Bound Japanese Women: Violence or Sexual Liberation?
By Deputy Editor Thea Lim
Last night while I was browsing the Sociological Images website, I saw this:
Sociological Images explains that the ad is for Swiss company Max Shoes, to advertises its sturdy laces. The ad made me immediately think of these cell phone charms that my bf’s friend brought back from Japan:
Called Oshibari Girls (does anyone know what “oshibari” means?), the cell phone charms come in six different styles, including school girl, office lady and police officer.
The sight of a bound East Asian woman hanging from a cell phone upset me deeply, but I didn’t know how to articulate that to my bf’s friend in a way he would understand, especially not over Saturday drinks on a summer night.
But the commenters on Sociological Images’ shoe post had an interesting take on the tied-up Japanese woman thing:
Some people enjoy bondage, and she has a stereotypical but realistic come-hither look on her face. The Kimono is a bit much, but I don’t find this violent at all.
it IS sexualized, but the reason the woman is represented as Japanese is because I think it’s supposed to be Kinbaku, a type of bondage done with light ropes. Of course, that still doesn’t explain why the woman is in a kimono.
Even the copy on InventorSpot where I found the Oshibari Girls online (evidently neither an anti-racist nor feminist site) had this to say:
At least [the Oshibari Girls'] little round faces aren’t twisted in terror – on the contrary, with eyes closed and lips pursed they almost seem to be thinking “So you’ve got me where you want me… whatever will you do??”
I came away from my internet research puzzled. It is true that both the Oshibari Girls and the Max Shoes model look to be enjoying themselves. Truth be told I was so disturbed by the Oshibari Girl my friend brought back that I didn’t notice the look on her face. In both cases, I simply saw a woman tied up to sexually titillate men- it didn’t occur to me consent could be involved. So maybe I was being thoughtless and sexually backward by totally overlooking the possibility of happy, healthy sex play between consenting adults.
What was the intention behind the creation of these images, and what are we meant to see in them? Within our own North American culture, where knowledge of both BDSM and Kinbaku is limited – and Asiaphilia and sexualised violence against East Asian women are distressing trends – how do people view and understand these images?
Maybe this is a lesson in the vast differences in racial and sexual context from culture to culture, and how much those differences can completely reconfigure meaning.
Potentially the Oshibari Girls are meant to gain credence for Kinbaku/BDSM – forms of sexual relationship that are more often than not ridiculed and abhorred in mainstream culture. The Oshibari Girls are “girly” enough to make the argument that they are actually manufactured for sale to women, not men. God knows a lot of women in North America would like to see submissives celebrated and accepted. See the blog Pro-SM Feminist Spaces, which is one of many voices on the internet confronting the prejudice that BDSMers face, well, everywhere.
This is just conjecture, I actually have no idea who wears Oshibari Girls. The only context I’ve seen them in was as a gift from one straight man to another.
But. When you take the Oshibari Girls and translate them into a shoe ad for men in a Western country, the image totally changes. Because at the end of the day, I am only comfortable with the iconography of bound women of colour when it is for the consumption of women of colour.
And it’s evidently clear that the Max Shoes ad is not for East Asian women, but for someone else.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
atlasien wrote:
What happens to make me the angriest is how sexualized the kimono/yukata has become. When I see a woman in a kimono the woman is implied to be a prostitute, or at least there for the purpose of being sexually available. This is something like 99% of all depictions in US media.
I used to wear a yukata occasionally. Never outside, just around the house. It was a nice compromise between a houserobe and getting fully dressed. But I gave it up because I ended up getting “you look like a geisha” comments… visitors thought they were complimenting me.
Not that I buy expensive shoes anyway, but Max Shoes certainly lost any potential of my business, ever.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶
little mixed girl wrote:
it looks like oshibaru just means “tie”, etc.
so, “tied up girls” would be “oshibari girls”.
uhm. if i were to take a guess, i would say that these keychains probably have nothing to do with sexual liberation or anything like that.
you don’t have to look too hard to find a manga or late-night tv drama aimed at males that has some female character tied up and at the mercy of some guy.
sometimes she’s tied up by the guy she likes, sometimes it’s a bad guy. but often times they have a look which says: “until you grabbed me off the street and tied me to a bed, i never realized how sexy this could be.”
while it seems to be for men, i don’t doubt that there are women that would find them cute or cool looking.
however, if i were to buy one, i wouldn’t be looking at it as sexual, but more as a representation of how i feel my life is…
if you look at this site, the 1st 3 pics show the face, the chest and a “crotch” shot.
http://www.strapya.com/categories/12_3202_4992.html
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 12:44 pm ¶
世界遊牧民 wrote:
Oshibari means to be tied up or bound. It’s not just for women, a couple of years ago when I was in Japan, I saw a manga about a guy who loves to be submissive to women. On the cover he was bound and appeared to be whipped, but had a huge smile on his face. Also, there is actually a really great film called Sasayaki, which is about a high school boy who is in a BDSM relationship with his girlfriend.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 1:21 pm ¶
Brandon wrote:
The discussion post on Sociological Images is driving me nuts. There’s all this discussion about how the tied-up Asian women could be consenting, and this is really about the practice of BDSM.
To sell shoes for men.
I don’t really care what the intent is of the ad. If you depict an Asian women tied up to a man’s shoe in an ad intended for men… you’d better be DAMN sure you understand what the implications might be.
This isn’t about intent. It’s about effect.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 1:47 pm ¶
Brandon wrote:
And of course by “women” I meant “woman”. Pretty bad to make the same mistake twice.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 1:48 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
There’s a whole genre of oshibari in Japanese porn. Some of those knots can get…quite intricate!
The little phone charms are kinda cute. The Max shoe ad? Not so much, and that kimono is the icing on the cake. Thumbs down.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 1:56 pm ¶
Rachel wrote:
It’s true that there are women who consent to and enjoy bondage (*waves hello*). And I appreciate the acknowledgment of that because in my experience it’s often missing from discussions about images of that tie sexuality and some level of violence together
But using these images in advertising is problematic to me for two reasons: first, I think that ads would lead people to believe that a larger portion of sexually active women like bondage than actual do. A woman might smile because she is enjoying bondage play, but then again, she might be smiling because she is incredibly nervous and uncomfortable and has been taught to smile to defuse uncomfortable, tense situations. Actual bondage play between adults requires a lot of discussion and it’s better to go into that discussion without assuming that, of course, like all those women you see on tv, your partner wants to be tied up.
The second problem I have is more general. This is just another sexualized depiction of a woman being used to sell shoes (as one commenter said above). If we’re going to constantly push the “sex sells” mantra, why do women always have to be the stand in for sex objects?
*Shuts up and goes back to lurking*
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:10 pm ¶
ACW wrote:
In my search today, I also see it hyphenated: “Oshi-Bari”, and apparently there’s a television show overseas?
“O” = cord/strap/thong ~rope?
“Shibari” = tying/weaving
http://www.backdrop.net/sm-201/index.php?title=Japanese_bondage
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:10 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
These images give me a conflicted, not-so-good feeling similar to that which I get looking at some of Nobuyoshi Araki’s work (though none of it is about selling shoes).
No Oshibari Boys cellphone charms?
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:10 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
I just noticed that the model is barefoot, too. Ugh.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:16 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
@A.D. Nix
Just did a quick search and no sign (on the internet) of Oshibari Boys. Hmm.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:20 pm ¶
Bianca wrote:
Where exactly was this ad found? In a Swiss magazine? Its somewhat hard to imagine what one group (the Swiss) is saying about another (Japanese Bondage Girls) from the perspective of yet a third culture (American).
Perhaps in Switzerland, there is advertising everywhere about Japanese pleasure vacations, and this is a play on that. Or Max Shoes is trying to advertise to men who do business in Japan? Maybe in Switzerland there is some sort of a Mad Men-esque show about the topic?? Because we have no context for the ad in its native culture, its hard to judge exactly what is being said – particularly true in advertising.
Its probably offensive to someone, I just don’t think we have all the info to understand how or why.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:21 pm ¶
Bekka wrote:
Wow, I saw the pencil charms not as peacefully closing their eyes, but as… passed out. Unconscious. Being tied up while unconscious. Am I the only one?
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:23 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@Brandon: Now I almost wish you didn’t point that out to me. 80% of the comments on that thread are so bad they practically made me eyes bleed.
I left a caustic comment. To sum up, stuff like that is the reason I stopped identifying as a “sex-positive” feminist. I felt like I was being pushed into taking a “kink over race” oath of allegiance by a group of predominantly white people who had no understanding or wish to empathize with the issue of racial stereotyping in sex.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:25 pm ¶
Sara wrote:
@Bekka No, you’re not the only one – they totally look unconscious to me. Which makes the issues of consent even more upsetting – it suggests that the perfect woman is one who is unconscious and bound i.e. totally nonresponsive. Combined with the stereotypes of Asian women as sexually passive, those charms are extremely upsetting.
As for the shoe ad. Well. Maybe if this was the cover of some BDSM enthusiast magazine and there was a conversation with the woman inside – i.e. if it was about her active sexuality – then I’d feel different. But it’s an Asian woman, dressed in a kimono, tied up – in order to sell shoelaces. It doesn’t matter if she’s wearing a smile on her face – again, it’s just feeding into stereotypes about women, Asian women in particular, who really “want” to be taken advantage of. It is fucked up.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:58 pm ¶
ieishah wrote:
i’m both disturbed by the ad– scratch that, the kimono—AND with bianca on this one. i mean, would it make a difference if i told y’all that girl was swiss?
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 3:09 pm ¶
Tracy wrote:
This is the stupidest thing since Darkie toothpaste…
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 4:57 pm ¶
Andra8 wrote:
I also thought the dolls/charms looked unconscious. The site that Little Mixed Girl posted shows how creepy these dolls are: their bodies suspended, upclose photos of the plastic breasts and skirts, and blank expressions, like a bunch of kidnapped, drugged women in a horror film.
As for BDSM and shoes, what is the connection? Stilettos as torture devices, I can see, but men’s shoes? All I see is advertisers wanting to turn men on by portraying an Asian woman tied up, who couldn’t defend herself if she wanted to.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 6:14 pm ¶
Cruciger wrote:
I don’t know what to say about the first image, but I really doubt the phone straps are targeted at submissive women. From a Western perspective, the cuteness of the figurines may seem to desexualize them, but in Japan images of cute girls and women are often marketed to men. The uniforms the characters are wearing also definitely cater to male fantasies.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 6:17 pm ¶
Jha wrote:
Ugh. As a kinkster, I hate it when MSM co-opts these images and completely strips the proper context of the practices for the sake of titillating the audience. Even worse when it’s racialized, because then, not only do these practices (which are supposed to happen in specific, consensual settings) take away all agency in a gender context, it makes it doubly problematic since there’s still an obvious power imbalance between white men (the consumer) and asian women (the consumed, in this context).
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 6:37 pm ¶
Bianca wrote:
@ieishah: that’s my point, its not up to me to say – I don’t know if it would make a difference if she was Swiss.I am missing part of the cultural context.
What might someone from another culture think about Mad Men out of context, or Lady Gaga, or any of our pop culture influences?
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 8:23 pm ¶
Persephone wrote:
Yeah, what Jha said. I’m a mostly dominant kinky woman who enjoys being tied up — not because I want to be dominated, but because it feels pleasant and relaxing to me. In the context of my life and my desires, it makes sense. But the context is important. It drives me crazy to see images like that used for advertising because it takes away the agency and desires of the women involved, and encourages viewers to see them as a product to be consumed.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 10:49 pm ¶
Jai wrote:
I must be getting old. I looked at this ad and thought, “I already have an uncomfortable pair of shoes. Are Max shoes really so much more uncomfortable that they are like a BDSM experience?”
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 3:03 am ¶
Yuko (emma_zero) wrote:
I agree with @atlasien and @Brandon.
The straps are particularly offensive, and I think the reasons were already mentioned in posts by others here.
These images remind me of some horrific stories of rape, some of them leading to murder. Also the childish look of these figurines reminds me that so many Japanese men have fetish for very young girls.
It makes me sick to think that some men carry these around attached to their phones.
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 6:57 am ¶
Catherine wrote:
I think it’s one thing to use bondage and even ethnic stereotypes in sex play with a partner you trust. It’s another thing to see those two things used in an advertisement… especially one used to market shoes to a predominantly white male audience. The latter just makes me queasy.
And I agree with Jai… I am sure even submissives want comfy shoes.
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 7:28 am ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
@Bianca and ieishah
I think ultimately that is the problem with the ad – it is totally decontextualised. So whatever justifying context might’ve existed for that ad, it’s now out in the world, with or without its context, and it impacts people. It impacts people who might want to do this to women of colour without their consent, and it impacts women of colour who have to deal with the potential of racialised, sexualised violence every day.
I remember when American Apparel billboards first started appearing in my city. There would be HUGE photos of half-naked women in pornface. The justification behind the ads was that
a) the women weren’t air brushed
b) the women had a hand in creating the images (or something like that…)
But when that billboard is smack dab in the middle of a city, towering over people with a massive variety of ideas about sex and women, that context (which may or may not justify the ads, I don’t think it really does) is totally lost. And you’ve instead just created a space – on a public street corner where everyone walks – where women only exist for the sexual pleasure of men.
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 12:20 pm ¶
EGhead wrote:
“Some people enjoy bondage, and she has a stereotypical but realistic come-hither look on her face. The Kimono is a bit much, but I don’t find this violent at all.”
Hooray for ignoring cultural context!!
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 8:09 pm ¶
lydz wrote:
http://www.bisazza.com/usa/index.html
saw this ad the other day while browsing elle decor and was pretty horrified. i did not realize that this is part of a trend and it upsets me (athough does not, unfortuntatly, suprise me)
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 9:54 pm ¶
lydz wrote:
Oh and
“Because at the end of the day, I am only comfortable with the iconography of bound women of colour when it is for the consumption of women of colour.”
Yes, thanks for saying that!
In terms of this trend of using bound Asian (mostly Japanese?) women to sell consumer goods, its not bondage or kinbaku that I necessarily have a gripe with (although I do not know anything about the latter) it’s the idea that Asian women, lying bound on a tile floors is being used to sell tile. It wreaks all over of the same old orientalism, re-enforcing and eroticizing stereotypes of Asian female submission.
Copy from the Bisazza Mosaico site:
“As usual, the central protagonist of Araki’s shots is an oriental woman, most often tied as per the ancient art of Japanese bondage or kinbaku. Her look (glance), with its strong evocative force, involves the observer into an emotional reflection.
Araki’s photography, as an authentic artistic expression, reveals itself in a unique and inimitable style, making the new Bisazza campaign an exercise in “visual poetry‚”
The involvement of an artist like Araki in the new advertising campaign further confirms Bisazza’s love for avant-garde artistic expression, and reinforces the company’s philosophy to move the brand forward and anticipate new trends.”
The above statement clearly shows that there is no recognition of the negative (not to mention offensive) nature of these ads, and by using a Japanese photographer it seems that the company is seeking authenticity and trying to guard themselves against those who would say that they are exploiting the women in these photographs (and by proxy all Asian women).
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 10:14 pm ¶
another constellation wrote:
The thing that makes me uncomfortable here is that it is hardly a new thing for people who are being sexually exploited or mistreated or fucked over to also pretend to like it. How often have you seen really bad porn where an actress is uncomfortable, grimacing, clearly not enjoying it, while saying it feels good and smiling when the camera gets up in her face? A coy look doesn’t mean shit.
Posted 26 Sep 2009 at 10:56 pm ¶
amory wrote:
Ditto, I am left feeling sick after viewing these toys and giving them some thought.
@little mixed girl, the point you make about the website and its marketing feels totally on point to me.
To me this looks like the same old creepy Orientalist sexist crap that depicts Asian women as silent, sexually consumable, rapable objects who “want it.”
I’m down with safe, consensual, sexy and fun BDSM play. But this doesn’t depict that, especially given its context. Especially considering that the figures are portrayed as unconscious, in stereotypical fetish outfits, and especially as they are being used to sell shoes to (white?) men. These things considered, it looks just like the same old same old bullsh*t to me.
Posted 27 Sep 2009 at 1:34 am ¶
Medusa wrote:
It drives me crazy to see images like that used for advertising because it takes away the agency and desires of the women involved, and encourages viewers to see them as a product to be consumed.
Yes. That. A million times.
And if the girl was Swiss, shouldn’t she be in traditional Swiss clothing? I mean they deliberately use traditional Japanese clothing in a country that’s…not Japan. For what? To try to capitalize on the submissive woman from Asia stereotype? Which…is supposed to make you buy shoes? I don’t get it at all. Advertising FAIL.
Posted 27 Sep 2009 at 8:23 am ¶
Medusa wrote:
@ atlasien and Brandon
I’m now reading the comments over at Sociological Images too, and WHAT THE HELL??!?!?!?!?
Posted 27 Sep 2009 at 8:24 am ¶
maus wrote:
“I’m now reading the comments over at Sociological Images too, and WHAT THE HELL??!?!?!?!?”
Never ever be surprised with the comments you read over the internet, even on a site with sociology in the title. Plenty of idiots manage to pass Soc 101.
Posted 27 Sep 2009 at 4:05 pm ¶
Courtney wrote:
The shoe ad is so… arg.
Really, I need to step up my ally game when it comes to fighting the “submissive Asian girl” stereotype.
I know! I’ll make a trip to Max Shoes headquarters, in order to propose an ad featuring Mr. James. Everyone loves Mr. James– it would be a wildly successful campaign!
Posted 27 Sep 2009 at 9:42 pm ¶
Bianca wrote:
@ Thea Lim,
If I understand you correctly- basically you are saying they shouldn’t put it out there because someone might misunderstand it.
Particularly because this is an ad that ran in another country for other people…Imagine how offensive many American ads must be to many people in other countries. Should we stop advertising because someone in another country might see it and not understand the context? I mean, we are putting it out there in the world. With no context.
Please understand, I am not defending this ad, or its content – only pointing out that its not so cut and dry.
I actually went and read the notes on Sociologial Images (college students I assume) and read that the ad was made by the same company that did this. Which I thought was quite interesting, considering the max ad.
http://copyranter.blogspot.com/2009/06/high-tech-anti-domestic-violence.html
Posted 28 Sep 2009 at 1:41 am ¶
Brandon wrote:
Since I commented on the comments at Sociological Images, I feel compelled to defend the site a little bit. The comments there are USUALLY pretty good. For some reason, this image just didn’t get people riled up.
But I think it’s important that we visit other sites, post, and hope that it makes some sort of difference. I think that the audience at Sociological Images is at least willing to engage…
Right?
Posted 28 Sep 2009 at 11:27 am ¶
mikilikemouse wrote:
I think the THIN(depending on who you’re speaking to) line between sexually liberating and exploitation is one that it often walked, talked about and really differs from person to person, especially in the feminist circles. I definitely see the exploitation in the kimono. However, the being-tied-up potential explotation/liberation isn’t so clearly defined or easy to point out. For example, it could be liberating because its of a non-white blond female, it could be liberating because it obviously shows some type of sex when asian womyn are so often desexualized, it could be liberating because she’s participating in BDSM, or because she may be getting the submissive sex she wants. It could be exploitative because it shows troublesome sex because she is basically acting as a prostitute, selling a view of her body for profit especially from males. Like was said, BDMSers are marginalized and what we see here can definitely be a example of that, but those that participate would know better than I would. However, something that would be interested in exploring is the reason why she has a smile on her face. Is it because she is really happy and excited that this is going down or is it because she was asked to put a smile on to make this ad more safe and appealing to potential customers?
Posted 28 Sep 2009 at 4:37 pm ¶
mikilikemouse wrote:
oh. I also wanted to add that as critiquers of popular culture we have to continually look at a woman’s agency in whatever situation she is placed or placed herself in. Now, I am not taking a stance either way, but there are some points to be added about agency here. Does the “model” have agency is posing for this ad? And as a “model” is she acting as someone who also has agency, in that, does she want to be tied up for the pleasure of her significant other? So often we look at womyn engaging in maybe strange activities for the pleasure of him, but is this really wrong? Is this really bad? She she is making a choice, is it a choice that should be railroaded? To go further, a counter my previous point, we look at minority womyn signing up for “model” jobs, as in being a video woman, a exotic dancer, or being in a provocative ad as agency when she makes a choice to do so. But is this agency when she feels she has no other choice to make a living and she is not educated about the choices that she is making can be harmful to her through misogny and sexism? This can also be related to reproductive justice. Yes, a woman can make a choice to get an abortion but when she lives in poverty, is that really a choice?
Posted 28 Sep 2009 at 4:49 pm ¶
chicagorose wrote:
Both images made me react with a whole ton of WTF. Wont even bother with the comments at Sociological Images. It’s amazing when someone’s not on the receiving end of crap what they wont and will refuse to see.
Posted 29 Sep 2009 at 12:33 am ¶
Shauna wrote:
ugh i also find how she is so small compared to the shoe to be offensive and frightening. eek. and the ropes are tied in a way to emphasize her bust. I would find it offensive if it wasn’t racist, because its dehumanizing to women, but then add in the asian woman in kimono with bun and its even worse.
Posted 29 Sep 2009 at 1:28 am ¶
Bagelsan wrote:
when asian womyn are so often desexualized
…Say what now? In what universe? Do you have *any* idea how many white guys have told me that they think Asian women are hot? I’m not even Asian — they just apparently think that I want know! 9.9 And have you *never* seen an ad for porn online?
Posted 30 Sep 2009 at 3:42 am ¶
TeakLipstickFiend wrote:
Umm, if the ad is to advertise sturdy laces, wouldn’t it make more sense to have an obviously physically strong person resisting being tied up? Why would you have a (supposedly) submissive person (supposedly) enjoying being tied up? It wouldn’t matter then whether the laces were sturdy or not. The fact that they didn’t do the former shows that the ad is clearly for titillating men using a stereotype – and that’s all.
@Bianca – Switzerland is in Europe. I’m sure they have citizens of Asian origin there, but I seriously doubt that this ad is something to do with Swiss culture that we don’t understand.
@A.D.Nix and Thea – yeah, if the charms are about consensual BDSM, where are the Oshibari boys?
Posted 03 Oct 2009 at 6:24 am ¶