensive things. For me, I was the successor to the house, the atotori, so there was no question that the money was there to provide this. But if someone is coming from the outside and training, as basically someone who is there under contract, it is expensive, and sometimes they do ask their patrons to help pay for the cost involved in making the transition.
 * Q: But their virginity isn’t offered in exchange for that help?
 * A: That is never on the table. There is one other potential source of confusion, and that is with the word "mizuage" itself. In the Gion, the geisha district, and in many areas of the entertainment industry, "mizuage" is also a term that directly means "gross earnings," because it’s an old fishing term; as you may know, Japan was dependent on fishing for one of its main economic bases for many years. "Mizuage" means "to take out of the water." It stood for the catch. "What was your catch?" — "How much money did you make from the water?" So when I refer to mizuage, I’m actually referring to my earnings, rather than the ceremony itself."


 * It is from an interview of Iwasaki by Tamara Weider in the Boston Phoenix, the url for it is http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/02473409.htm. I'm suprised nobody mentioned it before, it is one of the first Google results for "mizuage." puppies_fly 22:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

--- I like this interview; I'd like to point out a few things that the interview might leave glossed over. NB: I'm a total Japan idiot, a few years of language learning, and that's it. Take my thoughts  as just musings, please.

The world of the geisha is a world in which men fund women to act/perform/be artistic on their behalf. Because these men are wealthy enough to do such things, it's a world typically full of rich older men, and desirable working women. The point Iwasaki delicately puts forward is that the coming of age is expensive. For a girl who is already eating off her entertainment talents, (or, to put it another way, thinking about covering the expenses of her profession) there surely must be a number of complexities to navigate around an expensive coming of age party, especially if she has a benefactor, as discussed below.

I'd imagine many maiko-turning-to-geisha have had sex with a wealthy benefactor after their coming-of-age party, even since prostitution itself was outlawed in the 1950s (if the below comment is correct). I think it may help us to remember that Japan's culture of gratitude/indebtedness is sufficiently different than the Western one that it must be very hard to explain to outsiders what chain of events leads to a deflowering, or sex with a customer who frequently pays for conversation and music. It's not clear to me that a tiny, super-exclusive social circle of an extremely exclusive, super-secretive society would be interested in explaining it all to interested gaijin at any rate.

Perhaps we could all agree to say that Geisha are prostitutes to the same degree that young Hollywood actresses are? I would think the parallels (aside from the education requirements) are pretty strong; people vary, sex will help a career except when it doesn't, a rich producer boyfriend brings many benefits and responsibilities.

The yujo link below goes to a web page which also contains a helpful thought: the author of the linked-to blog article suggests that geisha are not about prostitution, but they are cultural holdovers from a time of polygamy. I think that this could provide a helpful lens for the discussion as well.

Vessenes 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it me, or does the article seem to be sugar coating some aspects of Geisha? It states that sometimes, children are SOLD as geishas and begin their training. A lot of times, they have SEXUAL relationships in return for FINANCIAL support. Not only do they sound like prostitutes (a "higher" form of it, you could say), but they sound like sex-slaves who MAY have grown to accept or like their lifestyles. Are children still being sold this way?? And are they prostitutes or are they not?


 * In this context, one really has to note the difference between Geisha and prostitutes. Of course, in the modern world, no one is SOLD to a geisha house. In fact, the declining population of Geisha is due mainly to the exhausting amount of training necessary to become a Geisha, as oppossed to the finacial rewards one receives. Geisha are NOT prositutes, by any stretch of the imagination.  MightyAtom 17:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The closest thing to geisha in Western culture may be the opera singer or ballerina. They are all members of an elite class of performance artists who must train very hard from a young age to master specialized music and dance skills.  And remember that until only about a century ago, ballerinas and opera singers in the West were considered hardly better than prostitutes.  After all, they were usually attractive young women who performed (both in public and at private parties!) in revealing costumes, and they often received financial support from wealthy male patrons as well.  I'm sure that some ballerinas have even had sex with their patrons, but this doesn't mean that ballerinas are "really" prostitutes.  Same for geisha. CKarnstein 06:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is where I am having a problem. The article reads as if it were about ballerina and opera singers -- who perform in theatres, before audiences of hundreds or thousands, audiences that include men and women and children. Geisha, who pour drinks and flirt with men in private rooms, are something else entirely. Aren't the Geisha's minimal "entertainment" aspects such as dancing and playing the koto more accurately regarded as part of the seduction? They are refined for sure, in the sense that they do not have sex as much as a typical streetwalker, but isn't this because they are special, and rather expensive? RomaC 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Westerners have a really difficult time understanding this point, because they can't imagine paying a woman for anything other than sex...There ARE (or rather, were) "special and rather expensive" prostitutes, called the oiran. They looked similar to the geisha in dress and make-up, so must people don't know if they are looking at an oiran or a geisha. However, this article is accurate that sex was not a regular service for geisha. MightyAtom 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response MightAtom. It is inaccurate to suggest that Westerners "can't imagine paying a woman for anything other than sex...", there are protégées for example, especially in Europe, men will patron artists, (males artists as well of course) and while sex may or may not happen it is not the defining quality of the relationship. Which brings me back to my point -- is the koto playing and dancing something that also happens apart from the comely companionship which geisha provide for their (male) clients? If not, then these are not artists per se. I'm trying to appreciate your opinion here, but my Oxford Dictionary does define geisha as "prostitute," that is part of what brings me to this discussion. Perhaps the word "hostess" would be more appropriate?
 * RomaC 10:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi RomaC, I'm just done watching a geisha performance in Tokyo (about an hour ago). Geisha are performers first in Japan. I think this article and the lengthy discussion make clear that sex can and does happen between Geisha and patrons, but by and large in greater Japanese society, they do seem to function much more like opera singers. The amount of training a Geisha must undergo to perform (sing, play, dance and converse) is pretty extreme, taking many years. I have a photo on my blog of multiple Japanese geisha performing a dance at the Four Seasons in Tokyo, for example. http://japanoutside.blogger.com I think this could help illustrate their place in Japanese society.

Another complication is what Japan has deemed 'prostitution' is. In specific, it's paying directly for genital-to-genital penetration. So, for instance, paying for a naked woman to soap your body with hers is not prostitution in Japan, according to the law. You may well both decide to have sex after your paid-for-cleaning. Still legal. This may explain some of the back-and-forth nature of this discussion on Wikipedia: defining the menaning of the word prostitution is a cultural endeavor. For a shocking (to my Western sensibilities) example, read this article at japantoday.com about "soapland" shops in Tokyo. http://www.japantoday.com/jp/kuchikomi/375. The journalist describes himself at the end as a happy customer of one of the aforementioned establishments. I would think no western journalist would claim they had visited a soapland shop for anything but the most hands-off investigative reporting possible.

This is in response to Sorry Guys. Geisha are not prostitutes. Arthur Golden is wrong. He is an American man, and not a Japanese Geisha. The word Mizuage has multiple meanings. The first refers to Oiran (high-class prostitutes of Japan) losing their virginity. The second meaning refers to how much money a geisha made in that year, by her skills, not sex. It's obvious how these two may become confused, but for Arthur Golden to make a statment based on his extreme confusion is shameful to geisha everywhere. Geisha are free to engage in sexual activity, but no true geisha would sell her sex. Please also refer to the Wikipedia article on onsen geisha. Know that onsen geisha are not true geisha.


 * Clearly there needs to be a specific section in the Geisha article addressing Mizuage. Any volunteers? MightyAtom 03:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just watched the movie. Exempting the selling of their virginity even the movie states that "geisha are not prostitutes" and one is punished for having sex with a client. Although it does kind of flirt with the image that they are and sends something of a mixed message. Considering that in the West, until recent times, "actress" was seen as synonymous with "prostitute" some confusion might be understandable. Actresses often had rich male patrons who they sometimes slept with. Although the sense I'm getting is that stage and early film actresses were more like prostitutes than geishas. For that see Evelyn Nesbit and Sarah Bernhardt or what Anita Page says was expected of her.--T. Anthony 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of this article is written in argumentative language. As can be seen above, there are several credible sources which stand in direct opposition to some of the statements in this article. As I read this over, I feel as though I am being convinced, not that I am reading an impartial encyclopedic treatment of the subject at hand.

I have consolidated some of the discussion to this heading. — Forridean 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your statements are too vague. What statements are challenged/need reviewing? Additionally, the sources listed at the top of the thread are not that credible. The first link is a blog, which cannot be used as a source in an article. The second is the description of a work of fiction. Only the third is somewhat usable as a newspaper article, again I'm not sure where it clashes with the existing text in the article. John Smith&#39;s 09:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I confess that I have not personally explored the topic in depth, nor will I be a major participant in the revision of this article. I came across it, read the article and thought to myself "The POV in this article is terrible!  What are they trying to sell me?"  I flipped over to the discussion, and found that I am not alone in this impression, and there is a rather lengthy argument regarding the very issues that struck me as lacking NPOV by users who apparently have some knowledge on the topic (exluding those whose sole experience with the subject is 'I saw this movie one time...')  I am not taking sides in the debates at hand - whomever is right, the article is still not written in unbiased, encyclopedic language.  A close examination of the claims being raised is in order, as well as a revision of the overall tone of nearly the ENTIRE article.


 * Also, the discussion page is a mess, which inhibits a closer examination of the evidence as presented by either side of the debate. I would hope that a user more interested in this topic may take the time to clean this talk page up a bit, so we can see what we're dealing with.

— Forridean 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The best thing with the talk page would probably be to archive it and start again. As to the article you're still being too vague. You can't just say "it's POV". What is POV, how is it POV, etc. Otherwise you're not helping. John Smith&#39;s 19:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Geisha in popular culture?
Why is this Setsuka from Soul Calibur III character mentioned? Her connections to geisha seem very slim, judging from that picture. She's wearing her obi in the front. If you click on the characters page, it says "She's styled as a mix between the Queen of Hearts and courtesans known as oiran."

Anyone object to this section being removed? MightyAtom 05:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I moved this section to the article on oiran, where it is better suited. MightyAtom 05:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

male geisha
I reverted some (to my knowledge) nonsense about the first geisha being male: however, the contributor seems to have made good edits elsewhere, so I thought I'd mention the deletion here. Can anyone provide any evidence for this remarkable assertion? -- Karada 10:50, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh, look, Google is your friend.
 * http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/taikomochi.html
 * http://www.japanese-incense.com/geisha-bedini.htm
 * http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747264260/ref%3Dpd%5Fsim%5Fb%5Fdp%5F3/202-7709597-3191017

OK, back it goes. -- Karada 10:54, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * question about the picture: are these women "dressed as" geisha (actually, more correctly, as maiko) or are they actual maiko? An important distinction.  Exploding Boy 12:13, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

The first Giesha was Izumo No Okuni, a woman.


 * Nope. Izumo no Okuni was part of the kawaramono, or riverbed people. She and her troupe pioneered the kabuki dance style and preformed in dry riverbeds until they were shut down by the shogunate. She *inspired* the first geisha (she predated them), but Izumo no Okuni was never one of them. - Sofia ( http://www.sofieloafy.net/geishamain.htm )


 * Referencing yourself is hardly proof of anything.

link cycle
The term "mizuage" in the article redirects back to this article. I am removing the reference to eliminate a link cycle. Matthew Plough 04:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

add a section on western misconceptions?
I think we should add a section on western misconceptions. Item #1, Geisha aren't prostitutes; yûjo are prostitutes. Item #2, Ge - i - sha not gissha. Any other ideas for the section? --Carl 13:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geishas are still prostitutes in Asian cultures because they sold themselves (even if it was usually talent, not sex). Compared to western-style prostitutes, however, they seem nothing of the sort.

Thats not prostitution, then.

Photo
First of all, the photo for this article should show geisha, not maiko. And they don't look like real maiko either. They are likely tourists who underwent a maiko makeover. Can the photographer confirm that they are real? Real maiko would know how to pose well while dressed in kimono. They do not pose like that, with the sleeves ruffled, umbrella held unaesthetically, etc.


 * I don't see why. A maiko is a type of geisha, after all. These maiko look authentic enough to me; if they don't look practiced enough to you maybe they're just new. Exploding Boy 22:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, they are not authentic. Confirmed by this page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/russellc/13168902/ Photojpn.org 15:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sufficient confirmation for me. The person isn't an expert, obviously has no inside information, and doesn't speak Japanese by the looks of it.  Either way, it's still basically irrelevant.  Exploding Boy 20:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK, if you like this picture so much, I won't replace it. Photojpn.org 10:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's not that I'm in love with the photo... Please, feel free to add more pics and/or replace it with a better one.  Exploding Boy

Why replace it if they look "authentic enough" to you, you still think they are real (I don't care to spend more time to try and convince you that they are not real), and "it's basically irrelevant?" I was all but ready to replace it and add more images (selected from among my hundreds of geisha images), but your reaction has really irked me. "Geisha" has been crossed off my list of "Wiki images to be replaced." Someone else can do it. Photojpn.org 03:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, I thought we were having a discussion. Perhaps, if you were considering adding images from your collection, you should have said so rather than pussyfooting around and then throwing a hissy fit when you didn't get the response you wanted. If you have an interest in Wikipedia and this topic, I don't know why you'd want them to suffer because you have an issue with me. Exploding Boy 19:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Read my notes again please. What you call "pussyfooting" was consensus-building. You yourself said this thing is run by consensus (which was not reached). All your responses were negative. Very ironic since you were the first to ask the same question right on this page. Throwing a hissy fit? Not me. Photojpn.org 02:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of pictures of Geisha, and Maiko's on immotalgeisha.com Ask the webmaster, I think she will be more then happy. BTW, the colours for that season (looks like early summer in the back also, the make up is wrong, their whole lip is drawn in. ><) are wrong on the picture before so, yes they are not real Maikos.


 * Another thing on the photo bit. Why is it so far down the page?  Seems there should be a nice photo right up at the top.  If possible, it would be great to have a contrasting photo of a geisha and a maiko as well, to see the different styles. MightyAtom 04:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In the image under the "Hairstyles" section, a "geisha" has a RUBBER DUCKIE in her hair. you might want to check the validity of this "geisha"....

Meaning of "geisha"
I think we need some consensus about this before it gets out of hand. I think we can agree that "artisan" is plain wrong, and that "artist" isn't the best translation. If we are going to say "literally," then "art person" is the most correct. If we're giving a literal translation, it doesn't have to be pretty in English. Exploding Boy 22:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see why "artist" isn't a good translation. A person who performs art = artist. But if I get no support for this claim, I suggest "person of the arts". A little long, but more elegant English. -Himasaram 09:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Butting in. There's a Indian English usage, seen in credits for Bollywood films. Artiste. Actors and singers and dancers are artistes. Wouldn't that describe a geisha? Zora 10:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Artiste" sound affected and pretentious. Once again, if we're giving a direct translation of the kanji it doesn't have to sound "elegant," and "art person" is the most correct. Exploding Boy 20:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I must disagree. Giving a direct translation of the collection of kanji that make up Japanese words is not how you translate them. A word is a word, even in Japanese. Finally, I don't see why we shouldn't at least try to get an English translation that sound "elegant"?? That doesn't make sense. -Himasaram 21:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you use the term "literally," then you should be giving a literal translation. The actual translation for &#33464;&#32773; is geisha. It is not "artist" (which would be &#12450;&#12540;&#12486;&#12451;&#12473;&#12488;, &#30011;&#23478;, or something similar), and it's certainly not "artiste." Exploding Boy 23:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The blind leading the blind again. Exploding Boy is someone who answers questions even if he does not really know the answer. (See my exchange with him above where he tries to answer my question which he himself asked before.) In English, when people hear the word "art," most think of the visual arts like paintings, drawings, sculpture, photography, etc. In Japanese, when people hear the word "gei," they think of the performing arts like singing, dancing, acting, etc. Most of the kanji compounds using "gei" refer to these performing arts, such as geinojin (entertainers), daidogei (street performance), etc. Therefore, "art person" is not good, and "person of the arts" (should be "performing arts," but that might be going too far) is better. Photojpn.org 08:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)\\


 * To begin with, someone needs to take a look at No personal attacks.  I really have no clue what you're trying to say, Photojpn.  Did you even read my post before you responded?  You seem to be agreeing with me while simultaneously insulting me.  What, pray tell, is the big difference between "art person" (the most literal translation) and "person of the arts" (which, by the way, is not strictly accurate)?  Exploding Boy 17:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, no personal attacks. That's what I thought too until you accused me of pussyfooting and throwing a hissy fit (see above). (From a Wikipedia Admin no less. An anonymous one at that.) But that didn't bother me as much as the questionable quality of your replies. What exactly are your qualifications and expertise to answer questions about geisha? And no, I don't agree with your "art person" proposal. "Art person" is almost the same as "artist" which you (and I) don't like. "The arts" implies multiple talents (which geisha have) and has a broader connotation (read: performing arts) than just "art." That's why I say that "person of the arts" is better than "art person," but it's not necessarily perfect. But if you change it to "person of the performing arts," I would not object. Photojpn.org 18:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I might ask you the same question, but I won't bother. I will, however, point out that we are all anonymous here. Revealing personal details is not a prerequisite for participating in Wikipedia, even as an admin. At any rate, you, like Himasaram, are repeatedly missing the point. Exploding Boy 20:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Another false answer. No, we are not all anonymous. Some of us identify ourselves on our personal pages. You can easily find out who I am if you click on my username at the end of this message. In the same way, you can easily tell us your real name, location, credentials (if any), and qualifications (if any) on your personal page. If you don't do this, how can we take you seriously? I am demonstrating to you and whoever else is reading this, the inherent shortcomings of Wikipedia which seriously affects its long-term credibility. You are the one missing the point. Photojpn.org 20:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're moving way off topic here. The fact that you provide information about yourself on your user page means absolutely nothing. It could all very easily be untrue. We are all anonymous on Wikipedia, and despite your opinions on the subject, and no matter how much you wish it were different, that's the way it is. You may consider it a flaw, but there you are. And by the way, I've looked at your user page and frankly, nothing I saw there convinces me you in any way have special "credentials" or "qalifications" to discuss this or any other topic. Exploding Boy 20:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) --> added: Let me make it clear that I'm not saying you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, just pointing out that the information you provide says nothing about your supposed qualifications (and even if it did that wouldn't give you exclusive right to edit articles). Exploding Boy 20:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * You at least know my name, where I'm located, what I specialize in. Many people identify themselves truthfully. So they are not anonymous. If you ask me what my qualifications are, I would gladly tell you. (I'm not a geisha expert so I haven't touched this article, but I do read Japanese.) In your case, we know nothing about you. Why are you so shy? Imagine if Wikipedia were a printed edition. You think people would buy this encyclopedia when the writers/editors are all nameless and anonymous? How can we take you seriously if you decide to remain anonymous? Photojpn.org 05:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, what about using "performing artist"? Zora 07:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Performing artist" isn't correct either. Photojpn, if you want to continue the discussion about anonymity, you can do so on my talk page, but please remember that I don't have to answer to you or anyone else.  No one on Wikipedia is required to divulge personal information about him- or her-self.  If you don't like it, feel free to start your own project.  Exploding Boy 17:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Zora, the word geisha consists of two kanji characters: gei + sha. "Sha" literally means "person." That's why we want to use the word "person" in the literal translation. The problem is "gei" which does not correspond to any one word in English. "Artist" might sound better in English, but it's not a literal translation. To Exploding Boy, this will be my second-to-the-last message on a Japan-related Wikipedia page. I'm withdrawing my participation in Wikipedia to spend more time on my own project (which I had started even before you suggested it). (My last message will be on the Tokyo discussion page.) Photojpn.org 11:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before everyone tries to debate the proper translation in English, perhaps someone should research into the proper Kanji writing for geisha first. I am not Japanese myself, but I thought the proper writing for geisha is &#33464;&#22931; and the term &#33464;&#32773; is for performing artists. Actually &#33464;&#22931; is one kind of &#33464;&#32773; too by definition. Google search finds 65K &#33464;&#22931; and 170K &#33464;&#32773;. Looks like the google matches on &#33464;&#32773; include other artists like musicians etc. Those who continue the research should pay attention to traditional usage vs. modern usage too. The second character of &#33464;&#22931; carries a negative connotation because another usage of &#22931; means prostitutes. Since &#33464;&#22931; is not a prostitutes, the name might have changed in modern usage to stay away from the misleading image. Kowloonese 21:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * The japanese version of this Wikipedia article (as well as the linked site Immortal Geisha) states that the difference between "geisha" and "geiko" is that the former is Tokyo dialect, and the latter is Kyoto dialect, and the words for apprentices are "hangyoku" and "maiko" respectively. It also says that these two sets of expressions are used to refer to geisha and apprentice geisha in Tokyo and Kyoto respectively. It is interesting to notice that in english usage (in my experience), while the Tokyo dialect "geisha" is used, the Kyoto dialect "maiko" is used when reffering to apprentice geisha. Also, the japanese Wikipedia article states that "geigi" is the broader term, including both "geisha" and "geiko".

Maiko vs geigo
The article refers to apprentice geisha in romaji as maiko. However, 芸子 and indeed the given hiragana pronounciation is "geiko" ("young geisha" according to wwwjdic). Having a romanization entirely different from the original Japanese seems rather misleading. According to wwwjdic, while maiko also means "apprentice geisha", it is written 舞子. Am I missing something here?

-To answer your question to the best of my ability... In Kyoto, maiko is generally written 舞妓 and geiko is typically written 芸妓. The characters 芸者 are pronounced geisha, and this a the term used just about everywhere outside of Kyoto, to my knowledge. The characters literally mean "art person" or artist, but the term is used in Japan exclusively for geisha, not for artists in general.

Minor Changes/Contributions
My compliments to the original contributor of this article. Great work.

I took the liberty of making a few minor rhetorical adjustments based on information from my own conversations with geisha as well as friends of geisha (properly geiko-san) in Kyoto, Japan. The information that I submitted and/or adjusted, regarding the danna-san, the prostitution stigma, and the status of Gion and Pontocho, is widely available to those interested in the subject. A number of books, such as Liza Dalby's "Geisha," as well as documentaries, such as A&E's "The Secret Life of Geisha" provide clear, verifiable information. Virtually all of the information I submitted is reflected in those and other credible sources.

I also added a photo of a geiko as she works a gathering in typical fashion. While snapshots of geisha posing outdoors are commonplace on the Internet, I have found that candid glimpses into the actual banquets where the geisha typically earn their living are relatively rare. The geiko-san that appears in the photo (in which the cigar is being lit) is a real-life geisha hosting a gathering in a ryotei on Hanamikojidouri, which is the main street in Gion that is shown in another picture on the page.

It is apparent that the two "maiko" pictured at the upper right section of the article are, in fact, Japanese women posing as maiko and not the real thing -- just as the caption indicates. The kimonos, the hair styles, and the way the maiko are standing are all wrong -- not even a brand new maiko would be permitted to pose this way. It is a beautiful picture of two very lovely creatures, but it is not authentic. In my opinion it should not be included in this article for that reason alone. I would leave it in place, though, until someone finds a suitable replacement. It does have good visual impact.

I hope my contributions were useful. If not, please edit or delete them. The article is still far from perfect or complete, so hopefully more people will come forward and contribute.

Kanji Character for Geisha
In the english article, it says that the Kanji character for Geisha is 芸者, but if you go to the Japanese article for Geisha, they use the character 芸妓 instead. I understand there are differences on how the word for this particular art is used in the Kansai region and the Tokyo region, in which in cities like Kyoto, they tend to use 芸妓, while in Tokyo they tend to use 芸者. My question is, which one should the english wikipedia use?


 * I would say we should mention both, but primarily 芸者 since it corresponds with the word geisha. Geisha is a term used in the west and pretty much everywhere in Japan outside of the Kyoto/Kansai area.  Ironically, the traditional roots of the art are in Kyoto, and most of the "geisha" we see in the movies, in this article, etc. are actually depictions of entertainers from Kyoto who would refer to themselves only as geiko.  Nonetheless, I think it would be inaccurate to connect 芸妓 with the word geisha without explaining the difference.  So, I would say that the kanji 芸者 is appropriate for this article, with the kanji 芸妓 included with an explanation of the difference. ToddLara 23:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The kanji 芸者 is read geisha, and the kanji 芸妓 is read geiko or geigi (with different meanings). In the Japanese article, the title is geigi (芸妓), and geisha (芸者) and geiko (芸妓) are discussed as Tokyo and Kyoto dialect for geigi.

Copied?
Part of this article appears to be copied from this page. The makeup section in particular. Rmhermen 23:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Geisha hairstyles section is word-for-word copied from this [page]. It's possible that the original author was also the author of that page, but it seems unlikely. There doesn't seem to be any copyright information (as the link is to a personal webpage) but it is on a .edu website so that might mean something.

"poppy"
Poppy Industries is no nore in Australia. It closed down some years ago. Sorry guys but its no longer around and the products are gone too.

Suggestions
A BBC2 documentary broadcasted yesterday noted two additional facts about maiko/geisha, though i cannot verify them. The senior geisha house keeper and trainer, excuse my expressions, revealed to a maiko the following purpose of the white make-up: in older days it would reflect the scarce candle-light in order to show her face better, and thus showing the geisha's beauty clearer. Another note was that the 2 V's in the neck were a sexual reference, but to what was not explained. Still all this could be a local or personal explaination, making me hesitate to add this information. 83.85.83.86 11:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the first, I can't verify it, but if it's not true it's a lovely story. As to the second, the nape of the neck is considered sexy.  The 2 or 3 unwhitened portions left in that area are supposed to heighten the effect.  Exploding Boy 16:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll try to verify the first, as soon as i can make time for it. W.ouwehand 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
I put in the contradiction template, because of the (seemingly) contradictory mentionings of the term used in Kyoto (geiko, but only maiko (both in first paragraph)). --Marcoscramer 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

According to immortal geisha, maiko is not geisha but training to be a geisha which last for 5 years of training. Geiko is another word for geisha, only used in Kyoto. (From the information I gathered.) jynx 04:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources cited
This article is extremely skimpy on the sources cited. It could use fact sprinkled liberally throughout, and maybe even a tag at the top, but a note asking nicely on the talk page is less abrupt. So, could some footnotes be put in, please? - brenneman  {L}  01:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was going to add one after the last rewrite but didn't get around to it. Will soon.  Exploding Boy 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wording
I don't understand what's meant by ""Geisha," is the most familiar term to English speakers..."
 * What that means is that another term, geiko (which comes from the Kyoto dialect), is also used to mean the same thing, but that the term geisha (from the Tokyo dialect, and therefore used in many other areas of Japan as well, excepting Kyoto and possibly other locations in the Kansai region in this case) is more familiar to Western English-speakers. Which is true (I can verify that much; I'm a native English speaker, and one with an interest in Japan at that, and had never known of the term geiko until today. Memoirs of a Geisha is about a Kyoto geiko, but does not use the Kyoto dialect term in the title, you'll notice, probably for this reason, as the book is actually a romance novel written by a native English-speaker, Arthur Gdlden, not actual memoirs). Runa27 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't get it, it is inaccurate, unverified and obviously causes people confusion so I have re-jiggered it. - Bennyboyz3000 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"inaccurate depictions"
How is the novel, Memoirs of a Geisha, an inaccurate depiction?Mossman93 21:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where to begin? Exploding Boy 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UT

The accuracy of the book is questionable because it is a novel written by a non-Japanese man who had incounters with a geisha. The book is based on what he wants to believe, not necessarily what's true.
 * You forgot, dear Anonymouse, to mention that his own direct source for information on geisha, Mineko Iwasaki, has sued him for, as I've heard it, "misrepresentations", supposedly because he claimed her, a genuine geisha, as his main source, but did not stay 100% accurate to what his source told him (another thing I've heard is that she agreed to be only an anonymous source, and had recieved death threats after his book was published with her being thanked by name in the introduction, but I haven't looked into it much yet). For the moment, I'm taking what he's written with a grain of salt. After all, Memoirs is a novel, fiction; meant to be entertaining more than informative. Runa27 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Memoirs of a Geisha
1) As a matter of fact, Liza Dalby played an active role in the filming of Memoirs of a Geisha, highlighted on the 'Special Features' DVD, playing consultant to both the director and the actresses, and Arthur Golden cites her book as one of his main sources of research. Point is, you can't praise Liza Dalby and condemn Memoirs in the same breath.

2) Golden was initially sued because he used her name in the book (in the acknowledgements, not the story), when she'd given him information in exchange for keeping her name confidential. My guess is that she figured that while she was in court, she'd get her money's worth. And it's all a matter of opinion, anyway - she claimed that he misinterpreted her story, but since when is that a crime? It wasn't as if he was writing a book about her, so technically, he didn't defame her name.

3) As mentioned in an earlier comment (although I don't quite think that constitutes prostitution, per se), the custom of mizuage did exist. I've heard so many people say that Golden made all that up, that geisha don't sell sex, yadda, yadda, yadda - but it's right here on Wikipedia for all to see. Some people misinterpret it, thinking modern geisha follow the custom as well, and when they find out otheriwse they condemn Golden for making geisha sound like prostitutes. Fact is, it was outlawed in 1958, so in Sayuri's time it did exist. As I said, I don't believe that necessarily constitutes prostitution, but that's another argument entirely... (unsigned comment posted by User:70.187.226.94)


 * The fact that Liza Dalby was a consultant doesn't mean that the depiction is accurate. "Misinterpreted" isn't the right word here; it suggests that only audiences misinterpret the film/novel incorrectly, which is only partly true.  The real problem is that the film/novel are inaccurate, evidenced in part by the fact that the woman on whom Golden based Sayuri, a former geisha, sued him for millions when the book was released.  Exploding Boy 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In what respect are they inaccurate? I believe that "misinterpreted" is the right word - people see the movie/read the book and make assumptions about geisha that aren't neccessarily true. There's nothing blatantly inaccurate about the movie/book itself.(unsigned comment posted by User:70.187.226.94)


 * Quote from [] : At one point during filming I overheard a couple of the light and sound crew debating whether they would want to kiss a mouth that looked like that tiny red rosebud on a white mask. They both chuckled and said they would pass. This made me think. All along I had been arguing strenuously for a more authentic geisha look in hair and make-up, but this was the moment when I realized that could not happen. For this film to work, the most important thing was that the geisha be beautiful to blue eyes, not to tea-eyes.. This is why it's fully possible to find Memoirs of a Geisha less than useful, but still find Dalby's works useful. 83.249.93.79 06:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the story is inaccurate. Remember, it is a work of fiction created by a white, western man about Japanese women who live in a way that is little understood by outsiders. The movie is particularly inaccurate, in terms of costume, hair, makeup, language, soundtrack and on and on and on, and in its depiction of geisha as basically high-class prostitutes/chattel.

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~.

Exploding Boy 23:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ...soundtrack? What are you talking about? There is no possible way for the soundtrack to be inaccurate - real geisha did not have music narrating their lives at every turn. And what makes you think that you're more qualified to make that assumption than Golden? As I said, he had people like Liza Dalby consulting on set, people with hands-on experience in the matter. You, on the other hand, have opinions based on the opinions of others.


 * And 'its depiction of geisha as basically high-class prostitutes/chattel' is an entirely objective statement. I watched the movie, and I did not see it that way at all - need I remind you that Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on opinion? I personally think that it would be best to remove the mention of Memoirs entirely, so that neither of our opinions mar the content. You have presented absolutely no factual basis for saying that Memoirs was inaccurate, and so, in removing my edits because you disagree with them, you are going against Wikipedia's rules. I may have also in re-editing your changes, but unlike you, I've offered to compromise.

Regarding the soundtrack, real geisha interviewed about the move have said that it features a type of shamisen never heard in Kyoto.

Regarding the participation of Liza Dalby, the book and film are fictional, and created for a western audience.

Regarding the depiction of geisha, I once again refer you to the woman who sued Golden in part for those very reasons.

Still, this little edit war is becoming tiresome, so I've removed the word "inaccurate," as well as "misinterpreted," in the hopes that this will at least for now solve this problem.

Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) at the end of each post, like this: ~. This will "stamp" each post with your user name and the date. Thanks. Exploding Boy 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of being talked down to by you, so I guess I'll settle for that. Removing any mention of Memoirs would be preferable, but as I said, I'm tired of arguing points that you refute with insufferable patronization. Let me leave you, however, with this: Sometimes, not everyone agrees with you. Deal with it. =\ (another unsigned comment posted by User:70.187.226.94)


 * I agree, I have hardly seen you, ExplodingBoy, refute anything with any facts other than that its fiction and someone sued her. Yes, its fiction, ever heard of historical fiction? And I got the impression she sued him because she was mentioned and not because it was so historically innacurate. I think you either need to prove how its wrong or not keep making sparse assumptions off of even sparser information. Blanket stating everything in the book/movie is wrong because its fiction and someone was sued are not evidence of how the book/movie is wrong. Prove it with facts from the book/movie or stop complaining.24.55.129.137 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If I might suggest a reference to Sayo Masuda's Autobiography of a Geisha, instead. Written in 1950's by an actual geisha, the account is largely considered to be unfailing accurate and reasonably characteristic.  Far better than the inaccurate embellishment that is Memoirs...

24.124.14.65 01:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Memoirs
I think this page still needs a lot of work - regarding Memoirs of a Geisha...to not dissect the book / film is like ignoring the elephant in the room. Right now all we have is basically "Both novel and film have prepetuated a flawed and glorified image of the life of a geisha." and then we say nothing to back that up or delve deeper into the issues surrounding them...69.142.158.49 09:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Memoirs of a Geisha
In the article's last sentence, the novel "Memoirs of a Geisha" is mentioned as prepetuating "a flawed and glorified life of the life of a geisha". Could the writer or someone else please give reasons for this? As it stands now, it's nothing more than an opinion, and I don't think that's very helpful. 80.228.134.58 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mizuage
I removed the sentence "This is because their virginity would be sold to the highest bidder, the person who would pay the most to sleep with them." because this is a very disputed issue, and should not be presented as fact. MightyAtom 02:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of modern Geisha?
Any reference for this:

"In modern Japan, geisha and maiko are now a rare sight outside Kyoto. In the 1920s there were over 80,000 geisha in Japan, but today there are far fewer - a commonly accepted estimate is 10,000. However, visitors to Kyoto's Gion district are likely to catch a glimpse of a maiko on her way to or from an appointment."

I have heard the number of operationg Geisha in Kyoto to be around 100 or so. Also, the last sentence is patently untrue! All the time I have spent in Gion in Kyoto, and I have NEVER seen a Geisha on her rounds.MightyAtom 12:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Last time I was in Kyoto I stayed for about 4 days and saw at least 10 geisha on the streets in Gion and Pontocho.  Exploding Boy 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ACTUAL geisha or tourists dressed up as geisha? I've seen lots of tourists who dress up as geisha and walk around posing for pictures, but never a real geisha/maiko out on her rounds.  Was just there for 3 days last week end, wandering around Gion at dusk.  MightyAtom 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, real ones. Coming in and out of houses, tea houses and restaurants. Alone or in small groups. Clearly not just tourists. Try that little main street in Pontocho by the river -- the opposite side of the main road from where all the hostess clubs are. Exploding Boy 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that street well. Just where I was walking around last weekend, but nary a geisha in sight...sigh...maybe I am just unlucky.MightyAtom 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, could be. The place was lousy with them last time I was there :) A good time to go is around May, when they do the Kamogawa Odori.  You can buy tickets super cheap and go to the Kaburenjo and watch Real!  Live!  Geisha!  sing, dance and perform.  When you're wandering the streets, watch for the Japanese guy with the pony tail and camera.  He hangs out and photographs the geisha coming and going.  They all seem to know him so they stop, and it's a great chance to take some pictures of your own.  05:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I went to a talk by the author of a book on geisha last weekend, and he laughed when I told him wikipedia says there are around 10,000 active geisha. He said the number was probably around 200 in all of Japan. However, this is original research, so I can't really post it.  However, the 10,000 number is wildly inaccurate. MightyAtom 06:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not 200; there are 80-110 in Gion Kobu alone, so I seriously doubt that the other hanamachi can survive with about five to ten geisha apiece. I'm guessing this faulty information came from this page, since it was one of the first to pop up under a google search of "geisha number." This site says that the number is under 1,000, and they that the number is under 200. Seems like there's some serious discrepancy. I hesitate to trust anything but kenban records.

Ha! That http://www.japancorner.com site says that Memoirs of a Geisha is a true story, so that disqualifies that as any sort of reference! The under-200 number comes from Peter MacIntosh, who is pretty much THE authority on Kyoto geisha. He is married to a former Tayū, and knows the world inside and out.

http://www.petermacintosh.com/

He is a very trustworthy resource, but since it was original research, I can't post it...

But! The number is definitely wrong. MightyAtom 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

250 registered geisha as of Dec 2004 - Jan 2005. http://www.seejapan.co.uk/pdf/newsletter0412.pdf That number has likely gone up since then. The keyword here is 'registered' geisha. As Dalby writes, an older geisha who is independent may choose to entertain in an unofficial capacity. Claw789 04:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)claw789

About "Geisha in popular culture" section
This section seems a little inadaquate. Most of it is generalized information about the West's preoccupation with Geisha. Shouldn't their be something about the Geishas' presence in or influence on Japanese popular culture? I'd really like to know about this. Would someone who's knowledgable about this consider adding to the article?


 * I agree that this section needs to be re-vamped. However, as to the influence of Geisha in Japanese popular culture, it is almost nil.  In Japan, they aren't really important, although most Japanese are aware of the West's fascination with geisha.  You will rarely see geisha in books, movies, manga, etc...Unfortunately, I don't have any sources to support this, just daily life.  And that would be original research, so...MightyAtom 08:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't true. In most Japanese TV dramas staged in Kyoto, there is a scene involving an (improperly dressed) maiko. In addition, antique geisha hairpins are a popular item in Harajuku boutiques. --Iriseyes 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dancing
Geisha are, first and foremost, dancers and musicians, but this article completely lacks a section on it. Can someone rectify this? In addition, why was the section on specialization changed? Geisha do not specialize depending on their hanamachi, this information is mind-bogglingly incorrect. Quite frankly, ugly geisha do not dance. --Iriseyes 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have references, please update the article, but be sure to reference the updates. Anything coming from your personal knowledge would count as original research, which is against wikipedia guidelines.  Also, try to be aware of the language used.  Instead of "ugly geisha do not dance," something like "physical attractiveness plays a role in selecting a geisha's specialty."  MightyAtom 01:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added one of the books I got the information from as a reference; I see you let it live now. --Iriseyes 13:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - "Model good looks are not necessary (the make-up is very thick)" from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article617379.ece It also states "Maximum height is 160cm (5ft 3in) — any taller makes a woman ungraceful as a dancer", which correlates with Dalby (that a strikingly tall girl violates the sense of proportion on stage.) Claw789 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Images
I sent out image use requests to Immortal Geisha and Rising Sun Imports. Immortal Geisha has, of course, a great collection of authentic geisha images, and Rising Sun has a fantastic image of a maiko's obi in a teahouse; this picture has got to be included. --Iriseyes 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image permission was granted. However, the new image of a maiko at "Gion Corner" is fairly ugly. Can anyone find a more attractive alternate? --Iriseyes 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of Modern Geisha
I looked <--- here at the population of Japan in 1920. According to the info posted there and the numbers we have here, about 1/1000 women in Japan at that time was a geisha. That is SO innacurate. I don't know what the correct number is but I changed the current quote. There are certainly not 10,000 geisha in japan right now. --Iriseyes 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Clients" vs "Male Clients" in introduction
The introduction to this article reads much like it would if the subject were ballerinas. I am aware of the opposition here to calling geisha "prostitutes," but surely they are something other than "entertainers" and "dancers" and so on as described. For example a ballerina is a dancer who performs on stage for an audience in a legitimate theatre, a geisha pours drinks and attends to a man or men in private rooms, and is represented by a Oka-san, who frankly functions much like a madam. To more accurately reflect the gender dymanic of the geisha/client relationship I am changing the phrasing in the intro to "male clients" as opposed to "clients" because I find precious little indication that geisha are hired by women to any significant degree. 203.216.99.181 10:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Although most clients are male, there is nothing prohibiting women from becoming clients. I have personally been to a party with geisha were the clients were both men and women.  It isn't unusual for offices to host a geisha party for a special occasion, and of course staff of all genders are invited. MightyAtom 11:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, women can hire them as well - it's more that they don't always find an interest. John Smith&#39;s 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps the passage in question could read "predominantly male clients"? Noted that an office manager might not restrict their female employees attendance at an office "geisha party," but neither would a typical strip club bar females from entering. However, MightyAtom, would you not agree that generally, geisha entertain men, and the idea of a geisha with regular female clients would qualify as exceptional? RomaC 14:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with stating "predominantly male clients," although I don't really see the necessity of it. Yes, female clients of Geisha are probably rare, and when women attend it is most likely as part of a large group. MightyAtom 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mighty, I will consider what you wrote not sure myself now what is best for the article. RomaC 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I also can agree with that there were not only male clients. I can talk about Mineko Iwasaki's book as an example again! She dispels the blur while she is speaking about this. There were or are also women clients and men take also thier family with themselves if they would like to introduce them to a geisha. And sorry for going back to the theme of 'whether prostitutes or not' here but Although Older fathers prefer knowing many geishas from the bankets because they prefer to have such a accomplished woman as thier son's wife like a geisha but Geishas weren't or aren't forced to marry anybody, they have freedom to decide about thier life. To live out of the okija to marry the man they love. So it is also not prostitution!!!

Other Western Misconceptions
I was somewhat surprised that when reading the discussion that the only misconception of Geisha mentioned is that they are prostitutes. Another misconception that I have heard OFTEN is that Geisha were assassins or martial artists. At first I figured this just said something about the idiots I hang out with, but have noticed this misconception even in non-serious mass media, especially games with a Japanese theme. (i.e. Shogun Total War) Should this misconception be dispelled in the article and/or mentioned in "Geisha in Popular culture?" 69.138.58.211 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Geisha as martial artists? Wow...I can never imagine that. I don't think it's a well known misconception....I hope so, anyway. --Iriseyes 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was gonna call bullshit on this, until just last night I was watching a movie where a geisha walked by and, low and behold, she whipped the kanzashi from out of her hair and used them as throwing knives. And this was in a Japanese film!  It got me thinking...Kitano Takeshi's Zatoichi also has the "Geisha as assasin" motif, so maybe it isn't all that rare.  Although, usually it is a case of assassins using the geisha costume as a disquise, rather than actual geisha being assassins.  Might just be worth addressing. MightyAtom 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I've never heard this claimed about geisha myself. I'm sure there are fictional stories like the mentioned in which geisha act as assassins or what have you, but I wouldn't call this a common misconception. Exploding Boy 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably a more of a trope than a misconception. I know there are more instances of this.  Wolverine does battle with warriors disguised geisha in more than a few comics.  Usually, just like in the Japanese flick I watched, the hair-pieces conceal knives and such.  BUT...unless there is a reference, it is all Original Research soooo....MightyAtom 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be original research to put a category in the "Popular Culture" section of films showing people dressed as Geisha acting as assassins, but I'm not sure it is a good idea unless we can link it into the article somehow, and that requires non-original research onto this Trope/Myth. Anyone think it is worthwhile to put it in there without an explanation in the article? LittleBrother 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would not be appropriate just on the fact Shogun Total War had them like that. If it was a general misconception, fair enough. But one PC game isn't nearly enough. John Smith&#39;s 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation of ozashiki?
In the text, we read "Although minarai attend ozashiki, they do not participate at an advanced level..."

It is not explained anywhere in the text before that point what ozashiki means (neither a link is provided). Could somebody please elaborate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.240.173 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
 * OK! Provided a translation of ozashiki! MightyAtom 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

hi I found some explanation! Here: http://www.mitene.or.jp/~houkan/2002/e02.html

Miyako Odori? Geisha tours?
This article seems to focus mainly on Geisha as private entertainers, and doesn't mention their public performance concerts like the Miyako Odori. I think there are a few other performances, like the Azuma Odori. Anyone else know of others? This is where most people get the chance to see Geisha performing their arts, without having to pay the massive fees for an ozashiki. Also, in order to promote a fading business, I know of several places that offer Geisha tours, where tourists can attend an ozashiki and wander around Gion learning about Geisha.

It seems like this should be added in. Maybe under Modern Geisha? MightyAtom 01:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, this is a pretty important feature of the modern geisha. I know that Pontocho does a biannual dance, and every time it is different, unlike the miyako odori, which is always the same. Pontocho's superior ties to kabuki also shows up in their dance, when they perform some kabuki classics. (!) But honestly, the best way to see geiko and maiko in Kyoto right now is to stake out the ichiriki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iriseyes (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Shikomi photo
Can you confirm whether that photo is of a shikomi, because she appears to be working at a ryotei (restaurant). See the hose? Claw789 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply because of her age, I'm guessing she's a shikomi. All buildings must be hosed down, ryotei and okiya both. Also, that could be an inn that hosts geiko, as some do. Since it's not definate (you're right) I will rephrase the caption, but since it's very likely that that's her role, I'll leave shikomi in there. --Iriseyes 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, okiya can also be ochaya, but I've seen another photo (from Flickr, I think) of a similar green kimono uniform, hose, building facade, etc. that leaves me to believe the girl in the photo (taken 21 March 2007) is not a shikomi to a geisha house. Taken in 24 May 2005: http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l146/claw789/waterlady_105.jpg (since it is not my photo I am reposting a smaller version temporarily.) Claw789 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I think the current photo used is of far too low a quality to be suitable for wikipedia. I suggest it is pulled for now. Claw, why not see if you can find the author of that picture and get him to upload it or something? It's much better than what we have now. John Smith&#39;s 13:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Or why not petitiion the webmaster at http://tabitano.main.jp/3maiko14.html for the use of their photo of real shikomi.Claw789 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My written Japanese is not nearly good enough. John Smith&#39;s 09:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor-quality image
The image captioned "A young girl, most likely a shikomi, hoses down the front of a traditional building in Gion" is of such poor quality that, IMO, it should be removed even if it cannot be replaced. Nat 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Geisha and prostitution
There is a dispute about whether geisha engaged in prostitution - either voluntarily, which would be "bad" in the Christian moral sense of being a fallen woman; or involuntarily, i.e., raped - which would be bad on the part of the rapist and whoever arranged the rape.

One side says that Geisha are not prostitutes and that the 'connection' between geisha and prostitution is a misunderstanding based on "confusion". But I have heard differently, so I did a bit of googling just now. I'll add some search results below. --Uncle Ed 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Memoirs of a Geisha: "For all the film’s insistence that geisha are not courtesans nor prostitutes, for all the underlining that Sayuri’s prayers and choices are the product of the absence of choice, the film ultimately celebrates the institution of geishahood for providing an escape from poverty and never seriously gives much thought to the price that it extracts. When Sayuri’s virginity is auctioned to the highest bidder, we are invited to linger over her triumph in extracting the highest price in history while the cost of the earnings is only hinted at as she lies down to a discreet fadeout."


 * I didn't find it particularly celebratory. Even taken on its own terms I think it was just saying she was making the best she could out of a bad situation. She lost her sister, her parents, and lived as a virtual slave in childhood. She didn't really have many options. She certainly doesn't look happy in the scene after she loses her virginity. It's more determination to eventually get to the point where she has more control over her life. (She doesn't even really get the guy at the end, just gets to be his mistress. It was kind of a weird and depressing movie)--T. Anthony 21:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Christiananswers.net? That's hardly going to be an objective site, is it? John Smith&#39;s 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this all you're going to say in justification of your revert? If so, I will undo it. --Uncle Ed 17:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez, Ed, lighten up! You're lucky I'm still online, you know.
 * First of all in regards to the bit you listed above, the source of a point is important if it has a clear political/social/religious agenda. But more importantly that site is discussing a film that is a work of fiction. So I'm not sure how that site is relevant.
 * Now in regards to your edit, it was not a good one. For example you moved content - have you actually read the Henshall book and know that it did not say the part that you moved? Also your point about controversy was uncited. If you want to claim there is controversy, you need some real, hard sources that are in the right position to say that. Currently the decent sources I have come across (both people and books) all say it is a matter of confusion - i.e. that people misunderstand, rather than that there is debate. John Smith&#39;s 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing my questions so quickly. I'm in no hurry and do not envisage an edit war. I want to learn more about the matter, and just edited what seemed questionable while on the path to knowledge. Here is something from another reference source:
 * A geisha may decide to engage in sexual relations with a customer with whom she has developed a special relationship, but this is not part of her job as a geisha, and it is not a one-night stand. A geisha's relationship with a danna (patron) is a long-term one: The ceremony binding a geisha to her danna is similar to the Japanese marriage ceremony, and when a geisha and her danna decide to end their relationship, they undergo another ceremony to make the "divorce" final. How Geisha Work by Julia Leyton
 * This implies that it's not "prostitution" but merely "having sex with a customer" (a fine distinction if I ever saw one). Perhaps the strict definition of prostitute is "one whose primary business is having sex for pay"; while a Hollywood starlet who lies down on the casting couch to get a part is not "prostituting herself" but only sleeping her way to the top.


 * Why is everyone so touchy about this? --Uncle Ed 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * People are touchy about this because it is a common and persistent misconception. It is a simple fact. Geisha are not prostitutes. Japan has lots of prostitutes, but Geisha are not amongst them.  Yes, Geisha may choose to have sex with their customers, the same way anyone may choose to have sex with anyone.  A Rock Star might choose to have sex with a fan.  A ballerina might choose to have sex with an adoring audience member. A teller at MacDonalds might choose to have sex with someone buying a Big Mac. If the chemistry is right, and the two consenting adults decide it sounds like fun, then they have sex.  But it is just her personal choice as a women, not relating to her job as a Geisha.　I honestly fail to see any fine distinction. MightyAtom 07:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well explained. I would add that the waters are muddied by historical connections between geisha and the pleasure quarters; by the Occupation-era women who prostituted themselves to American GIs who called them "geesha girls"; by the fantasies of people who really lack any knowledge of Japan and by the fantasy world created by Arthur Golden; and by the continuing existence of so-called "hot springs geisha" (basically prostitutes who do a bit of dancing and who cater to a less well-off tourist crowd). The "are they or aren't they" debate is an old and ongoing one, and it's not going to be solved by recourse to Googled articles, particularly ones written by employees of Christian organizations regarding works of fiction written by white American men. Exploding Boy 17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

GEISHAS ARE NOT PROSTITUTES. However, in ancient customs there was a ceremony that took place where a geisha was 'deflowered' by the highest bidder. This ceremony no longer takes place, and is one of the main roots to this rumor. I have my site cited below as to where I found this information:

http://marian.creighton.edu/~marian-w/academics/english/japan/geisha/becomegeisha.html

If you check this site, you will see the excerpt "Also, this was when a girl underwent mizu-age, a ceremony that revolved around the girls losing her virginity to the "highest bidder." This does not take place anymore." - H.Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.151.168.68 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Permits
However, geisha were able to purchase a permit allowing them to sell sex before prostitution was outlawed in Japan.

There was a time when the selling of sex and the selling of art were regulated affairs. Leslie Downer writes that some women held permits for both, but Liza Dalby records her okaasan saying this "double registration" was illegal, apparently a practice more common in the "lower" geisha districts. Claw789 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Liza Dalby says a lot of things - such as that she was a geiko when she was nothing of the sort. Certainly I've never seen her deny it. John Smith&#39;s 13:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * She never said she was a geiko in her book, simply that she worked for a year wearing geiko kimono because of her age. I'm not sure what the problem is...you would prefer her to make her debut (which she never had) as 27-year-old maiko? --Iriseyes 17:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

onsen geisha are not prostitutes, they are just looked down upon by the city and country geisha. onsen geisha are no different then other geisha, if they have sex, its because they want to, not because they were payed, again, just like other types of geisha.


 * Actually, onsen geisha are pretty much prositutes. My father was propositioned by a couple in Atami. --Iriseyes 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, onsen geisha (such as Sayo Masuda) are prostitutes. The may wear geisha kimono, but they sell sex, not art. This is why Kyoto geisha prefer to call themselves geiko and maiko, so as not to be confused with onsen geisha. Geisha never sold sex, not even their virginity. Memoirs of a Geisha was a very inaccurte movie, right down to the hair and costumes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geishainkyoto (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think it's fair or representative to lump all geisha in tourist resort towns like Atami as prostitutes. Dalby says Atami has a dual system of registration (to sort out the proven geisha). Claw789 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

i lol'd
"Geisha (芸妓) are traditional, female Japanese entertainers, whose skills include performing various Japanese arts, such as bukakke, chikan (public groping), gokkun (swallowing sperm), hentai (depravation), shinju (breast bondage) and plain fornication. They also engage their clients with light masturbation."

Ummmm... yeah. I won't remove it, but just wanted to point out that the article opens with that.... 71.120.201.39 17:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha thanks. Somebody removed it. I would have but I'm not sure how to revert things and it seems better to revert it back than copy and paste the correct one over it. 71.120.201.39 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese WP on geisha
The Japanese WP has some interesting things to say about geisha that partly contradict the no-prostitution-no-sirree line here:


 * 芸妓はあくまでも芸を売って座の取持ちを行うのがその勤めである. しかし、江戸時代以来、芸妓も遊女と同様、前借金を抱えた年季奉公であり、過去の花街は人身売買や売春の温床となっていた. 誰でも構わず身を売ることは「不見転（みずてん）」として戒められたが、第二次世界大戦後までこうした不見転はほぼどこの土地でも見られ、置屋も積極的にこれを勧めることが多かった.

Rough translation: "The duty of a geigi is definitely to entertain by art. However, starting in the Edo period, both geigi and prostitutes were sold into apprenticeships for an advance loan, and former hanamachi became hotbeds of slavery and prostitution.  Selling the body to anybody was known as mizuten and cautioned against, but after WW2 mizuten could be found in practically all districts, and many okiya proactively encouraged the practice." Jpatokal 02:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We'd need citations, otherwise it might be difficult to reference subsequently. John Smith&#39;s 09:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it also comes from a section titled 遊女との区別 - Distinction with yuujo (prostitute). Claw789 06:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remember that the line between geisha and the water trade has always been slightly blurry. Geisha were sold into their okiya, or course, and mizuage did happen, but that's been abolished for over 50 years now. --Iriseyes 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reeks of spin
While I'm not an expert, and certainly understand that Geisha were/are not the same as Western "prostitutes", I believe the "Geisha and Prostitution" section is biased and misleading. It sounds like spin to me.

The discussion here, and the articles own links make it clear that Geisha and sexual favors have a long, complicated relationship. That relationship should be expressed more honestly and accurately in the article, which seems to deny any signifcant pattern of sexual activity between Geisha and their clients. It's evident to me, from the articles links and discussion here, that one exists, tangled though it may be. The situation should be more accurately described if the article is to be considered truthful and unbiased.

The idea that, "he paid me for companionship; I chose to have sex with him" is one that could be espoused by any 'companion' on the prostitute-spectrum, from straight-up hooker to 'escort' to Geisha. It doesn't make it true.

The interaction between a Geisha and a client - sexual or otherwise - is different from the interaction between a Geisha and her non-client aquaintances. To deny the role of money in that dichotomy is dishonest and innaccurate.

Blcfilm 09:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved pictures
I swapped two pictures over because I thought it was wrong to lead the article with two girls posing as geiko - the featured article I moved up is much better. However, I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for a new caption that would be more appropriate for the new lead picture? John Smith&#39;s 12:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proper noun?
The Terms section opens with "'Geisha,' pronounced /ˈgeɪ ʃa/, is a proper noun." a) No, it isn't. The entry on proper nouns says "Proper nouns (also called proper names) are nouns representing unique entities (such as London or John), as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities (such as city or person)." Seems to me that 'geisha' describes a class of entities.

b) If it is, shouldn't the word be capitaized throughout the article?

c) If it is, so what? Do we need to point out in every article that the subject is or isn't a proper noun?

Foltor 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 128.46.207.28
I have merged his recent edit with the previous text, as I think it is important to stress that geisha do not have sex with clients. Also his change was a little vague - "historically" makes it clearer. John Smith&#39;s 17:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)