Welcome to College Fashion’s biweekly column, Fashionably Informed. As a CF reader, it’s clear that you love fashion. But have you ever wondered about the drama that goes on behind the scenes? To keep you up to speed, this column aims to inform you about important issues and controversies in the fashion industry.
In case you missed them, see past posts on Retouching & Photoshopping, Tanning Promotion in the Media, Hypocrisy in Beauty Marketing, Racism in the Modeling Industry, “White-Washing” & Skin Lightening, and Homosexuality in the Fashion Industry.
Urban Outfitters’ “Navajo”-Inspired Clothing Line | Photo Credit
For this week’s post, we are returning to our series on racism in the fashion industry. Over the past few months, we have discussed Racism in the Modeling Industry and “White-Washing” & Skin Lightening. This time, we are tackling a slightly different topic: cultural appropriation andstereotyping of culture and ethnicity in retail fashion.
This topic idea was derived from a suggestion by CF reader Amanda. She commented on the last article in our series on racism, saying:
I would be interested in seeing an article on the appropriation of other cultures in the fashion industry. Especially prominent right now is the appropriation of Native American and Asian cultures. Anyway, thanks again!
Thank you, Amanda, for your excellent suggestion. Just last week, media outlets went wild about Victoria’s Secret’s “Sexy Little Geisha” costume,but we will get to the topic later in this post.
The Victoria’s Secret controversy is just one example among many: Numerous retailers have offended consumers by portraying races and cultures in stereotypical and negative ways, or trivializing cultures by turning them into “trends.” Native American and Asian cultures are perhaps appropriated and stereotyped the most in the US, however this issue affects a wide range of cultural groups.
Given that today is both Columbus Day and Indigenous People’s Day, it’s an ideal time to raise awareness about the topic, in hopes that we can all recognize these acts when they occur and work together to change the way cultures are portrayed in fashion.
While stereotyping and appropriation happen across the industry – in magazines and ads, and on the runways – today, we’re going to focus on controversies surrounding popular retail stores.
Table of Contents
First, a Few Definitions
Before we get started, let’s define a few terms so we’re all on the same page.
According to Wikipedia, “cultural appropriation” is defined as follows:
Cultural appropriation is the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group. It describes acculturation or assimilation, but can imply a negative view towards acculturation from a minority culture by a dominant culture. It can include the introduction of forms of dress or personal adornment, music and art, religion, language, or social behavior. These elements, once removed from their indigenous cultural contexts, can take on meanings that are significantly divergent from, or merely less nuanced than, those they originally held.
When we refer to “stereotypes,” we are using the following definition, again from Wikipedia. (Note the differences between stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination):
Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination are understood as related but different concepts. Stereotypes are regarded as the most cognitive component, prejudice as the affective and discrimination as the behavioral component of prejudicial reactions. In this tripartite view of intergroup attitudes, stereotypes reflect expectations and beliefs about the characteristics of members of groups perceived as different from one’s own, prejudice represents the emotional response, and discrimination refers to actions.
Although related, the three concepts can exist independently of each other. According to Daniel Katz and Kenneth Braly, stereotyping leads to racial prejudice when people emotionally react to the name of a group, ascribe characteristics to members of that group, and then evaluate those characteristics.
Now that we all understand what these terms mean, let’s talk about some recent examples of appropriation and stereotyping in retail fashion. Below, I’ll lay out a few different incidents affecting a number of cultural groups.
Urban Outfitters
Urban Outfitters has been accused several times of portraying cultures in a negative or inappropriate manner. Each time, they have stated that they had no intention of offending anyone. In many cases, UO has ended up removing the offending items from stores.
“Navajo” Clothing Line
About a year ago, Urban Outfitters came under fire for their “Navajo”-inspired clothing line. The fashion retailer featured several designs that they labeled as “Navajo” (see top photo above). These included a “Navajo Hipster Panty” and a “Navajo Print Fabric Wrapped Flask.”
While numerous people found these items offensive, perhaps no one was more insulted than the Navajo National Government. They were firstly offended by the portrayal of their culture as a mere fashion trend. However, an additional problem was that these “trendy” items were labeled “Navajo”.
According to The Globe and Mail, the Navajo National Government “holds a dozen trademarks on the name, encompassing clothing, textiles, household products and other items.” Consequently, the Navajo Nation Government sent a cease-and-desist letter to Urban Outfitters, demanding that they remove the trademarked name from the items in question.
In a statement to the Associated Press, the tribe’s attorney said,
“When products that have absolutely no connection to the Navajo Nation, its entities, its people, and their products are marketed and retailed under the guise that they are Navajo in origin, the Navajo Nation does not regard this as benign or trivial. It takes appropriate action to maintain distinctiveness and clarity of valid name association in the market and society.”
Along with the Navajo National Government, numerous Native Americans across the country were deeply offended. On the news blog, Racialicious, guest contributor Sasha Houston Brown wrote an open letter to Urban Outfitters’ CEO. In it, she said,
In all seriousness, as a Native American woman, I am deeply distressed by your company’s mass marketed collection of distasteful and racially demeaning apparel and décor. I take personal offense to the blatant racism and perverted cultural appropriation your store features this season as “fashion.”
In response to the demands of the Navajo National Government and other offended individuals, Urban Outfitters told the Associated Press,
“Like many other fashion brands, we interpret trends and will continue to do so for years to come. The Native American-inspired trend and specifically the term ‘Navajo’ have been cycling through fashion, fine art and design for the last few years.”
While Urban Outfitters denied any wrongdoing in their statement, they subsequently removed the word “Navajo” from the products in question. The Hufington Post reported that the offensive items were renamed.
Despite Urban Outfitters’ actions to re-name the products, according to The Guardian, the Navajo Government filed a lawsuit against the company. The fashion retailer removed the “Navajo” name from the products on their website – however, the lawsuit asserted that the names remained in other places. The Guardian explains:
But the lawsuit claims that products with the Navajo name were still being sold through other company brands, such as Free People, in catalogues and retail outlets.
The lawsuit is still ongoing, as is the controversy.
“Jewish Star” T-Shirt
Urban Outfitters’ shirt featuring “Jewish Star” | Photo Credit
Earlier this year, Urban Outfitters featured a shirt on their website that deeply insulted the Jewish community and others. The problem was that the shirt (pictured directly above) had a patch on its pocket that bore a strong resemblance to the Star of David, which Jewish individuals were forced to wear during the Holocaust.
The Huffington Post reported that the star outraged the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of Philadelphia. In their statement about the controversy, ADL’s regional director wrote,
We find this use of symbolism to be extremely distasteful and offensive, and are outraged that your company would make this product available to your customers.
The shirt was deemed offensive due to the Star of David’s connection to the Holocaust and Nazism. However, the brand, WoodWood, who produced the shirt, denied any intentional representation of the Holocaust. In response to ADL’s statement, WoodWood stated the following:
First of all the graphic is not the Star of David, and I can assure you that this is in no way a reference to Judaism, Nazism or the holocaust. The graphic came from working with patchwork and geometric patterns for our spring/summer collection ‘State of Mind’. However when we received the prototype of this particular style we did recognize the resemblance, which is why we decided not to include the star patch on the final production T-shirt. I assume the image people have reacted to come from Urban Outfitters´ web site. This must be a photograph of an early sample, which is of course an error. Here is the actual T-shirt as it is in stores. I am sorry if anyone was offended seeing the shirt, it was of course never our intention to hurt any feelings with this.
As you can see from the statement, WoodWood denied that the star was a reference to Judaism, but also claimed that the shirt published on Urban Outfitters’ site was an early sample of the t-shirt. To WoodWood’s credit, the final product did not include the star in any way.
However, this was not the only time Urban Outfitters offended members of the Jewish community. According to the ADL, UO produced another shirt that many found offensive. This shirt included the phrase, “Everyone Loves a Jewish Girl,” surrounded by dollar signs. After a largely negative response, UO pulled the shirt.
St. Patrick’s Day Collection
Urban Outfitters’ St. Patrick’s Day T-Shirt
Urban Outfitters also came under fire for their portrayal of the Irish community, specifically because of their St. Patrick’s day mechandise. The fashion retailer was accused of supporting negative stereotypes of Irish and Irish-Americans. The offending collection included tanks and t-shirts with sayings such as “Kiss Me. I’m Drunk, or Irish, or Whatever.” (pictured above) and “Irish I was Drunk.”
Members of the Irish community demanded that Urban Outfitters pull the items, which they deemed offensive. According to Politicker, Joe Crowley, the co-chair of the legislature’s Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, wrote a letter to the company’s CEO demanding the products be removed. In his letter, Crowley explains the effects of the clothing items:
We recently learned of images used by Urban Outfitters in its St. Patrick’s Day clothing line that depict severe and negative stereotypes of Irish and Irish-American people as well as may promote binge drinking. We strongly urge you to end the sale of these items.
Urban Outfitters has not responded to this controversy.
Abercrombie and Fitch
Of course, Urban Outfitters is not the only brand to come under fire for their portrayals of cultural groups. Abercrombie and Fitch caused outrage when they began selling t-shirts that featured what some deemed a stereotypical portrayal of Asian individuals and culture.The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the shirts featured “caricatured faces with slanted eyes and rice-paddy hats.” One of the shirts also included the phrase, “Wong Brothers Laundry Service — Two Wongs Can Make It White.”
Abercrombie’s representation of Asian culture, to many, demonstrated the historic stereotypes often placed on the Asian community. This stereotypical representation outraged numerous people and many demanded the removal of these shirts. Despite the negative response, a spokesperson from Abercrombie’s PR firm told the SF Chronicle,
“We personally thought Asians would love this T-shirt. We are truly and deeply sorry we’ve offended people”
In a follow-up article, The SF Chronicle reported that after protests and threats of boycotts, Abercrombie and Fitch removed the shirts from their stores and website.
Victoria’s Secret and the “Sexy Little Geisha”
Victoria’s Secret “Sexy Little Geisha” Costume | Photo Credit
Last week, numerous media outlets reported about the controversy surrounding Victoria’s Secret “Sexy Little Geisha” costume (pictured above). The costume includes a sheer and floral printed body suit, a fan, and chopsticks meant for your hair. The lingerie company was accused by many blogs and news sites of perpetuating stereotypes of Asian women by selling this costume.
Racialicious cited the important historical context that surrounds this costume and the idea it represents. They stated,
Donning a “sexy Geisha” outfit to get the ball rolling in the bedroom remains offensive because it confirms a paradigm in which Asian people and their culture can be modified and sexualized and appropriated for the benefit of the West. This particular kind of racism has existed for a long time, and we’re far from moving beyond it.
The Frisky also refered to the long-standing stereotype of the “sexualized” Asian woman, saying,
It’s an entire outfit — a sex costume, really — based on the accoutrements of the Japanese geisha to make your lingerie “exotic” and signify the sexual submission and exploitation of Asian women.
Numerous other blogs and articles echoed Racialicious and The Frisky’s comments about the controversy. While the representation of the stereotype of Asian women as hyper-sexualized and submissive caused outrage, many were also upset by the use of the term “Geisha.” The Frisky pointed out the not-so-glamous past of geishas,
Considering the complicated history of geishas, repurposing the “look” for a major corporation to sell as role-playing lingerie seems a bit tasteless.
Due to the negative response, Victoria’s Secret has removed the costume from their website. As of this article’s publication, Victoria’s Secret has yet to release a statement regarding the controversy.
More Information
As this issue is incredibly multifaceted, it would be impossible to adequately explain it all in one post. For more information on cultural appropriation and stereotyping as it relates to all forms of fashion, we recommend the following web resources:
- Cultural Etiquette: A Guide for the Well-Intentioned, an essay by Amoja Three-Rivers, is a guide to the complex issue of cultural appropriation, and how to celebrate cultures you find beautiful in a respectful way.
- But What if I Want to Wear Indigenous Jewelry?, from Selchie Productions, explains the dos and don’ts of buying and wearing indigenous pieces.
- “We’re a culture, not a costume” this Halloween, from CNN, discusses cultural appropriation and stereotyping in Halloween costumes.
- Racialicious’ “Fashion” section is an excellent resource for in-depth info on all of the above controversies, plus many more.
What do you think?
What do you think about these incidents? Are you offended by the portrayal of certain cultures in stores? Have you noticed similar incidents of stereotyping? What do you think of the companies and brands’ responses to these controversies?
Would you like to see a follow-up post on this topic? If so, what incidents would you like to see covered?
Tell us your thoughts by leaving a comment.
Oh Dear, Urban Outfitters. That is not cool. I can’t believe that with all the quality-control stuff that products go through nowadays, especially in a big company such as UO, that no-one stopped to say “Hey Guys, don’t you think this might upset the Jewish community?” Wow!
wow – such a great article. when i saw the title, i immediately thought of VS’s “sexy little geisha” outfin & i’m so glad that it merited a mention.
while i do agree that society in general has gotten a little too pc, i also think it is very insensitive to totally dismiss the issue that this article brings up.
i think the main issue is mainly the labeling of the clothes (as in the case of VS & UO’s “navajo”) & cultural/historical ignorance. If UO called their navajo line something different, or just said that it was inspired by native american designs, i doubt there would have been such an uproar. VS was also perpetuating the misconception about geishas, as so many have already pointed out.
then there’s the whole issue of fashion words such as “tribal” & “ethnic” which always seems to imply something non-caucasian. so caucasians don’t have an ethnicity?
while these may be “just clothes,” what you wear says something about you – good, bad or indifferent.
last note: the novel memoirs of a geisha was written by a caucasian male. people have had majors issues with that as well.
Brooke – I agree that Memoirs of a Geisha is artistically a beautiful book, but both the film and novel are flawed both culturally and historically. Did you know that the actress cast as the lead is in fact Chinese rather than Japanese? If you want to look at it extremely pessimistically, that casting signifies the implicit racism that all Asians look the same and are interchangeable. Surely if that film were so concerned with authenticity, they would take heed of ethnicity?
I suppose there’s a fine line between brands “taking inspiration” from cultures, and outright reducing them to tacky caricatures. It is rather reductive (and dangerous) for people to state that they don’t understand why people care so much full stop, it’s just clothes. To what extent does that statement apply? What about the incident last year where a website sold a Halloween costume that sexualised anorexia? Is that “just clothes”?
I think companies should be extremely careful to avoid offending any racial group or from designing products which could be deemed offensive or racist. However, in a world where we are no longer able to sing ‘bah bah black sheep’ for fear of being accused of racism, I think it is also important that people put things in perspective before crying out in anger – the image of the ‘Jewish’ star on the Tshirt is clearly just a pretty design, and it seems silly when there is a furor about something so insignificant.
I think this is a very interessting article, and I’ve come across this topic a few times now. I actually think that cultural appropriation itself is something very postivie and not negative. It helps people to understand different cultures. If a white girls wears a bindi (like some of friends do) and this shows that they like it. They wouldn’t wear it if they thought it was stupid. Of course, maybe people might find a negative connotation, because ‘these white girls’ don’t live the culture behind it. But there are lots of things, people wear or do without thinking about the culture. What about wearing crosses? What about wearing Shirt with Che Guevarras face? I really don’t see a problem in those cases. I think it’s good to mix cultures because it helps understanding them, accepting them and they become normal. I think it’s possible to destroy racism with cultural appropriation.
On the other hand, we learn by trial and error, so one has to be sensitive about it. Maybe people wear or do something that offends others and then they learn to be more sensitve and careful. It would be wrong to not appropraite other cultures because you’re always too scared to offend somebody.
On another note, I think it’s okay to play with stereotypes, as long as you don’t really portray people in a bad light. We all know that not all Asians are good at math, or Germans are Nazis or Mexicans drink Tequila. One should take and use them with humor and not with racism. Of course, racism plays a huge role in this topic, but not all sterotypes are racist. Stereotypes are nothing bad at all, they actually help us to organize our world, as long as you don’t take them too seriously.
I think ideas like “they’re just clothes” or “people get offended way too easily” are really dangerous. It’s like we’ve become desensitized to stereotypes. These companies have taken cultures with hundreds of years of history and struggle and chosen to represent them through a single object in a negative way, and these ideas just send the message to companies that that is ok.
For example, geisha have an extremely complicated and controversial history. They still exist (although not quite in the same way) in the Gion district of Kyoto. Westerners and modern Japanese might see them merely as high-class prostitutes, but geisha also received extensive education in traditional Japanese arts (music, dancing, poetry, etc.) and were a separate class than “normal” prostitutes. Some of the women that became geisha (like Sayuri in Memoirs of a Geisha) were sold into the trade and had no choice in the matter. VS chose to ignore this history and decided to represent these thousands of women through a sex costume.
I also have to wonder if UO really did any research at all into the Navajo Nation before labeling their clothes “Navajo”. My guess would be that they just chose patterns they associated with Native Americans and slapped the name on them as if it were interchangeable with any other NAtive American group.
Keilla – While every culture is important, I really think it was great that you put in various examples. The “Navajo” backlash was all over the news, but I had never heard of the Irish or Asian stereotypes that UO and A&F participated in. Makes me wonder how many other similar stories there are that don’t get as much coverage….
“Donning a “sexy Geisha” outfit to get the ball rolling in the bedroom remains offensive because it confirms a paradigm in which Asian people and their culture can be modified and sexualized and appropriated for the benefit of the West.”
Um, wow. You guys are taking this way too far…
Victoria’s Secret also has sold lingerie inspired by superheros and comic books, which I guess you must think is also offensive because it “confirms a paradigm” that superheroes “can be modified and sexualized and appropriated for the benefit of the West.” Clearly that’s ridiculous. I think it’s far more likely that Victoria’s Secret makes lingerie with a variety of inspiration….what did you want them to do, sell an actual historically accurate Geisha costume?
A lot of things to think about, but in the end, it really is just clothes. Spending energy getting offended over what someone is wearing truly accomplishes nothing.
Alex, about your question on geisha: they did not originate from prostitution. It is true that geisha have often been lumped together with prostitution, and it is also true that prostitution was legal in Japan for quite a bit of time in history (and I mean, it’s still around today, though not in the traditional sense of the word….but that’s a whole other story). Rather than geisha evolving into cultural and artistic importance, that is what they have always been. The name “geisha” is literally “art” and “person” put together. Geisha are not prostitutes, and they never have been–it’s true that the very, very early female entertainers/hostesses (which is, at the very basic level, what geisha are) did perform sexual favors in exchange for money. However, these women were NOT geisha. Even though these are the technical origins of geisha, the geisha culture (oh gosh it doesn’t even look like a word anymore I’ve typed it so many times) has never been rooted in sex. Historically, geisha were not allowed to be paid for sex, or at least they weren’t allowed to be called out on a job all “yep this is prostitution, sex only” (geisha get paid whenever they sit with a customer/entertain at a party or gathering, and since prostitution was officially legal in Japan for a long time some geisha did engage in prostitution with their male customers during the aforementioned events, but it wasn’t something practiced by all geisha–it depended on the woman [or man, there were a few back in the day]), and they were to be kept an entirely separate business from the courtesans, whose living was basically prostitution and prostitution alone.
What is also offensive about that particular set of lingerie is that it completely goes against all the customs of geisha altogether, and even courtesans. Geisha are known for being modest, and the sexiest parts about them are supposed to be their wrists and the napes of their necks (which is considered, in Japan, to be one of the most erotic body parts on a woman). Courtesans also wore like a billion and a half (or something like that) layers of kimono; they only way you could tell a geisha and a courtesan apart (well, one of the main reasons) was that the courtesans had their obis–the tie on their kimonos–in the front. You traditionally have them in the back, but having them in the front was just more convenient for them. One of the prides of being a geisha is the kimono you collect and own–the sexiness of a geisha is not in the amount of clothes she wears, but how subtle she is in her sexuality. So that lingerie, by being…well…lingerie, just kind of kills what a geisha really is. In short, it’s the Westernized version, the fantasy of a “geisha girl”–an exotic, demure, submissive Asian woman (not necessarily Japanese) that men (or women) can dominate.
So now that I’ve rambled on (and I’m by no means at expert at this, but I do have an academic interest in geisha, so I’ve read up on them quite a bit)…..great article, CF!
While I agree that being sensitive to what other people might find offensive, at what point does being sensitive and aware fall into becoming paranoid and over-obsessive about never possibly offending anyone?
To be honest, fashion IS fashion – you wear what you like and that’s that. It really shouldn’t matter what culture it comes from or was inspired by. I’m Irish and have never once in my life found it insulting around St. Patrick’s Day to see thousands of shirts saying things about being Irish and drunk or anything else, because it’s ALL IN GOOD FUN. It’s not meant to literally mean Irish girls are whores or all Irishmen are drunks – it’s a JOKE. People get too sensitive about things like this. I mean, really, when we start getting upset because of lingerie vaguely inspired by Japanese geishas, we’ve gone too far. It’s not insulting to Asians or women or any of that crap. For one thing, it has nothing to do with referencing Asian women as sexualized and submissive. Lingerie ALWAYS sexualizes the wearer, but you don’t hear a post about lingerie being racist/discriminatory/stereotyping when it’s American lingerie. Does that sexualize and make submissive American women?
Fashion is about having fun with looks you enjoy – if that means you want to wear a cross, a star of David, a pentacle, or any other religious symbol I say go for it if you’re comfortable with it. I see nothing wrong with a six-pointed star, NOTHING WHATSOEVER. So what if it was once used to point out Jews in the Holocaust? The cross was a Roman torture/execution device but we don’t find it insulting to have people wear it. The pentacle is constantly used as a Satanist symbol despite being Pagan, but I (as a Pagan) don’t really care because people should be able to do what they like when it comes to fashion so long as you’re not blatantly trying to be offensive.
There’s a fine line between trying to encourage stereotypes or being blatantly offensive to another culture, and having fun with inspiration from it. Fashion gains inspiration from all over the world – no one cares when an American wears a Parisian inspired outfit, but god forbid you wear something Native American inspired that isn’t actually made by a Native American.
Really great article! Fashionably Informed is one of my favorite columns here!
Urban Outfitters is constantly pulling this kind of shit, and being completely unapologetic about any of it. This, plus the fact that UO’s CEO actually donates a huge amount of money to right-wing and anti-gay groups, has made me stop shopping there altogether.
@Kate: I agree with other commenters in that buying goods from authentic, genuine members of that culture is infinitely better than buying goods from sellers who aren’t respecting or honoring the culture, but just trying to make a profit. Cultural appreciation is great – it’s why we have so many different people trying different foods, listening to different music, etc. It’s when people try to take something from a culture or a group of people (especially one that’s been historically oppressed) and disrespect that culture (whether intentionally or not) that it turns into cultural appropriation, which is problematic.
@Alex: As an Asian-American woman, the geisha thing is really offensive to me. In the West there’s a long history of exoticizing and fetishizing Asian woman into this idea of some Oriental doll, whether it’s a submissive geisha, a sexy and dangerous dragon lady, etc. I don’t think VS was actually thinking about the origin/history of geisha – rather, they were exploiting the Western image of Asian women as exotic sexual beings, while also perpetuating this image. Also, feminism and race do intersect, so it’s important to think about how race and treatment of women of color fit into feminism! Hope this perspective was a little helpful!
@JJ: I think it’s great to not care so much what others think, but I definitely think that “political correctness” matters when it comes to things like this. Stores like UO aren’t actually wearing Native prints, but a mockery of them, cheap things created to make money off of an actual culture’s name without their consent. This is just perpetuating the idea of “Navajo” or “Native” as a fashion statement, a costume. It helps erase the identity of actual Natives like yourself, many of whom probably don’t appreciate being reduced to a few patterns and words like “tribal” and “ethnic.” These things contribute to making people think it’s okay to dress up as Natives, Asians, Mexicans, etc. for Halloween because to them, this race/ethnicity/cultural identity is nothing more than a costume. It helps reduce different groups and cultures into objects, not actual people.
REALLY? Sorry… but this is ridiculous. Nothing about this is offensive. I’m sure 90% of Irish people who saw that shirt laughed. People get so emotional/offended over everything and we are taking away our own freedom of speech by doing so!
I thought this was a great article! The links at the end were fantastic (but I wasn’t too sure about the indigenous jewelry one). I read Elle a lot, and I notice that “ethnic,” “eastern,” “oriental,” and “tribal” get thrown around as fashion trends. I really didn’t realize the degree to which the Fashion industry is quite politically incorrect at times and also how racist. It’s like, the people don’t think at all.
Seriously, how did they not see shit coming for them when they made that yellow shirt that looked like the star of david… I’m not even remotely Jewish and that was the first thing that came to my mind when I looked at that shirt.
I can think of two ways to react to this problem:
1) Make history lessons (that include postcolonialist and subaltern perspectives) mandatory for students of fashion design, art, and art history.
2) Boycott buying racially charged items from these stores. If things don’t sell, they will realize that it’s inappropriate.
Geishas were not prostitutes in the common sense. They were educated entertainers who were knowledgeable in music, dance, and politics. Sex played a minor role, very minor. It was one of the few ways women could have some semblance of independence in a very patriarchal society.
Thanks for bringing this issue to the light further!