Well, I think that in every country there's a certain worldview that people get "trapped" in. People in general seem to be very susceptible to closed-mindedness, because it becomes comfortable for them to operate that way. This is expressed differently from country to country, and individual to individual, but I think it's important to discover the trends and be aware of them, no matter where you go. Even if it's just so you don't get surprised by it, which I take it from this thread that a good many people have been.

For me it's very important to know what to expect, which is why this thread has been very useful. I now have a better idea of things that I might possibly run into when I go, so the likelihood of me being shocked if I come across things like that are pretty low. I wouldn't say anything in this thread has deterred me from wanting to go there, but I now have a counterbalance to the "hype" that other people have mentioned. Personally I feel like the more I can learn about Japan's "dark side" the better, so I hope people continue to share their experiences here.

Even before the whole prostitution discussion, I think this thread was derailed. I think the OP wanted people to talk about their personal experiences and whether they regretted learning Japanese and were disappointed upon their first real encounter with Japan. It wasn't supposed to degenerate into: "Japan is terrible!" "No it's not!" Moreover, visiting Japan and living there are two different things. I don't think getting jaded after 5 years of residence is the same thing as visiting there and quickly finding it wasn't all you had hoped.

IceCream Wrote:It's too easy to let other people's negativity affect your own view, and you start to view things through a negative lens where you might not just by thinking about it on your own. The only advice i'd give is try to keep away from westerners with a chip on their shoulder, and stick with people who do enjoy life in Japan when you do go, and hopefully you'll end up with a more balanced opinion.

Agreed.

@Sean2 It would be interesting if you would talk a little more about your friends who regretted studying Japanese, although it sounds like you have had good experiences with Japan.

Since I still have the floor, I'll ask: Why does Japan even engender these kinds of discussions anyway? Do sinophiles have these kinds of discussions? Isn't it possible to like a country and be interested in it in spite of the fact that it has many social problems? I'm sure Russia, say, has lots of problems, and yet there are people who are very interested in the Russian language, Russian literature, Russian history, etc. (Not trying to pick on Russia, just an example).

kusterdu Wrote:Since I still have the floor, I'll ask: Why does Japan even engender these kinds of discussions anyway? Do sinophiles have these kinds of discussions? Isn't it possible to like a country and be interested in it in spite of the fact that it has many social problems? I'm sure Russia, say, has lots of problems, and yet there are people who are very interested in the Russian language, Russian literature, Russian history, etc. (Not trying to pick on Russia, just an example).

I think it has to do with Japan being the former powerhouse of Asia and since it isn't Europe and is a first world country, it seems different and therefore, amazing. They were also very successful with their culture export through anime. China is communist so there is natural propaganda against them, but you can start to see it with the Koreaphiles who are also enjoying cultural exports through Pop music and Dramas. (Especially the girl fans, who declare that Korean guys are the only ones for them and how they want to move to Korea badly.)

It was pointed out before a sinister correlation between Japan's often ridiculous reactions toward drug use compared to the western world and the generally perceived views in several of these countries towards prostitution and/or soft-pornography involving minors and Japan's own views. The fact that Japan has not been ruined by the organized Church may be an important reason why the whole issue of sex has never been seen as it is on the west.

FYI, in countries where this issue about sex is, well, not really an issue, women (admittedly the victims in the story) have grown above all this risible 'psychological impact' balderdash and realized we are not living in a kindergarten, you have to take care of yourself, period. Is not as bad as "don't get away from the pride pussy or you will be ambushed by the other cats", but if you are lured into having sex by a seductive alpha male and then dumped, well too bad for you, is your fault for not being more quick on the uptake. In any case, is not a tragedy.

That about teenagers not being able to make good decisions is usually true, but the way I like to think about it is nature's self-correcting mechanism for character. We learn from our mistakes duh. We also learn from our friend's mistakes so not every single 14 year old girl is conned into the monstrous act of sex.

**

um, yeah. this "argument" has been covered. see above.

but really, it makes me genuinely angry that some of you "people" think it's totally fine to use people however you feel like and then blame it on them for not knowing any better when you clearly do.

Sorry, that's got nothing to do with christianity and it's attitudes towards sex, that's totally to do with your own attitude and lack of empathy and humanity towards other people.

Stop trying to blame your own ugliness on other people.

I'm out of here.

There is no such thing as ugliness. We are all the same animal. I just don't take this social framework enveloping us extremely serious, just like my own views are not really often views but reactions. I try not to hold on to whatever seems undoubtedly logical at the moment given my current understanding of the cosmos.

Hey look at the bright side, we didn't get as far as to talk about the Nazis.

Hitler liked underage prostitution.

For something that is a bit less of an obvious troll, I'm surprised no one brought up Japan being a former Axis member or behaviour/lack of apology (according to Koreans) for such during WW2.

kainzero Wrote:Right now I'm thinking about Grad School and possibly studying in Japan, so I looked up Waseda University. I found this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Free

3 counts of rape -- 14 years?
In the US, it's 25 to life for each one.

On top of that, they introduced punishment for gang rapes after the case. Minimum 4 years... that's it.

I am more interested in the punishment of this guy in Kyoto than what he was caught up with.

Drug smuggling will/can get you jailed for upward to 14 years with forced labor in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_John_Baker)
First time offenses in the US will get you 1-3 years.

Theft in some countries will lose you a hand.

The point is that you are applying your view on "right and proper" punishment to this case and I guess some others. There isn't some arbitrary guideline that people can look at and then decide crimes of A have 4 years of punishment, Crimes of B have 10 Years, those others just get you 1. The weight of the punishment for the crime done is culturally defined. Now if the point you were making was simply that "Japan has too lax punishment compared to other countries and I think they should be harsher." Then that is a perfectly fine view to take.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Hitler liked underage prostitution.

For something that is a bit less of an obvious troll, I'm surprised no one brought up Japan being a former Axis member or behaviour/lack of apology (according to Koreans) for such during WW2.

I'm not sure the younger generation really cares about that, considering that Japanese relations with the West are generally pretty favorable. Perhaps the feeling is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were penance enough.

As for the other comment, I'm sure Hitler liked a lot of things. I'm not sure we should be using that as the litmus test of morality.

turvy Wrote:There is no such thing as ugliness.

Ugliness maybe isn't the right word. IcreCream simply thinks I'm some sort of non-feeling human. I realized after sleeping on it that I was trying arguing the issue on sex/prostitution the whole time, from a cold calculating view that there was too much extent of the law and that 16yr olds were generally capable enough to make some decisions on having sex with people and with a stranger. Other side was arguing with the humanizing mindset that 16 yr olds are mentally handicapped and can't make any sound decisions on the issues so there should be laws protecting them. Lots of anecdotes thrown around and hand-waving and pointing at correlation studies, but no real proof supporting anything. So both sides have just decided the other side is too inhuman and dense to see the truth of the matter.

To be fair, most 16-year-olds I know are pretty retarded.





Just sayin'.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Hitler liked underage prostitution.

For something that is a bit less of an obvious troll, I'm surprised no one brought up Japan being a former Axis member or behaviour/lack of apology (according to Koreans) for such during WW2.

LOL

vix86 Wrote:

kainzero Wrote:Right now I'm thinking about Grad School and possibly studying in Japan, so I looked up Waseda University. I found this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Free

3 counts of rape -- 14 years?
In the US, it's 25 to life for each one.

On top of that, they introduced punishment for gang rapes after the case. Minimum 4 years... that's it.

I am more interested in the punishment of this guy in Kyoto than what he was caught up with.

Drug smuggling will/can get you jailed for upward to 14 years with forced labor in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_John_Baker)
First time offenses in the US will get you 1-3 years.

Theft in some countries will lose you a hand.

The point is that you are applying your view on "right and proper" punishment to this case and I guess some others. There isn't some arbitrary guideline that people can look at and then decide crimes of A have 4 years of punishment, Crimes of B have 10 Years, those others just get you 1. The weight of the punishment for the crime done is culturally defined. Now if the point you were making was simply that "Japan has too lax punishment compared to other countries and I think they should be harsher." Then that is a perfectly fine view to take.

I didn't apply my view on anything. I simply offered the US as comparison.

Also first time drug trafficking offenses in the US is 1-3 years minimum(you can sentence for more), and does include the type of drug, intent to sell to minors, etc.

As this guy in the Super Free case was the ringleader of a gang rape club, and he only gets 14 years, you can get a fair comparison of how that stands compared to the minimum.

"The weight of the punishment for the crime done is culturally defined."
I disagree, it shouldn't be linked at all to "culture."
I read an article about how a woman in a Middle Eastern country was raped. She went to jail for being raped. She then had to marry her rapist to save face, otherwise her family would be embarrassed and punished severely.

Is that fair?
Where do we draw the line on human rights?

Although I play by the rules of society and have no intentions to stop doing so, I can't justify that there could be an intrinsic moral quality in any form of life, my rational side and current position is that there is no such thing as morality. Killing, raping, stealing, that used to be acceptable, that used to be the means of survival. Fortunately we have evolved socially for the last 2000 years and now recognize that such generalized behavior can only be detrimental if we mean to further our species towards advancement.

However, there is not a default moral quality, we made that up. For the sake of consistency we can all agree to play by the rules and enforce their observance, because if only one person breaks them why wouldn't the next person do as well?, that would lead to anarchy and ruin the collective effort of our species of the last 2 millennia. However, in a case by case basis, if you could get away with committing any crime that wouldn't change absolutely nothing. That idea bothers me.

There is no 'ugliness'.

Quote:There is no 'ugliness'.

Something tells me that victims of murder/rape/theft might disagree.

Philosophically I can see your point. To say that there is no such thing as 'ugliness' also implies that there is no such thing as 'beauty'; there is only stimulus and reaction. We react to something "beautiful" in a positive way, but not everything reacts positively to things you or I would consider beautiful, and not everyone react negatively to things you or I consider ugly. I can see how this can lead you to thinking that there is no objective standard about morality, and that it's all subjective.

Philosophically, I would argue that these varied differences can be accounted for by individuals' differing ability to recognize the inherent beauty or ugliness of a thing. Just because one person can appreciate the beauty of a rose's petals and another person finds nothing beautiful about it because of the ugliness of its thorns does not mean that neither beauty or ugliness exist; it merely means that a person's perspective is skewed toward one or the other.

My personal opinion is that the punishment for a crime should be scaled according to the damage done. When you abuse someone or their property it affects their ability to operate on a daily basis and contribute to society in meaningful ways. Even if someone was not physically harmed, something emotionally or mentally traumatic enough will keep a person from being productive and indirectly affect the economy,and society. We need strict laws to keep this kind of thing in check, and if someone is only getting a couple of years of prison for something like rape (and normally a rapist doesn't ever do it just once), then the laws are unbalanced and need to be rewritten to counterbalance the economic/societal damage that person is causing.

As for my moral stance though, I think any person who willingly commits murder (as in, other than self defense) or rape and does not repent and reform deserves to die. They will almost invariably do it again if given the chance (this has been true for every case I've ever heard of, anyway). Anyone who can so easily violate the sanctity of another person has no business continuing to live, and nothing of value would be lost if they were to be wiped out.

kainzero Wrote:I didn't apply my view on anything. I simply offered the US as comparison.

Ah. Alright. I see what you mean.

Quote:"The weight of the punishment for the crime done is culturally defined."
I disagree, it shouldn't be linked at all to "culture."
I read an article about how a woman in a Middle Eastern country was raped. She went to jail for being raped. She then had to marry her rapist to save face, otherwise her family would be embarrassed and punished severely.

Is that fair?
Where do we draw the line on human rights?

I'm not arguing that it should be culturally defined. I'm was merely pointing out that because so much can be subjective and that there isn't some rubric you can pull out and quantify the damage of a situation in "universal terms." This is why I said it was "culturally defined" because in one culture you might have a crime that is extremely abhorrent due to the culmination of cultural history while the same crime in another country gets you nothing in the way of punishment. Which country has the more "fair" and "just" punishment could be a matter of great debate depending on the situation.

Taken to extremes and perverted, you end up with shit like the Middle East in the exact kind of case you mentioned.

Interesting but difficult topic.

LivingNexus Wrote:As for my moral stance though, I think any person who willingly commits murder (as in, other than self defense) or rape and does not repent and reform deserves to die. They will almost invariably do it again if given the chance (this has been true for every case I've ever heard of, anyway). Anyone who can so easily violate the sanctity of another person has no business continuing to live, and nothing of value would be lost if they were to be wiped out.

I understand your point of view, but I cannot agree. The murderer must, of course, be locked away from society. This must be done in order to protect the latter from the murderer and to signal to society that murder is not allowed and will have consequences (which itself will have an effect on society's members), but I don't see any sense in killing the delinquent. I don't actually see any sense in "punishing" (in the very sense of the word) him, neither. Of course, he should and will be punished by deprivation of liberty, but in my opinion, this serves more as a signal to society than to actually punish the delinquent himself. As you said, he will do it again, even if he faces going back to jail or even death sentence. But why? Because he cannot help but doing it. In my opinion the following questions are worth to be discussed: Is it his fault that he wants to do what he wants to do? If you believe in a free will, it is. But does a free will exist? Could he have any influence on his own thoughts, desires and feelings (which are merely a result of the sum of his experiences, his thoughts he has thought before and feelings he has felt before, amongst other things)? Did the murderer have, at the very moment when he commited his crime and as a consequence of the conditions that existed at that very moment, the actual choice between doing it or not?

Murder must of course be condamned, but I highly agree with turvy. There is no such thing as good and evil, we made it all up. We just have to take a look at nature, where everything that we estimate as immoral or evil exists as well (murder, rape, even wars). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that to justify these things, but I think this is an important point to consider.

vix86 Wrote:

turvy Wrote:There is no such thing as ugliness.

Ugliness maybe isn't the right word. IcreCream simply thinks I'm some sort of non-feeling human. I realized after sleeping on it that I was trying arguing the issue on sex/prostitution the whole time, from a cold calculating view that there was too much extent of the law and that 16yr olds were generally capable enough to make some decisions on having sex with people and with a stranger. Other side was arguing with the humanizing mindset that 16 yr olds are mentally handicapped and can't make any sound decisions on the issues so there should be laws protecting them. Lots of anecdotes thrown around and hand-waving and pointing at correlation studies, but no real proof supporting anything. So both sides have just decided the other side is too inhuman and dense to see the truth of the matter.

... Did you even read my post? You're obviously not really listening to anything "the other side" is actually saying, my post was based on logic and nothing in my arguments can be said to be objectively wrong. No, really, it was.

Turvy: Women who are raped in non-westernized countries don't suffer emotional trauma? What? What are you basing that statement on? Word on the street? There are so many women from any country you might think of that suffer from PTSD and other kinds of mental injury during many years following rape. It is a form of assault - don't you realize that as humans we react to attacks like that with strong fear (especially if we experience powerlessness) and pain, and that these feelings BIOLOGICALLY leave remaining scars for many humans since the memories jump up now and then and activate our amygdala, our pain centres etc.? Emotional trauma following rape/sudden bereavement/war experience and so on isn't just something that has been 'made up' by Western society, that makes no sense. Being seriously hurt physically in a situation out of our control, especially by others, has always and always will have lasting effects on us as humans. Western values and stigma towards rape might exacerbate the lingering feelings by adding guilt/shame as well as less chances of talking to people about it and so on, sure, but you can't just say that the whole thing is made up.

Also, GOD DAMN.

Surreal Wrote:... Did you even read my post? You're obviously not really listening to anything "the other side" is actually saying, my post was based on logic and nothing in my arguments can be said to be objectively wrong. No, really, it was.

I saw your post I just chose not to address it because I've been trying to bow out of this discussion since it really isn't going anywhere.
Your post used the bell curve as a way to provide credence to why 18 is arbitrarily the age for sex with a minor versus say 16. How ever there isn't anything remotely conclusive to showing this. The only things that have been linked to date have been posts to Wiki where plenty of correlational studies were done shown various negative effects that are correlated with teens have sex. And as I stated, correlation is not causation. As an example, increase in ice cream sales is correlated with drownings. Does this mean eating ice cream causes drownings? No.
IceCream linked to articles about parts of the brain still developing in adolescence. But this does not mean [Brain Still Developing -> Have consensual great sex with Adult -> Be Damaged -> Therefore make laws against sex]

Beyond this, both parties have simply been throwing their own opinion and anecdotal evidence on the table.

I do believe though that clearly at some point you do need to step in and say it should be illegal for adults to have sex with a person of X age because of X Y Z. But XYZ should be actual logical reasons divorced from emotional involvement. This should apply to all law making.

Your other points were merely "what adults have over kids..."
Half dealt with experience in some fashion.
Sex experience? "Adults have more." There were tons of kids younger than me when I hit 18 that were having/had more sex than me so on the surface this is a superfluous point. As it pertains to prostitution though? If a 20 year old and a 16 year get together and have casual sex every weekend for months; no coercion involved; most here seem to think this fine. If suddenly the 20 year old starts giving the 16 year old $50 each weekend though to help them out in exchange for the sex and time together; suddenly its in whole other realm and suddenly the 16 year has to make huge decisions they weren't faced with before (that they need 'experience' for). This to me sounds ridiculous.

"Experience with drugs." This point is simply hypothetical and a nonsense point for justifying why there should be laws for stopping a 16 yr and 20 yr old from having sex. Counter-example, "Adults are stronger than little kids (6 yr old), so adults shouldn't walk on the same street as them, they might use their strength to have their way with them."

The other points are basically one in the same
"Adults have cool stuff/money, that teens want." Adults have stuff other adults want. Ah, "But teens can't control themselves" you say, well were once again back at the point of asking whether teens (16yr olds) are no better at control than an ape that will hit a button for some sugar water.

The only thing I will give you is that adults tend to have more means by which to acquire money than teens. I could think up a good straw man argument/example for this if I really wanted to but I care not to. It still comes back to the same set of questions. 1) Is sex damaging to a teen/16 year old? 2) Are they too dumb to see consequences associated with sex, such that we need to make laws to protect themselves against themselves?

vix86 Wrote:

Surreal Wrote:... Did you even read my post? You're obviously not really listening to anything "the other side" is actually saying, my post was based on logic and nothing in my arguments can be said to be objectively wrong. No, really, it was.

I saw your post I just chose not to address it because I've been trying to bow out of this discussion since it really isn't going anywhere.
Your post used the bell curve as a way to provide credence to why 18 is arbitrarily the age for sex with a minor versus say 16. How ever there isn't anything remotely conclusive to showing this. The only things that have been linked to date have been posts to Wiki where plenty of correlational studies were done shown various negative effects that are correlated with teens have sex.

No. I was talking about 25yos compared to 16yos and if you've lived until the age of 25 you should have all the evidence you need of that 25yos are as a group more biologically mature and on average are much better at planning ahead and making conscious decisions. I was not trying to justify 18 as the "adult" age, nor as the age for when you can't have sex with a minor (in my country it's not even illegal anyhow as long as the minor is fifteen years or older and there is no payment and/or coercion involved).

And you keep missing my point, which is that you have to LOOK AT THE GROUP. Sure, there are 16yos that would be just as fit to decide whether prostitution is something that they want as most 25yos are, but they are FEW. And the differences between adults AS A GROUP and non-adults AS A GROUP are extremely huge - sure there will be some INDIVIDUALS within the 'adult' group between which the difference is even greater than that, but that doesn't change the fact that non-adults are a disadvantaged GROUP when compared to adults and so in the great MAJORITY of adult-nonadult relationships there will be a severe power imbalance and so it is very reasonable for society to try to implement certain limitations on adults in their behavior toward non-adults so that that power imbalance will be abused less. It's not a perfect system and there will be some INDIVIDUALS for which it isn't ideal but society has to work on a rough level with GROUPS.

I wasn't saying that all of the problems related to prostitution (abusive relationships, fear of telling others of violence because of shame and fear because partner has a relatively higher social position, etc.) are exclusively caused by prostitution. However, prostitution will often make these problems worse (by intensifying the power imbalance by giving the richer part an easy way to exert their power) and prohibiting adults from paying non-adults for sexual acts means that part of what gives them an advantage is "counter-handicapped", you might think of it as levelling the playing field. This isn't the only reason for prohibiting non-adult prostitution but I think it should make clear what I've been trying to say.

@Surreal, LivingNexus Clearly, rape or any of other form of abuse is not a 'nice' experience for its victim, that's unquestionable.

It was not written in stones that hominids would evolve large enough brains to conceive all this incredible views and perspectives about the world, but beasts are not 'wrong' when they kill weaker ones and devour them, they are not 'right' either. These made up concepts have led to the establishment of a social ecosystem that perpetuates the acquisition of pleasure and the most basic form of pleasure that there is, is to choose to live rather than not to.

Incidentally Japan has one of the largest rate of suicide per capita in the world, that's one thing I don't like about Japan.

turvy Wrote:It was pointed out before a sinister correlation between Japan's often ridiculous reactions toward drug use compared to the western world and the generally perceived views in several of these countries towards prostitution and/or soft-pornography involving minors and Japan's own views. The fact that Japan has not been ruined by the organized Church may be an important reason why the whole issue of sex has never been seen as it is on the west.

FYI, in countries where this issue about sex is, well, not really an issue, women (admittedly the victims in the story) have grown above all this risible 'psychological impact' balderdash and realized we are not living in a kindergarten, you have to take care of yourself, period. Is not as bad as "don't get away from the pride pussy or you will be ambushed by the other cats", but if you are lured into having sex by a seductive alpha male and then dumped, well too bad for you, is your fault for not being more quick on the uptake. In any case, is not a tragedy.

That about teenagers not being able to make good decisions is usually true, but the way I like to think about it is nature's self-correcting mechanism for character. We learn from our mistakes duh. We also learn from our friend's mistakes so not every single 14 year old girl is conned into the monstrous act of sex.

**

So, after reading your most recent post, should I interpret that middle paragraph in the quote as you saying that screw society and all its rules because it's built on an arbitrary value system and hooray for anarchy? Or do you mean that we should, instead of saying "rape is wrong", say "since I have a fundamental belief in human rights as well as wish as little harm as possible to come to people in general, I think, in relation to my own belief system, that rape is wrong"? That's mostly just a matter of not wanting to be so long-winded, I think. Either way, it's really hard to understand what you're even trying to say because of how you use the English language, turvy. That's not meant as an insult either, I've really tried to read your posts multiple times but I can't quite grasp what you're getting at.

[Zgarbas]

turvy Wrote:FYI, in countries where this issue about sex is, well, not really an issue, women (admittedly the victims in the story) have grown above all this risible 'psychological impact' balderdash and realized we are not living in a kindergarten, you have to take care of yourself, period. Is not as bad as "don't get away from the pride pussy or you will be ambushed by the other cats", but if you are lured into having sex by a seductive alpha male and then dumped, well too bad for you, is your fault for not being more quick on the uptake. In any case, is not a tragedy.

What exactly are those countries?

Surreal Wrote:So, after reading your most recent post, should I interpret that middle paragraph in the quote as you saying that screw society and all its rules because it's built on an arbitrary value system and hooray for anarchy?.

I don't think his most recent post is linked to the post you quoted ( I could be wrong). It seems like the most recent post is merely trying to argue that 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective concepts within the framework of morals. There are no rights are wrongs set down in stone somewhere. Everything is subjective.

The quoted post is trying to say that there are countries where their society has decided to weigh issues differently. Doing drugs in Japan seems to be a grave act and any one that does it; deserving of years in prison. But a woman lured into sex by a witty male, in some societies, would merely suck up the experience as "Shame on me, won't happen again." While in other countries she might instead turn to the law/media and use the 'high octane nature' of sex, to make it a big issue. But arguing this with rape though.....

How I read his post.

[Zgarbas]

See, the thing is that while you see those societies as "weighting things differently", I see them as "seeing women as objects which are obviously used and shouldn't have the right to say anything against it", though you seem to think that has something to do with free choice, which makes it even worse. Even the fact that the conversation keeps switching to woman=victim man=smart guy doing manipulation keeps showing the underlying sexism behind that idea.

*sigh*.

And yes, the fact that in some societies(you seem to enjoy that phrase) if a woman is raped then SHE is to blame and SHE gets whipped is a direct consequence of that exact line of thinking.