John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:

> Eric wrote:
>
> > even foreign organizations were using Japanese servers to host their
> >foreign porn in Japan. Perhaps this was in an effort to support their
> > own countries' laws
>
> "Support" seems an odd word to use in this context. Wouldn't "circumvent" be
> closer to the mark?

I meant to say sidestep, as in my amended post.

> > Japan has enacted laws against child porn online
>
> Fair point. Yes, obviously one would expect that to lead to a reduction of
> child pornography in Japan.

Which is why I am puzzled about the alleged amount of US based porn, and why
the number of such spam allegedly offering images or chat with young women, has
increased.

> > What I am curious about is why a UN body would claim this year that
> > maybe 60% of child porn online is from the US, when the US supposedly
> > has laws against child porn.
>
> Interesting point. Do you have any answers?

Ryan had a great suggestion: most content is US based or from the US anyway,
thus, there could be a representative amount of porn.

> > You say it is a survey of companies. The over three quarters
> > figure...
>
> Is that what it was? I had forgotten.

IIRC it was 76 or 78%. It was a fair amount of coverage on the front page of
either the Yomiuri, Mainichi (possibly Chuugoku, though I doubt it was the
local paper) Japanese edition. I have looked in my stacks before, but it was
not one of the stories I photocopied and continued to save. Most newsprint
copies I got while on the JET Program up to 1996 (I even used to keep stacks of
entire newspapers) yellowed and I threw them away.

> > ...was a survey of girls and women under IIRC, 23 years
> >  of age about ten years ago.
>
> The workers in the companies, even if over 23, were 23 once and were girls
> once. the point is that more sober statistics suggest that "at least 17%" of
> Japanese women have been affected *at some time in their lives* by chikan.
> That I can believe. What I doubted at the time - and still doubt, though you
> defended it hotly - was that over three quarters of Japanese women have been
> so affected. For a start, I would guess that at least half the female
> population are not even regular travellers on the trains (where most of the
> abuse occurs), and that perhaps only a quarter of women using the trains use
> them during the rush hour (the time when most offences are committed).

Young Tokyo women in survey like I said. And since you insist, I doubt chikan
were so prevalent decades ago (say even two decades), that older women would
report being molested earlier. It is best to focus on younger women, since it
is more current. So it is less prevalent now. I can believe that.

> > you neglect the fact that stricter laws have been enacted against
> > train molestation, and that still stricter laws are being considered.
>
> Yes, perhaps I should take heart. Certainly, the situation - if not as bad
> as you were suggesting - was nothing for Japan to be proud of, and one hopes
> that things *are* improving.
>
> > If there is not some commotion due to the accused being a
> > teacher or some high profile figure, or the accused does not
> > fight the charge, it is possible to avoid publicity.
>
> Well, this raises the spectre of quite a different form of abuse. As the
> link I gave you says:
>
>    "Some of the 'victims' aren't so innocent, and false accusations of
> groping are increasing. The shame associated with chikan makes it possible
> for especially enterprising young women to blackmail fellow train users.
>    "Faced with a hysterically shrieking woman, most men are willing to be
> led to the nearest ATM and part with large sums of money (US$3000 isn't
> uncommon)."
> (http://ballz.ababa.net/uninvited/groping.htm)

Why would a woman falsely claiming abuse take the man to a police officer to be
identified herself and go through with the false arrest and trial, which would
be about the worst thing a false accuser could do? Even advocates who defend
falsely accused gropers advise to insist on going to the police.

Why do you (among others) insist on casting doubts on women claiming abuse or
on figures reporting abuse? Your assertion girls would do it to enhance their
claims of being attractive or establish cred was particularly offensive.

> > as a recent rise in arrests (despite a decline in claims) shows, more
> > women (and bystanders) are now emboldened to apprehend and
> > report abuse.
>
> Good (if true). Do you have a link to show how this is panning out? The link
> I gave doesn't appear to agree, and just says:
>
> "Unfortunately, this [the crackdown on gropers] hasn't emboldened many
> Japanese women. Surrounded by strangers, most women would rather pretend
> nothing unusual is happening than create a scene. Gropers exploit this, and
> pick their victims carefully."
> (http://ballz.ababa.net/uninvited/groping.htm)

That is their assessment of the changing situation, and not that of the
professional commentators (seen at least two stories to that effect since the
laws came into effect) I read, most likely on the Mainichi, though I cannot
find the key words (bold, embolden, chikan, molest, molestation, molester,
train, grope, groping . . . ) to bring it up. That "most women" don't report
the abuse is probably still true, naturally. In any case, fewer women in survey
claim abuse, yet the number of reports and arrests are at a record high for
2004.

> > At the least, it was women in the Tokyo region, not "two high schools",
> > and I don't know where you got that from.
>
> I already said:
>
> > Take a look at http://ballz.ababa.net/uninvited/groping.htm. It says:
> >
> > "In 2001, a survey of two private high-schools in Tokyo revealed that
> > more than 70% had been groped on the train."
>
> Those were the kinds of figures you were claiming, and I guess they were
> based on the same kind of (rather invalid) premises.

Wrong year, wrong figure, and wrong sample. And a bad sample. As bad as some
women from a small number of companies.

> > > I'd also like to point out how you jumped on those very high statistics
> > > in defence of a racist and prejudiced agenda.
> >
> > What racist and prejudiced agenda? If over three quarters of young
> > women say they have been molested on trains, then that is what
> > they say.
>
> The purpose of my raising the matter again is twofold.
>
> Firstly, the "over three quarters" figue looks drastically inflated. "At
> least 17%" seems a lot more realistic.
>
> Secondly, whatever the statistics, it was racist and prejudiced for Ernest
> Schaal to suggest that
>
> > In japan, chikan is the rule for men, not the exception
> (http://tinyurl.com/5yy2q)
>
> I think you were wrong to defend such an ill-considered statement. Quite
> simply, most Japanese men would consider chikan to be just that, chikan
> (i.e., perverts). As I said at the time, I cannot imagine that a majority of
> my male colleagues at work, my male neighbours and my male students engage
> in this kind of behaviour.
>
> Even if it were true that most Japanese women were victims of chikan it
> would be statistically analogous to saying that (for example) most British
> people have felt threatened, at some time or other, by hooligans, which
> would *not* mean that hooliganism is the rule, not the exception, for
> British youth. A small number of chikan or hooligans could - and do - harass
> a large number of people.
>
> Think about it like this. Suppose there are 500,000 chikan active in Japan,
> with an average of one molestation per month and active over an average
> period of 25 years. That would total 150,000,000 abuses (more than the total
> population - male and female - of Japan), and would comfortably provide the
> statistic that "over three quarters" of Japanese women have been abused by
> chikan, but it would still leave the majority of Japanese men completely
> guiltless.
>
> I repeat:
>
> > In japan, chikan is the rule for men, not the exception
>
> was an ill-considered and racist statement and I think you were wrong to
> defend it.

From: John Yamamoto-Wilson (john@rarebooksinjapan.com)
 Subject: Re: Japan makes it big in world news
 Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan
 Date: 2003-07-06 05:45:57 PST

Ernest Schaal wrote:

> In japan, chikan is the rule for men, not the exception.

This is a different Japan from the one I live in, surrounded as I am by very
decent (male and female) neighbours and with very decent (male and female)
colleagues at work and only once (in ten years) observing any form of
impropriety. On that occasion the young woman involved said, as she got off
the train, "Hey, you! Yes, you with the [detailed physical description]!
Sukebe!" All eyes were on him, laughing and mocking, and he practically
crawled out of the train at the next stop.
Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but pray tell me about this Japan in which
"chikan is the rule". In my teens I hung around some pretty dicey quarters
of Spanish cities and gained some interesting - but one-sided - views of
life in Spain as a result. Perhaps you can give me the low-down on an
equally murky and - albeit one-sided - spicey version of life in Japan, to
brighten up my well-ordered, but admittedly sometimes comparatively dull,
existence.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

So, you accept that in that survey you cite, 17% of all women say they have
been molested, yet in ten years, you've only observed something once? I have
never seen a chikan in action, though I have heard from victims (plural), as
well as hearing from police when I took a foreign woman in for a report.

As I said then, you do lead a sheltered life, though not as sheltered as people
who would say that bad driving is the worst crime in the prefecture.

Do you recall this?

"And I am not commenting on Ernest's statements. Just your apparent disbelief
and ignorance."

> > 60% of child pornography orignates in the US, is not the same as 60%
> > of young women say they have been molested. Do you see a difference?
>
> Well, I do, and I admit I was being (partly) rhetorical. But do you also see
> the difference between claims that "over three quarters" of Japanese women
> have been assaulted by chikan and figures suggesting that "at least 17%" of
> women have been affected?

Yes. Different year, different survey, different sample.

> Do you also see that, even if 60% of young women *did* say they had been
> molested, that this would not necessarily implicate 60% of men, and a claim
> that such molestation was "the rule" for the male population would be
> unfair?

Yes. On second thought, you should raise the number of women victims to say,
three quarters.

> And, of course, there will never be a statistic that says 60% of molested
> children worldwide claimed that their molesters had been influenced by
> American-generated paedophiliac websites.