Talk:Mizuage

Correct the article please
Is there a way we could go ahead and fix these sources? As discussed below, we have quite a few problems with this article. First of all, it cannot tell the difference between Courtesans and Entertainers. Secondly a lot of the sources ultimately stem back to Arthur Golden's book which I think most here already agree has been proven factually dubious and more fantasy than anything. How about we strip out most of this page and start anew? A lot of the other Geisha pages have been linking this one on a roundabout way, I've even seen pages all over the the net doing so which just perpetuates the myth that Geishas were "honored prostitutes". Ryunaga (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the difference between Courtesans and Entertainers was difficult to discern at that time, if there was even a difference. Also, I do not see how most of the sources are related to Arthur Golden's book. This article is actually very well referenced.Djd sd (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ryuanga. There are not enough credible sources on this topic. This is a topic that the Japanese, especially formal geisha, should know best about. Yet, the sources cited are mostly non-Japanese. There is definitely a need to consult more credible sources. There definitely may be a chance that most of the information in this entry is retrieved from Arthur Golden's fictional book. Leaving the entry as it is would be spreading false knowledge on Japanese culture, which the Japanese would surely not appreciate.Yaeyoung (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * those comments were made 5 years ago, when the article looked like this. It is in much beter condition now. Do you know of any Japanese sources that discuss this subject?  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 17:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still feel like there are more revisions we can make. We can look at some Japanese sites like this, although it is no where close to an academic paper. Yaeyoung (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As an enthusiast, I find this article to be an absolute disgrace. It refers back to a work of fiction as if it were fact (Arthur Golden's Memoirs of a Geisha). It uses "courtesan" and "maiko" or "geisha" interchangeably. "Geiko" is the name of a traditional artisan from Kyoto, and her apprentice is called a maiko. A geisha and her apprentice, the hangyoku, are the newer, less traditional version. Geiko and geisha have never participated in mizuage: mizuage was the ritual deflowering of yujo (prostitutes) and tayuu (courtesans). Half of the problem is that books in English related to geiko, geisha and maiko contain errors due to mistranslation and bias. This article cites Geisha by by John Gallagher (ISBN 978-1-4351-5160-4), a book which contains myriad errors and contradictions. The world of geiko & maiko (and geisha & hangyoku) is founded on privacy and discretion, and this is the main reason why there is so little correct written information about them. I find that the most correct information comes from forums filled with enthusiasts like me, especially those who speak Japanese and can ask geiko, maiko and supporting personnel themselves. This kind of information is impossible to cite, however. What I would like to see is this article explain the difference between courtesan (tayuu/oiran) and artisan (geisha), and the fact that these two roles have become confused in the media. I don't know how to do this correctly without sources to refer back to though. --DBrabazon (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Iwasaki information
The information in this article has just been corrected. I have a direct quote from a former geisha, Mineko Iwasaki, who wrote her autobiography in large part to debunk the mizuage myth. In this quote from an interview, I think she makes it pretty clear that mizuage does not involve virginity for a geisha. Here is the interview:

"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 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: above
I can't see how you can dismiss Iwasaki so lightly given that her whole life she was immersed in or connected to the Geisha life and art-form. Liza Dalby, while oft-quoted and undoubtedly an interesting source is less reliable IMHO if for no other reasons than being an outsider and having less exposure. Ultimately she is a foreign novelist who has ties to another novelist (Arthur Golden) who is most famous for a controversial book in which his misrepresentation of geisha as prostitutes landed him in court. I think it's no coincidence that the western interpretation of Mizuage, in particular, is now inescapably linked to his novel despite the fact that it is so riddled with innacuries.

The bottom line I suspect is that there are strong arguments for both views. Given the extremely insular nature of Japan at the time the geisha were most numerous and the secrecy and mystery that surrounded the geisha within that culture I doubt a clear and simple consenses can be reached. It is also worth considering that geisha operated somewhat differently at different times in their history and in the different cities and regions they operated in so both views may be valid in different contexts.

This article currently presents only one viewpoint however and noticably it's the more western and sensational position. The article is therefore lacking and should be corrected.

Re: Mineko Iwasaki

Mineko Iwasaki was a maiko/geisha during the sixties and seventies, and can only relate her personal experiences. She is NOT a historian, or any sort of an expert on historical geisha, nor can her experiences be applied to the geisha who came before her. To blindly take her word, when she obviously has an agenda, over the scholarship of so many others who dedicated their lives to researching history is illogical and can only result in a biased article. What she describes may well be the modern form of mizuage, but to claim this is what has always been is ridiculous.

I noticed that she never explains what the cutting of the maiko's hair actually symbolises. Why? I would think that would be incredibly important. Not to mention that the explanation of the symbolism itself is important to the validity of this article.

In GEISHA, Liza Dalby's book, she discusses the historical mizuage openly, and relates the stories of former Geisha who actually experienced the deflowering ceremony before the anti-prostitution laws. To deny that it happened at all, aside from being a slap in the face to all the women who were forced to go through this, is blatant revisionist history and has no place here. Dalby herself felt that the experiences of these women were important enough to document, regardless of how the modern mind perceives the ceremony. What happened in the past wasn't always clean and pretty and politically correct.

Let us not forget that back in the 'old days' no one CHOSE to become geisha. Girls were either sold or born into it. They did what they had to do to survive, and pay off the massive debts that were heaped upon them by the people that purchased them. Regardless of the mizuage and danna, geisha were not prostitutes because these practices were not, at the time, considered prostitution. That our definition of prostitution has changed to put these practices into a grey area, is irrelevant. Historical people should not be judged based on modern definitions and standards of morality, but on the definitions and standards of their own times.

I think the only logical way to handle this is to discuss both the historical mizuagi and the modern practice in separate sections, and make the distinction very clear to the reader.

Furthermore, it is important to put geisha and mizuage into their proper context of the larger picture of historical Japan. For all its beauty and elegance, it was also a very brutal and oppressive society with traditions, practices, and ideologies that directly oppose the mindset of the average modern westerner. To change the history of any culture to make it more palatable today's mindset, and the fantasies of children, is downright despicable.

Kookykrisp 19:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition to article
By all means add to the article, perhaps a section about Iwasaki, but I think completely diregarding the other side as false with so little to go on would be unfortunate.

Outlawed practice.
From the research that I have done into the Anti-Prostitution law of 1958, no mention is made of the practice of mizuage. I think that the author is making an illogical stretch, assuming that mizuage is a form of prostitution and therefore must have been banned along with other forms of prostitution in 1958.

Research
It's not my habit to get involved in online projects (its too close to what I do for a living), but this dispute did nothing to satisify my own curosity, so I decided to investigate somewhat. I am familiar with both the book Memoirs of a Geisha (I bought it while waiting for a delayed USAir flight shortly after the book came out), and the dispute over its fictional elements. While I am by no means fluent in Japanese, I have some limited capacity in the language, and decided to search for any Japanese-language information on mizuage as a coming-of-age ceremony. None of my 3 Japanese-English dictionaries translates mizuage into anything other than its common meanings - a catch (of fish), earnings, or the drawing of water by plants (esp. flowers). The Japanese-Japanese dictionary does specify a fourth meaning, however - specifically, having to do with the first time a geisha or prostitute attended to (touched, received) a client.

Literally (quoted from the Kojigen dictionary in an electronic handheld form): 芸者・娼妓が初めて客に接すること.

As I have probably made clear in the translation, the entry itself is somewhat ambiguous, from what I can tell. Certainly, in relation to prostitutes, one would assume that it did refer to the sale and loss of virginity, as no other interpretation would make much sense. What mizuage meant for geisha is still subject to debate - one can clearly see how the term could become misunderstood, particularly with the confusion of geisha and prostitutes. (One could also see this entailing different things for different 'geisha', as it seems unlikely that the difference between 'geisha' and 'prostitute' was always as sharp as modern geisha would have us believe. However, this would be hard (impossible?) to prove or disprove, unless Bunraku plays (or similar art that involved the 'pleasure' and 'merchant' classes) proved revealing.)

My Japanese google searches did not produce any additional information, at least not that I was able to make sense of. Certainly, the vast majority of references to mizuage were covered by the first three definitions. Perhaps someone more skilled in Japanese might be able to pull up additional details ...

I'm not going to get involved in the silly little Golden-Iwasaki fight here, other than to note that both of them have something to protect, and both of them undoubtedly have biases. It is also worth noting that sometimes their biases coincide (e.g. romanticizing the Geisha's role in society).

'chau

Danna
I have limited Japanese language knowledge, but does the word 'danna' not imply a mastership of sorts? or is this a more modern usage? Voici 12:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

From Memoirs of a Geisha Chapter 12: "But a geisha who refers to her danna isn’t talking about a husband. Geisha never marry. Or at least those who do no longer continue as geisha. ... But if the right sort of man is interested in something else—not a night together, but a much longer time—and if he’s willing to offer suitable terms, well, in that case a geisha will be happy to accept such an arrangement. ... The terms of the arrangement will probably oblige the danna to pay off a portion of the geisha’s debts and cover many of her living expenses every month... what’s more, he’ll provide her with spending money, sponsor dance recitals for her, and buy her gifts of kimono and jewelry. And when he spends time with her, he won’t pay her usual hourly fee; he’ll probably pay more." Please feel free to correct format errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.14.252.144 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Danna" is also a common word for husband. MightyAtom 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
It is not our place to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth, if we do that, wikipedia will slowly be filled with inaccuracies, because sometimes we'll be wrong. Our job is to put down all the relevant facts down for both sides and explain the possible motives behind both sides down with a NPOV. If we do this, and simply document, we cannot go wrong. This acticle must be expanded to include both sides or it is a lie, or at least a misrepresentation. As far as what is TRUTH, the truth is that a geisha's vow of secrecy (does this exist?) and general misunderstanding of the japanese culture prevent us from knowing the absolute truth. As to the above comment, why would 'mastership' imply anything sexual? BDSM and the idea of sexual dominance is a highly western concept. There are plenty of cultures where you can say 'master' without sexual overtones even if the western culture isn't one of them. DamienBlack 03:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ofuku
I decided to look up what the mentioned hairstyles looked like. Immortal Geisha says that the split-peach hairstyle is another name for the ofuku, in contrast to the information in this article.

209.194.12.120 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern mizuage vs. earlier times
I agree with DamienBlack above. May I suggest that one way to present the differing viewpoints is to phrase them as a possible difference between modern practices and something that happened in the earlier decades?

POV dispute

 * I'm always interested in settling controversies in terms of presenting both sides. By the way, the English term 'split-peach' refers to the sight of a vulva which is spread open to expose the vagina. And the "taking of her cherry" refers to getting a girl's virginity.


 * The question mainly focuses on whether (1) selling of virginity is chiefly a medieval practice and (2) whether the practice was ever a prerequisite for maiko (apprentices) to become geisha. I can understand the reluctance to concede this, as it does not reflect well on the Japanese (see Denial).


 * Let's see if we can come up with any reliable sources about this matter. --Uncle Ed 16:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources:

Q. Little Sayuri is sold into slavery by her parents. Would that actually have happened in 1929? A. Yes, and fairly often. Professional procurers, pimps if you will, scoured the countryside for pretty little girls-some as young as six or seven-and on finding one would offer a hefty sum to "buy" her from her impoverished parents.

He would then take her to Kyoto's "pleasure quarters" (the geisha district) and sell her as a maid. The geisha house registered the payment for her as a debt against her future earnings as an adult geisha. The debt also included every yen the house subsequently spent to feed, clothe, and school her. And no, her child labor as a maid earned her nothing. 

Geisha were traditionally trained from childhood. Geisha were common in the 18th and 19th centuries, and are still in existence today, although fewer in number. They were skilled entertainers who endured years of hard training, effectively as child slavess. First they worked as maids, and once a woman became an apprentice geisha (maiko) she would begin to learn how to dance, sing, play the shamisen (a stringed instrument similar to the banjo), and in general practice the art of being a geisha.

Geisha were not prostitutes. Although the right to take their virginity ("mizuage") was sold, they were not obliged to have sex with any customers, including the men who bought their virginity. 

According to Iwasaki, Golden had grossly misunderstood the rite of mizuage, which was merely a celebration of the coming of age of a geisha and not some auction of virginity, as depicted in Golden’s book. Iwasaki went on to say that when a geisha came of age, she required new and costly kimonos and hairstyles. These things may have been financed by a patron, but the geisha’s virginity was never for sale. While Iwasaki speaks with conviction, one wonders why it took her so long to object to Golden’s book. And given this, could the rite of mizuage actually be what Golden claims it is? 

I don't understand. What exactly is it that you want to say/ believe should be said. It would help if you detail your arguments first without throwing quotations in. John Smith&#39;s 16:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above, there is a question about whether (1) selling of virginity is chiefly a medieval practice and (2) whether the practice was ever a prerequisite for maiko (apprentices) to become geisha.


 * I would like the article to address these points, but you reverted all my changes which were related to them. Without any mention of "selling virginity", the article gives the impression that it never happened or that it was never a step in the education of geisha. --Uncle Ed 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well so far we have the comments of an actual geiko who says that it wasn't an auction of virginity - the Golden book is a piece of trash, not a historical work. So we need objective, academic/knowledgable sources that say it is/was. If not then it would be better to say something along the lines of "it was implied by [Golden's book] that blaablaa, but Mineko Iwasaki.......". John Smith&#39;s 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to the person above, I would like to point out that writing novels take considerable background research. Did Golden just make it up? No. Of course not. So where did he get it from?
 * Seraphim Whipp 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mineko Iwasaki - and she said he completely misrepresented what she told him. John Smith&#39;s 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely that was not all? Golden: brave or stupid? I have seen the film and read the book and I did not see geisha as prostitutes as a result. It's a matter of interpretation I think.
 * Seraphim Whipp 00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But the mizuage process as described in Golden's book does make it seem very much that geiko's virginity was sold - that can be seen as prostitution. John Smith&#39;s 14:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that novels shouldn't be taken as factual evidence... but calling someone's work "trash" does not really portray the NPOV that you are obviously trying to establish. Perhaps Golden did change the mizague ceremony to fit his own needs... but we're not using the book as a source, now are we? Obviously, the book is what makes people wonder... but I also think it would be wrong to assume that Golden was trying to make geisha out to be common whores... I read the book and watched the movie, and was personally, as an ignorant young adult, surprised that geisha "weren't" prostitutes! Yes, we do need hard facts to provide a true article... but we should also not be condemning to certain people. Perhaps even, I hate to say it, Mikeo Iwasaki even changed some details... I mean, she was very angry that Golden revelaed her name. Perhaps she felt she had to say some things differently so that the death threats would stop coming. I don't know... and maybe we'll never really know. Justi521 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Losing virginity or changing hairstyle
The viewpoint that mizuage was (mainly) about getting a new hair style is directly contradicted in The Courtesan's Arts: Cross-Cultural Perspectives

I think the distinction is between:
 * 1) a woman who makes her living selling sex (i.e., a "professional" prostitute); and
 * 2) a woman who engages in one, initial episode of selling sex (i.e., has "engaged in an act of prostitution")

I don't think anyone is saying that geisha are prostitutes. The dispute is about whether they (1) were required to; or (2) generally did; or (3) hardly ever did provide sex for money (see prostitution). --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Erikae
According to Golden, mizuage and erikae (襟替え, the turning of the collar) were two different events that could be years apart: After mizuage an apprentice wears her hair in a new style, and with a red silk band at the base of thepincushion bun, rahter than a patterned one. (Memoirs of a Geisha, Vinage Edition Canada, p. 284) ''After two or more years [...] I made the shift from being an apprentice to being a geisha. [...] We call this change the "turning of the collar," because an apprentice wears a red collar and a geisha wears a white one. (ibid'', p. 290). Mizake also talks about mizuage as a "coming of age ceremony" unrelated to erikae. Andreas (T) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you made some good edits, but remember, Memoirs of a Geisha is not a reliable source. It is a novel (a work of fiction). Djd sd (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese reluctance to admit shameful historical practices
Japan's official history books like to omit things like the Rape of Nanking, the well-known atrocities that Japanese soldiers committed in the 1930s. I say "well known", but it is only well known in the West. They also don't like to talk about the Comfort women, mostly foreign girls kidnapped into sexual slavery for the Japanese troops.

I'm not surprised that many contributors would like to suppress any mention of the act of (ritual?) prostitution which began each geisha's career.

Let's not assert that it did happen, if there is really any controversy over this. Let's simply list those historians (or others) who said it did or did not happen. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking to Japanese and Chinese articles
The item for ja and zh articles has two statements: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16603455 They are "instance of: human", and "sex or gender: female". I don't know how to create these statements in the item currently used by this article (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1858857), so I am not combining them. I also don't know how to automatically merge the two items. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:782C:2CF3:9CEE:F010 (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mizuage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106181143/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/02473409.htm to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/02473409.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A section on erikae?
A good clarifier for this page would be to describe the differences between mizuage and erikae.

Erikae is 'turning the collar', the point at which a maiko graduates to a geisha, and is a very ritualistic event - a new geisha dresses in her most formal outfit, new wig, the whole shebang, and spends the day conducting social calls to various teahouses and okiyas. It's a full event, and doesn't include sex in any way.

I am, however, unclear as to whether or not this was separate to mizuage, from whence it arose, and how it was affected by the outlawing of prostitution in the 1950s. I think anyone visiting this page might assume that geisha simply don't graduate to being geisha anymore, it just kind of happens, and the only notable thing is that the maiko you called on to entertain at your party the week before is now dressed like a geisha.

Both pages, this one and the erikae page, need a lot more work. Better sources and more of 'em are needed for the pair, otherwise we continue to go around and around in two poorly-referenced partly-conjecture pages on some delicate topics that really do require love and attention.

As part and parcel of my studies for my next year at university, I'm going to buy a softcover copy of Liza Dalby's dissertation on geisha in Japan - not the book she wrote in the 1980s, the dissertation that book arose from.

A quick leaf-through of a university copy I borrowed earlier this year shows a lot of very helpful appendices which I think could definitely boost the standards of this page - the data itself is drawn from various geisha registration offices, meaning it's got clout that could help this article. Referencing the book she wrote after is great, but it was just that, a book. A nice, if involved, read, but not something heavily reference-filled - hopefully, the addition of the dissertation will resolve this issue. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)