“I think it’s very easy to look at the shibari being put on display in public and still walk away none the wiser as to what real shibari is.
Obviously there are many ways that ‘real’ shibari can look, but where’s the difference between choreographed performance and real, connective rope that happens to be on display? Between those who have a craft worth sharing and those who have simply been given a stage?
I think the first place to start is the motivation. Why has this person or pair decided to bring their craft to the stage – to let others witness what they do? How does this change the way they engage with their craft?
For me, my desire to perform in public spaces has always stemmed from wanting to bring representation to more places and people. Representation of different bodies, disabled bodies, queer connections and of how rope and kink can look between two people who genuinely care for each other. Now don’t get me wrong, the exhibitionist in me also just loves to be looked at, but that’s not nearly enough of a reason to undergo the preparation required to execute a safe, beautiful and still connective rope performance.
When the motivation for being on stage comes from a place of passion and wanting to better the space and people present, this is a good marker that it’s likely to have more substance than just “oh I was asked so why not?”. It also establishes an unmovable element present in any performance I might put on, regardless of what type of performance I decide to create. Whether it’s dramatic and theatrical or more down-to-earth and bare, the motivation being concrete and passion remaining centered is tangible. Without that foundation the performance can easily lack the element that makes it real, authentic and captivating to watch. To me that’s the difference between seeing real shibari on stage, a production of connection live in front you and a craft that happens to have been given a stage and audience.
The other obstacle to seeing ‘real’ shibari is the fact that many performers are given a platform and opportunities way before they’re ready. This isn’t to say that a performance has to be done by only those who are advanced in their practise – in fact I think it’s important to see performances of all experience levels. The issue comes from performers who overestimate their skill, or aren’t willing to ensure the safety of their practise over the opportunity to perform.
The way I see it, location, onlookers, context, cost should have no bearing on the principles of safety in rope. If the person in rope is in danger, untie them. If the rigger isn’t confident with a certain skill, practise it in a suitable environment with help on hand. If the model isn’t feeling well, don’t put them in a tie. These things should remain consistent regardless of the context. They are basic foundational principles of modern rope practises in place to protect those who engage. And yet it’s all too common to see riggers continuing to tie in a performance after the person in rope has made it clear they’re not ok and models being put at risk that could have and should have been avoided because the choice of tie ‘looks impressive’ to the rigger.
Being ‘advanced’ with rope doesn’t just mean having extensive technical skill, it also means making consistent choices for safety and execution regardless of context, and feeling confident to handle changes in plan, like ending the tie early when necessary, even if there’s an audience.
The increase in platforms being given to those who aren’t ready for it only continues to perpetuate the harm that comes from playing above your skill level. It shows others who are less informed about rope the behaviours that shouldn’t be happening, in a context where the assumption is ‘they’re performing, they must be good at what they do’. Sure, not every performance has to have some major, intentional motivation behind it to be good, but really – if you aren’t intentionally motivated to take your craft on stage, why bother? Why not just practise at home like most others? And if the market of rope performances becomes saturated with unimpressive, unready and unsafe performers, what value does the opportunity hold anymore for attendees?’
