Sandrilyona wrote:

Tokis wrote:

It was barbaric. But i disagree with your comparisons between foot binding and wearing high heal shoes;

I'm not saying its the same, I never meant to! Its just that when I saw that xray photo the first thin g that went through my head was, "wow, this ooks like the shilouette of my boots") Of course heels are not the same as foot binding, God forbid! I'm saying that its a much lighter version of it. Don't you see the resemblance on the photos? technically now high heels on the shoes replace where our actual heel would be if we had to go through that horrible thing, high heels are still considered as a sex fetish by lots of men, heels as well make most women walk slower and more carefull, and visually make our feet look smaller. So high heels are kinda a more aesthetic way to persue what foot binding started.

I agree that in the ex-rays initially it looks there is a resemblence between the bound feet and the feet in high heal shoes, but when you see what bound feet looked like in the flesh the resemblence quickly starts to fade;



I view high heals more as a way to accentuate feet in their natural form, while bound feet as a way to physically reduce the foots size. Women with bound feet rarely took their shoes off (they even wore special lotus slippers to bed- the woman in the picture above most likely only took her shoes off after the photographer paid her to) so the object of attraction was not how the feet really looked in the flesh but how small they physically were etc. Which is different with high heals, as often the more of the flesh which is exposed the sexier the look is.

Typhani wrote:

You are of course right, but I believe there's still an issue. We are not in the position of historic China where girls HAD to have their feet bound, but how long would it take us to get there? What little changes could happen to add up to something equally barbaric? Things do not always get better.

I mean some women ARE required to wear heels for their job. Girls expect that they will wear high heels when they grow up and they want to wear heels at a young age. Women think they have to wear heels to be sexy and attract a man. It's also just another area in which women compete with each other. One girl will complain about pain from her shoes and another will vow to wear her feet out so much that she doesn't feel the pain any more and can become the alpha heel wearing female a la the aforementioned Victoria Beckham.

No heels aren't all bad and you can wear them for fun too. And okay a dystopian future where high heels rule our lives and we end up like the Chinese ladies over again is hella unlikely. But I still think it's okay to compare the two while reminding women that they DO have choices about such things.

I agree things do not always get better but i can't think of any jobs where women are made to wear high heels?

There's actually classes offered where I live which teach you how to properly walk in high heels, it was a news special a while ago. They teach you how to put your heel down first and shift your weight and shop for comfortable heels. I also read that your supposes to sit down every so often when you wear them and take your shoes off and rub your feet.

But personally I've found that if you drink enough then you can't feel your feet!

Wow.  Foot binding was horrible, but really, is calling it "barbaric" necessary?  Would you call whalebone corsets barbaric too?  And that one article on foot binding is so biased I couldn't even get through most of it, so I don't know how accurate it is.

I don't see the similarities between the x-rays to be honest.  What I know about high heels is they are to make you taller, to elongate the legs so they look more slender.  The purpose of foot binding was to make the feet smaller, but the emphasis was not on the foot itself but on the shoe and size.  Foot binding was the standard for beauty, and was considered erotic. It was a mark of civility; it was a symbol of the elite (you don't see peasant farmers binding feet). Later on the practice would spread out of the elite, but even so it wasn't seen in the poor farmlands.

It was also an ornament or embellishment of the body.  Foot binding's allure came from the concealment of the physicality of the foot, not on the texture or smell of flesh itself. It was defined by ornamentation and coverings.  This was the essence of civil culture.  It wasn't considered a mutilation back then either.  Foot binding was part of female attire--an adornment.  It added something to the female body instead of hollowing and taking something away.  Chinese clothing was a very important part of the culture at that time.  Chinese clothing signified social, moral, and ethnic markers.

Foot binding was a distinction of ethnic boundaries.  Foot binding was practiced by Han Chinese (a lot of minorities did not participate in this practice). It was especially to distinguish between the Han and Manchus.  The Qing Dynasty (Manchus) outlawed foot binding and forced men to wear their hair in a queue (to establish Han subservience to Manchu rule), but although men did change their hair, foot binding continued among the Han. 

In fact, Manchu men also found the bound foot erotic.  In response, many Manchu women wore horse-hoof shoes to imitate the effects of the lotus gait.  These horse-hoof shoes were elevated to make the feet appear smaller, since they kept the foot as it was.  Not quite the same thing as high heels, but they are more similar to high heels than foot binding is.

Tokis wrote:

I agree that in the ex-rays initially it looks there is a resemblence between the bound feet and the feet in high heal shoes, but when you see what bound feet looked like in the flesh the resemblence quickly starts to fade;

Does it? To me the heel that was made of flesh was just replaced by the shoe one, as todays life of a woman doesn't allow her to be diasbled that way even for fashion. Thats all I wanted to show by those pics.
Just compare the pic you placed to this for example


I mean the form of the binded foot is uglier of course but really looks like a prototype for such shoes.
Of course maybe its just my fantasy.

Last edited by Sandrilyona (03-17-2010 20:42)

I'm glad i don't wear heels.

Sandrilyona wrote:

mariahdianacarey wrote:

If you think about it, high-heels actually make a wonam put the weight on the front (like how the majority of people here have said they were them) It actually kinda makes sense - bunions et cetera. If it were to put strain on the heel would the heel not be where the toes are?

o.O ... Just a male perspective

Women are not tiptoeng when wear heels) look closely, most of us step on the heel first, otherwise your feet will get tired and hurt as hell)
Anyhow here's a wiki link how to do it right) Section 3 people!)

"...Put your heel down first right before your toes (don't plop them down at the same time, and don't put your toes down first). Once your weight is on the balls of your feet, shift your weight forward, as if you're walking on your tip toes..."

Although when there is a hard area to walk on, we get more carefull and actually do tiptoe, but its not right to do it all the time)

http://www.wikihow.com/Walk-in-High-Heels

Of course you put the weight on your heels when you step, that's how a person walks with or without high heels, is it not?  What I mean is, when I am standing still in a pair of high heels, and when I'm pushing off each step, my weight is shifted towards the front part of my foot. 

Tokis wrote:

Blankette wrote:

Wow.  Foot binding was horrible, but really, is calling it "barbaric" necessary?  Would you call whalebone corsets barbaric too?  And that one article on foot binding is so biased I couldn't even get through most of it, so I don't know how accurate it is.

China has always been a country of great civilisation, but it has also been a country of great barbarity.

I personally don't like the word 'barbaric' because it means 'uncivilized', 'foreign', 'crude'. It seems to be a word that has endured through time to mean any society that doesn't meet the social norms of the society describing it. For example, in colonial times, any society that wasn't white or European or Christian could be defined as 'barbaric', 'uncivilized', 'savage' or 'heathen' - it has negative, racist, connotations to me in that respect. Besides, China was a civilization when footbinding occurred - there was a strong social structure, moral codes and laws, buildings etc - so it can hardly meet the definition of barbaric if barbarism means 'uncivilized'.

So. Yes, footbinding was horrible, but if you're dealing in semantics, it wasn't barbaric.

Just my two cents. I really hate that word.

Last edited by Jinuana (03-18-2010 07:36)

Typhani wrote:

Jinuana wrote:

Tokis wrote:

China has always been a country of great civilisation, but it has also been a country of great barbarity.

I personally don't like the word 'barbaric' because it means 'uncivilized', 'foreign', 'crude'. It seems to be a word that has endured through time to mean any society that doesn't meet the social norms of the society describing it. For example, in colonial times, any society that wasn't white or European or Christian could be defined as 'barbaric', 'uncivilized', 'savage' or 'heathen' - it has negative, racist, connotations to me in that respect. Besides, China was a civilization when footbinding occurred - there was a strong social structure, moral codes and laws, buildings etc - so it can hardly meet the definition of barbaric if barbarism means 'uncivilized'.

So. Yes, footbinding was horrible, but if you're dealing in semantics, it wasn't barbaric.

Just my two cents. I really hate that word.

I think of barbaric as savage in a more animalistic way. So treating people without humanity. Regardless of social and cultural background.

But animals do not engage in this sort of body modification, so comparing the Chinese footbinding practices to animals by using the term 'animalistic' doesn't work. And the word 'savage' should really stay in the 1900s.

But I get what you mean about it not being a very nice thing to do, but sadly body modification - extreme corsetting, footbinding, genital mutilation etc - is a very human thing. Saying something a human does is inhuman or inhumane is a way of saying humans should be better than this. It's a way of distancing ourselves from something another member of our species does.

Footbinding was a cultural thing, it was disgusting and horrible, but I'd argue it's not 'savage' or 'animalistic'.

Last edited by Jinuana (03-18-2010 21:54)

Tokis wrote:

Actually it was practiced plenty by the poor by fathers trying to get their daughters married up to richer men when they grew older. As far as fathers were concerned, daughters were a drain and the best they could achieve was to marry a man from a wealthier or higher status family and to produce lots of children.   
Usually girls had their feet bound at only 2-3years old, but because many poorer families need their girls to work and lend a hand, many would leave the binding until the girl was as old as 10. Rich girls had their feet bound, but they simply had the luxuary of having them bound at a younger age and having their dressings replaced more regularly and better lotions applied to their feet etc.

What I meant was the poorest could not afford to bind their daughter's feet as they would be economically useless.  Foot binding was still most common among the elite, scholars, and merchants, and farmers were more lenient with the process.  Elite girls actually had their feet bound around 6 or 7 years old, when daughters and sons were no longer educated together but were separated into their respective spheres (outer spheres for the son and inner spheres for the daughter).  A farm girl would not have her feet bound until she was older, as you said, but if she married another farmer or if she was needed to work her feet could would usually be unbound.  My great-aunt had her feet unbound 15 because she was needed on the farm.

Tokis wrote:

Yet although the Manchu's were the ruling power, they were a minority in comparison to the han, who were far more numerous. Foot binding was practiced by over half of China's ethnic groups/tribes for hundreds of years. Map of footbinding by regions;

http://www.csuchico.edu/~cheinz/syllabi … where.html

Yes, the Manchus were a minority, which is why they ordered Hans to wear a queue--to establish their authority and the Hans submission.  There were many minorities who practiced foot binding, but there were also many minorities who did not.  As for the map you linked, it's important to remember the Han were the majority group, and there were numerous minority groups.  I didn't mean most of China didn't practice it. I admit I wasn't very clear on that point.

Tokis wrote:

Bound feet were considered very sexual.
"Fairbank also observed that 'behind footbinding lay a male sexual fetish that has been noted by many but seldom really investigated'. This is plain in Chinese pornography; the upper leg of a woman with bound feet was supposed to be extra strong, and her vagina was said to be powerful. Men were supposed to enjoy a wonderful grip. In the paintings, in what- ever position the amorous male devised, he was likely to be holding his partner's foot, invariably in a tiny white sock. The sock prevented the man from seeing, handling, or smelling the woman's deformed foot. Professor Ko describes such pictures as pleasurable, tender, and discreet."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/20121/ … text.thtml

".......Unlikely though it may sound, it was said that the way a foot bound woman walked, mainly on her heels, tightened the vaginal muscles and enhanced the act of sexual intercourse. Whether this was true or not, like a modern-day foot fetishist, a Chinese man of those times would find the withered extremity to be highly arousing, even to the exclusion of the woman attached. Men would become aroused simply by a shoe intended for a bound foot. They would buy, beg, borrow or even steal these tiny shoes and pleasure themselves (MASTURBATE) with them or even drink from them...... While one man may just enjoy seeing his wife's bound feet along with the rest of her body, another may adore the smell of dirty bindings. And some men even wanted to (ahem) pleasure themselves (MORE MASTURBATION) by treating the fold of a bound foot like a VAGINA......"

".......The mincing gait of these maidens, who could not stray beyond the limits of their room, bewitches men, young an old alike,�  Pang-Mei Natasha Chang wrote in Bound Feet and Western Dress. “He who beat out all others in a drinking game downed his last from one tiny embroidered slipper whose owner lay waiting for him on the top floor of the teahouse.�  Later upstairs, “In the intimacy of her chamber, she would unravel the bindings of her feet and reveal them to him. That evening, in a final moment of passion, he would lift her tiny unwrapped feet to his shoulders and thrust them into his mouth to suck........"

http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?it … ubcatid=21

I'm not going to comment on this as I have never come across this in my studies.  I've read Fairbank too, and haven't come across it then either.

Tokis wrote:

And from the mouth of an old surviving foot bound woman herself;
".....To us, the smell of rotting flesh would be unbearable. But back then, men wrote poems about the rich smell......";
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/a … 2003247430

This isn't necessarily true. As I mentioned before, men were most attracted to the coverings or shoe rather than the foot itself.  My great-grandmother had bound feet and never heard of a man who loved the rotted smell of flesh.

Tokis wrote:

Whatever its class appeal, i think its dangerous to dress foot binding up as something cultural & romantic (or some such thing), because in reality it was a barbaric practice that caused untold widespread suffering to billions of girls & women in China for over a thousand years. China has some fantastic culture & history, but like the slave trade i think it is something that should be remembered as something negative that is in the past, rather than something of historical cultural respect.

China has always been a country of great civilisation, but it has also been a country of great barbarity.

I'm not trying to romanticize what was done; I wholeheartedly agree that foot binding was a horrible practice.  What I disagree with is the use of the term "barbaric".  It's a very ethnocentric term.  From an anthropological standpoint, the term "barbaric" equates with "uncivilized".  But you mentioned that China was a great civilization. China had a very rigid moral order and complex social structure.  Even if you are just calling foot binding a barbaric process, you're still implying the people practicing it were barbarians.  That is just not true, and frankly, offensive.

Blankette wrote:

I'm not trying to romanticize what was done; I wholeheartedly agree that foot binding was a horrible practice.  What I disagree with is the use of the term "barbaric".  It's a very ethnocentric term.  From an anthropological standpoint, the term "barbaric" equates with "uncivilized".  But you mentioned that China was a great civilization. China had a very rigid moral order and complex social structure.  Even if you are just calling foot binding a barbaric process, you're still implying the people practicing it were barbarians.  That is just not true, and frankly, offensive.

So are you saying that civilised nation can never act in a barbaric or uncivilised manner?