ambrosia comments

Well done Maddie!

sillygirl: Pee outside

Why can't you do that now? I've peed outside plenty of times.

There are some rather odd answers in that article. Why in the world would you assume guys can and you can't lift something heavy, change a lightbulb, run as fast as you can or take part in an eating contest? You'd think that some of the women answering didn't have a muscle between them or were raised in some sort of completely sex segregated society. They don't even seem to be aware of what they can do, let alone what not all men are capable of.

lostrune2: Aren't there usually employment laws against minors working past 10pm?

The Japanese constitution prevents employers from hiring anyone under age 18 for work at night or for work involving more than 48 hours a week or eight hours a day, except under certain conditions. Night work is defined as between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. Males over age 16 are allowed to work at night if they are working a shift system. Minors are also not allowed to be assigned any work which is dangerous or hazardous to health--for example, mining work, repairing machines that are in operation at the time of repair, or handling poison or explosives.

connorh93: 2am is definitely too late to be working whilst in high school, this accident may have been partly to lack of sleep plus the lack of sleep could have affected his school work. I hope for a speedy recovery for him.

While I'll grant you that 2 a.m. is late to be working the majority of Japanese students in their final year of school do next to nothing besides looking for a job or studying for university exams, which he'd have already taken.

My question is how he got his hand stuck in a snowplow. A snowplow pushes snow with a big flat or curved piece of metal attached to the front of a vehicle. There is no rotor for one's hand to get caught in. A snowblower has a rotor and can be quite dangerous if you don't know what you're doing - Turn it off. Disengage the clutch. Remove the key, if there is one. Wait a good five to ten seconds to make sure the blades have stopped moving.

18 is certainly not too young to be using a snowblower but there is no safe age to use it if you haven't been trained and don't follow proper safety procedures. I feel bad for the poor guy and hope he'll be alright in spite of what he's just been through.

toshiko: In the state I livew in USA, when my daughter drives, I have to get out when she get out. Even old people can not stay in none moving car.

I'd really like to know what state that is and to see a citation of the law you're claiming exists because I'm having an extremely hard time believing that. It sounds like you either misunderstood something or your daughter told you that because she was worried about your being alone in the car.

Isao Hoshi: So what? Whomever he dates, that's his business. If he is happy, that's all counts, folks!

If you really feel that way then I've got to wonder why you bothered clicking on the story.

jojo: It's very easy to hit the '"dislike" button without putting up a sensible debate/argument isn't it?

What's there to debate? The article say "parents". That means two adults opted to leave this child alone in a car instead of being bothered to take him inside with them.

You've NEVER EVER left your sleeping child in your car to even slip into a Konbi to grab a carton of milK ? Come on ... don't lie. Aren't we suddenly a bunch of hyporcrites ...

That's not a debate. That's a wild assumption. Not only that, but you've stated it in such a manner that suggests anyone who writes anything to the contrary as far as their childrearing experience goes is a liar in your eyes. Again, that's not a debate.

Jean Valjean: Fair is fair; Let men wear kilts on a daily basis instead of stuffy old suits. Oh, but most are not interested in the hairy-leg look.

Who's stopping you? Your boss? Let me guess, your boss is a man.

Ladies, do you like looking at partially clothed men?

I suppose it depends on the man doesn't it? If he's fit, then by all means he can whip his shirt off in the appropriate place. I wouldn't complain! If he's got nice calves, why wouldn't I want to see him wearing stylish shorts?

Or do you prefer the partially clothed women in fashion magazines?

I can't speak for other women but as for me, I hate fashion magazines. The clothing is generally aimed at women with the bodies of 12-year old boys and or is totally inappropriate for most people's lives and unaffordable. Plus, the articles are often quite boring and repetitive. Obviously many women disagree as the racks are full of fashion magazines.

At the end of the day though, what you're asking, is comparing apples and oranges. If women like looking at men, assuming the women are straight, it's to fantasize about who they might like to be with. If they like looking at women in magazines, it's to get ideas about clothing and hairstyles and for some, to fantasize about what they'd like to look like. In both cases, simply admiring the beauty of the human form also plays into it.

alphaape: That may be true, but I was referring to the point that NHK and others along the way didn't really check out the background and do due diligence.

My mistake for thinking the "anyone" in your post meant just that, anyone. Writing "anyone at NHK" would certainly have made it clearer.

Same applies in this case, did anyone every try to sign language with him or did he just text and write back and forth.

Mindless people not taking the time to fact check and make sure that he is on the level and just accepting him at his word, so that they can gin up a large human interest in him to make sales.

I'm not one to defend NHK but I don't think it's all that unnatural to assume that someone who claims to have a particular disability and acts accordingly actually has the disability. I don't know what they did or could have done to check on the veracity of his claims. A doctor would be obliged to keep his communication with his patient confidential and if what Niigaki claims to suspect is true, then Samuragochi has either duped all of his family and friends or knows an awful lot of people willing to keep his secret. In any event, if no one else knew and came forward, how was NHK to know? Besides that, there is no proof as of yet that this guy isn't deaf. All we have to that end is the supposed suspicions of a guy who was happy to play along with a different lie for all of those years. I think he's what is referred to in legal parlance as an unreliable witness.

alphaape: Same applies in this case, did anyone every try to sign language with him or did he just text and write back and forth. I find it amazing that people can pull off such scams. Either they are very smart, or the rest of us are not quite bright.

Not all deaf people sign, particularly ones who've lost their hearing later in life.

The largest group of deaf people, who have lost all or part of their hearing after spoken language and a hearing identity have been established, are likely to retain their hearing identity and use of speech/lipreading/writing as their main means of communication.

Nerima is a good bet. A friend of mine has lived there for years and loves it. It's on three central train lines going into Ikebukuro, Shinjuku, Harajuku and Shibuya as well the Kasumigaseki area. You're close to a Shimokitazawa, Oizumigakuin and Hikarigaoka, the latter which, in my opinion, is much nicer than Yoyogi Park. Also, you're close to the kuyakusho and the central post office, which has a 24-hour window. The community gym is pretty new and nice and if you work in central Tokyo, the commute isn't too bad, relatively speaking, of course.

I come from a very snowy place and it's quite common there to see roofs with metal sheeting about two feet wide all along the edge of the roof. The idea is that it reflects the sun, warms up the snow and gets it to slide off quite easily. People also use a kind of metal scraper with a handle that can be lengthened so you just stand near the house, garage or whatever structure you're removing snow from and scrap it off. With that particular device, you don't need to go on the roof. I've used it before and it works quite nicely plus the handle is long enough that you don't have to be too close to the structure, which helps you stay dry!

Nenad Jovanovic: Yeah, I always thought that was pretty nasty. I don't think too many people who know me would call me a prude but there's just something reprehensible to me about the thought of having an affair with the 19-year old daughter of your longterm partner. Besides the inappropriateness of it, it just doesn't seem like a kind thing to do to your partner. I know they've been married for quite some time now but that does nothing to change my opinion about how it started.

DaDude: Way too late to be bring this out in the open if it happened. You and your mother should have protested much more even well after the divorce to get your point across!

I'm not making any assertion as to whether this actually happened or not but seriously, the girl was 7 or 8 years old. How much protesting do you expect a child of that age to engage in given what she says happened. After that, the alleged trauma made her cut off all contact from Allen and later to go so far as changing her name to avoid both him and the media. Everyone has different ways of dealing with trauma and what you might have done and was right for you doesn't make it the right thing for someone else to have done.

kazuaki shimazaki: @Ambrosia If you really say you see nothing wrong with your kid deciding to go get his/her skin punctured and filled with ink when there is no necessity, and worse, let's face it, in a society where people are less than thrilled about this practice (sensibly!), one must ask how much you like your kid.

To be precise, I didn't say that I saw nothing wrong with it though truth be told, I don't. I said I didn't care in so far as they are adults. Being adults they are free to make their own choices regarding their bodies. Since you brought it up, I'd have to say it would be less of a worry to me if they chose to get a tattoo or two as opposed to eating too much junk food, drinking too much or even sunbathing too much, all of which will have long-term negative consequences that would far outweigh the possible aesthetically negative consequences of a tattoo. The bottom line is that I (sensibly!) love my children enough to trust them to make the right decisions for themselves and to deal with the consequences if they've made bad decisions. Again, it's called being an adult. Thanks so much for your concern over my child-rearing skills though. It's really sweet of you.

If your kid gives you advance warning of getting a tattoo, not throwing your entire relationship into the fire is one thing but if you don't at least try to stop him/her, for the above reasons you are not being a responsible parent.

Again, if my kid is an adult and possessing the mental capacity to allow them to make their own decisions, then that is exactly what I'll do - let them choose. I'm not sure how being a meddling nag who is untrusting of his or her child's ability to make an intelligently informed decision qualifies one as a more responsible parent.

Realistically someone who gets one or two discreet tattoos is unlikely to face many negative consequences as a result. Someone who gets many tattoos in very visible places has probably chosen a path in life that is different from the status quo and one in which they will find acceptance among their peers so either way, people tend to fall into the group of people with which they have the most in common, be they office workers or artists.

Your comparison of footbinding to tattoos is a bad one. Footbinding hobbled a woman and caused permanent damage to her feet, damage that went well beyond your perceived aesthetic damage caused by tattoos.

What does this tell the kid? Tattoos are bad or in some sense unpresentable! Otherwise, why do you need to cover them up at all?

Seriously, you're being a bit purposely obtuse and annoying here so let me try to state this more clearly. Telling the kid to cover the tattoo while at work does not tell the kid that I think the tattoos is wrong or bad. It simply tells the kid that not everyone is accepting of his or her right to get a tattoo and that, as unfortunate as it is, some narrow-minded people will make negative judgements based purely on the tattoos rather than on his or her work skills. The problem is with the person making the judgement and not with the tattoo but sometimes you have to make a simple compromise, such as wearing a long-sleeved shirt or makeup, in order to please the more prejudiced among us. Once outside of the office, feel free to flaunt your tattoos all you like.

Free expression: I'm sure we can all agree that expression should not be executed by damaging your body (for example, by turning yourself into a pyre). If we can agree to that, considering the nature of a tattoo, I can't see why you so insist on defending it.

If you're going to insist on making analogies, at least choose ones that make sense. Turning yourself into a pyre will likely kill you. Getting a tattoo will likely not kill you. And no, we cannot all agree that freedom of expression should preclude "damaging your body", as you insist on defining it. Again, whether I like the aesthetics of them or not, I leave it up to the individual as to whether or not they want to get tattoos or piercings. How in world can anyone justify anything to the contrary?

Let's be honest. Suppose she is a star employee, a truly unlosable asset for the school ... etc. Don't you think they'll try to find a way to keep her?

Well, according to the article, her pay was docked. She wasn't fired.

Regardless of ancient cultures, in modern 1st World cultures, tattoos are uncool.

Look, to the two of you, I get it. You don't like tattoos and don't think people with them should be working in the same building as kids. We'll have to agree to disagree on this whole matter and you can have the coveted last word because I've made my point clear and am pretty unlikely to change my mind on something as fundamental as allowing people the freedom to do as they choose with their bodies and not judging people based on their tattoos but on how they behave towards others. With that, good evening.

sensei258: As you say, you were talking about "kids YOUNGER than 10 or 12". So conversely, watching sexually themed anime must be okay at age 10 or 12

I was talking about kids that age or younger being up at that hour and having control of the television, something I think is the parent's responsibility but as long as we're going to play that game, if the kid in question is deemed mature enough by the parents to handle it, then yes, I think it's okay for them to watch sexually themed television. Since I obviously have to spell it out for you, I'm not talking about hardcore porn but shows which take a milder approach to the theme of sex and could be used to engage your child in honest and open discussions about sex, relationships and responsibilities. You obviously disagree and that's your right. My brothers and sisters and I were not shielded from sexual themes and managed to turn out just fine, as did most all of our friends who grew up in households with similar attitudes. It was the ones who's parents never talked to them about sex and censored everything who usually ended up pregnant or impregnating far earlier than they wanted.

And, at one point you say "children shouldn't be shielded from it (sex)" then you say "each parent has to make that decision".

Obviously it's up to the parents and how they feel about the maturity level of their kid. Does that really need to be spelled out? Apparently I don't live in the black and white world you live in. Kids are naturally curious and if parents allow open dialogue in the house, the kids will probably be comfortable asking questions from a young age. I don't condone lying to them or using childish names for body parts. Why attach shame and mystery to an act that is perfectly natural? They're going to face sexually themed manga, movies, commercials, magazine covers, music, etc. no matter what you do to shield them from it so why not let them face it armed with a little knowledge and the ability to know that they can comfortably and shamelessly talk to you about it? Like I said, you're free to disagree. To each his own. I have far more issues with all of the violence that kids are exposed to than I do the sex.

Up on a soapbox are we?

That's a bit rich coming from someone who proclaimed that this manga was going to "help indoctrinate some young people into having sex at a younger age".

sensei258: Apparently, the age of "10 or 12" old enough to view incest as entertainment? Or am I "putting words in your mouth"?

Ummmm....yes, you are since what I said had to do with kids younger than that being up at that hour and controlling the television. As for this being incest, it's been pointed out a number of times now that they are not blood relatives so this is not incest. As to whether or not it's appropriate entertainment for a 10 or 12 year old, I guess each parent has to make that decision based on the maturity level of the kid in question or do as Michael Craig so wisely suggested and just turn the channel. Even at the age of 10 or 12, the parent should be the one deciding what is and isn't appropriate entertainment for their particular child.

praack: Though sex in itself is not a "bad thing" does it need to be part of mainstream escapist reality? i don't think so

Then can we safely assume that you limit your entertainment viewing to cooking programs, sports shows and nature documentaries and fast forward through the commercials? You're free to feel how you want but I hope your antipathy towards violence being part of the maintstream escapist reality is as strong as your feelings about sex being part of it.

sensei258: So you apparently have no problems exposing children to sexual themes, I think that's absurd

Oh boy! Some posters just can't help themselves putting words in other people's mouths. Did I say I have no problem exposing children to sexual themes? I'm pretty sure I didn't but as long as you brought it up, I'd have to say that it depends on the age and maturity level of the kid. Sex is natural and sex is good. I don't feel that it's something people should be furtive about and I do feel that children should understand it, as best they can, and shouldn't be shielded from it. That aside, if this show is on at 10:00 and you have children younger than 10 or 12 up at that hour and they're controlling what's on the television, then you've got bigger parenting issues than not airing this show can solve. If you want to keep sexual themes away from your children you're going to have to raise them in a cave in some remote, isolated place. Make sure you do not have a copy of the Bible or any farm animals with you because the former is full of sexual themes and the latter just can't help themselves.

kazuaki shimazaki: Look at it this way, Ambrosia. Suppose a kid does get tattooed, and when asked she says "But the school worker ..." What people choose to do with their bodies may have no influence on your life ... but if they influence your kid's decisions, you may be a bit more inclined to care.

Boy, I just really don't know how many ways to say that I don't care if people have tattoos or not in order to make myself understood. As for whether or not my kid chooses to get them as an adult, no, I don't care. That's their choice and I don't want to control what they do as adults. That's one of the major points to being an adult.

And remember, ultimately, you are not defending the right to speak up against the government or any other such noble thing....

I don't know. I think that defending the right to free expression and the right to privacy is a pretty noble thing. That's just me though.

but the right to damage your own skin. While one may consider it the right of someone to smoke at the detriment of their own bodies, it'd be something else if the school does or tolerates anything that may encourage kids to pick up this habit.

And so is sunbathing so what are you going to do, make that illegal so that kids don't get the wrong idea about doing something harmful to themselves? So is drinking, eating certain foods, not exercising, working too much, sleeping too little. Do you want to limit everything that's potentially harmful in order to not "encourage kids to pick up this habit"? As for tattoos damaging your skin you're the one saying that To people who love tattoos it is anything but damaging.

What you are doing is telling any kid that finds out that It is OK to do wrong things as long as you cover it up. This is not a correct attitude to imply to kids in any way.

First, I don't think tattoos are wrong. Second, what it tells a kid is pretty much that you can get a tattoo if you want but you may have to cover it up at work.

She may have been an OK employee.

Nice emphasis on the "ok" there. I like what you did even though there is no suggestion in the article that she couldn't perform her job properly.

As for your optimistic assumption she'll even comply, remember that the new rules have apparently been laid down, then she got more tattoos.

Yes, call me a crazy optimist but since the article says she's agreed to have them removed, a far more expensive, time consuming and painful process than just covering them up, I'll go with that.

Compulsive disobedience, perhaps?

Perhaps or perhaps they're small enough that she didn't think some uptight, cowardly horse's behid would make an anonymous call to report her for the horror of having a tattoo. Or maybe she figured that she was doing her job well, already had one and no one cared so she went ahead and got another one. See, two can play at the assumption game.

sensei258: @ Ambrosia - Of course other things make people think about sex, and "indoctrinate" may not have been the right word to use, but it would plant the thought if it wasn't already there. And if they're thinking about it, somewhere some young people will want to try it sooner than they would have.

Sorry, but that's absurd. Being human and having hormones will make most all people want to have sex. There's no need for anyone or anything to plant the idea. It's already programmed into us.

Fukuppy: It all comes down to imitation so yes, one could argue that this school office worker is encouraging the kids to get tattoos by having them.

So, two somewhat convoluted hypotheticals about parents influencing their children in order for you to finally declare that this school clerk is encouraging children to get tattoos by her having them. Wow! If only I could get my sweat pants to stretch as much after a Christmas meal as you just attempted to do with that post. If you've read anything that I've written on this topic you'll know by know that all that back bending wasn't necessary as I don't care whether or not those children grow up and become consenting adults who one day decide to get tattoos. I don't care if people have tattoos or not. What people choose to do with their own bodies has no real bearing on my life. My concerns at work are whether or not the people I'm working with can and do perform their jobs properly. My concerns at home are whether or not the people in my household are being as kind and loving to each other as possible. My concerns out and about are whether or not I can do what I need and want to do with as little disruption to me or those around me as possible. Whether or not the people in any of those situations has tattoos, visible or not, is not a whit of concern to me.

As for this woman, all her employer had to do was to pull her aside and tell her to keep the tattoos covered up. That would have been the simple and logical thing to do. In so far as she was doing her job properly and was a good employee I would have thought that they would have wanted to have kept her. She probably would have complied and this needn't have been an issue at all.

YuriOtani: Since when is defacing your skin a right? Think of it as a "dress code" for city employees.

Since when is it not a right? Do you have to obtain a license in order to get a tattoo? Go through some sort of paperwork or application process? Is it illegal to get a tattoo?

As for non Japanese, I view it as an insult they live in Japan and demand it be like "back home".

The woman in question is Japanese but as long as we're going to play that game, I view it as insulting that people seem to think Japanese are not worthy of the same rights as those most Westerners enjoy.

It's not just Westerners who disagree with this policy so these attempts by posters to subtly, and not so subtly, suggest that rights are only the concerns of Westerners or that Japanese act as a collective force, all agreeing with the same policies and regulations is what is really insulting.

Around 800 teachers and other education professionals have so far refused to respond to Hashimoto's survey, in the belief that it infringes on their right to privacy. A Kansai-based lawyers' group has also reportedly asked the city to cease the investigation, which it claims violates workers' human rights, Fuji TV reported.

American military are the worse as they do not respect Japanese laws and traditions.

And that's got to do with this story in what way exactly?

As for this teacher unless you work for the Osaka city government it is not your concern.

It's every citizen and resident's concern when the government starts telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies. Particularly as this is a government - aka tax-funded place of employment and not a private business, it is of particular concern and should be to you as well, regardless of your feelings about tattoos.

tamarama: your Western Perspective filter to a Japanese cultural attitude.....

She's Japanese and the constitution I quoted is the Japanese constitution. Rights are not the sole privilege of Westerners even though it seems many would like them to be.

What about her responsibilities, ambrosia? Do they factor into your equation at all? Responsibilities to those around her? Her employers? Her work colleagues? The broader community? Or is it best for her just to say 'stuff you all, because I want tattoos regardless of what you all think, and that is the most important issue here'.

Hmmm... how to tackle this one. Let me see, as I said before, if it's really that big of an issue tell people to keep the tattoos covered up at work. I fail to see full stop how having tattoos is bothering anyone else and I especially fail to see how having tattoos that are not visible, except perhaps to upskirt-photo-snapping-coppers, is bothering anyone. So should she just say "stuff you all"? I guess my answer has to be yes. Unless someone can prove to me how a young woman having a tattoo of a dolphin, butterfly, whatever on her arm or ankle is going to bring about the downfall of Japanese civilization as we know it, then I'm sticking with her right, yes, I said it - her right - to have a tattoo and to be able keep her job.

Just out of curiosity, do all of you who seem so opposed to Japanese having rights get this worked up when they and by they, I mean Japanese, protested against the government's secrecy law or for the Law Concerning the Protection of Personal Information or for Ainu rights. Is the right to have tattoos the same? It's arguable. The point though is that the Japanese seem keen to practice their rights, yes, that word again, to free speech and individualism as well as to protect themselves from overt and unnecessary government intrusion into their lives. Why then do so many Westerners seem so keen on them not having those rights? Do you all really see Japanese as just one big lump of people with all of the same desires and aspirations?

YuriOtani: It is a Japanese culture thing, only criminals and non conformists get tattoos.

Really??? I'm amazed no one's thought to bring that point up before. Well, I guess that's the end of the discussion and everybody had better get in line.

Kazuaki Shimazaki: First, can you start by defending puncturing your skin and sticking ink into it (the essence of a tattoo) as a legitimate "right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"?

Do you believe that people have the right to practice their religion (Article 20 of the Japanese constitution), which in many cases involves self-flaggelation, and if so, then how can you not defend the right for someone to get a tattoo if they so choose? She's doing it to herself, not forcing someone else to do it. Apparently unlike many other posters, I don't care much what other people get up to in terms of tattoos, piercings, sexual proclivities and weird religious practices in so far as they are consenting adults.

Which is why this rule does not protect against for example, you playing rock music in your own flat loudly enough to transmit to neighboring residences in the pursuit of your own "liberty and happiness".

First off, it's not a "rule". It's a right. Second, I'm not quite sure how you are comparing loud music to tattoos. One will keep you up at night. The other, well, what, you don't like the way it looks? So what? Walk down Takeshita Dori. I don't like the way 90% of the people there look but they don't bother me and even if they did, that's my problem, not theirs.

Remember that in this particular case, the woman is a civil servant and a school worker, a model of society to the children (at least in theory). Can you truly defend encouraging kids to puncture their skin and put ink into it?

Was she encouraging kids to get tattoos? Interesting, I hadn't read that bit in the story. She's a school clerk and most likely spends the better part of her working day behind a desk or counter where kids can't even see the tattoos on her ankle. As for the one on her arm, that's easily enough covered up by a shirt or make-up if it's really that much of an issue.

But why does this practice of puncturing the skin and putting ink into it have to expand? Is there some intrinsic good to puncturing the skin and putting ink into it?

It's less about encouraging the expansion of tattoos than it is the reduction of rights to individual expression. Whenever a society talks about taking away rights rather than expanding them, I think the people ought to be worried. No one has yet presented a valid argument as to why she should be fired other than that they don't like tattoos and tradition. I completely get that workplaces have particular rules about things such as piercings, tattoos, etc. but tell me how it's more logical to fire her for having a tattoo rather than simply telling her she can have them because it's her body but that they require her to keep them covered while at work.

jojotoday: @ambrosia I guess you must have tattoos. Hope you don't live in Japan. You might get discriminated against by this 'cruel' rule too.

No, I neither have them nor like them. I don't have to like what people say but I respect their right to say it. I don't have to like what people worship but I respect their right to do so. That's the thing about rights, I don't necessarily have to like them to agree that people have a right to them. And yes, I live in Japan.

jojotoday: Personal opinions on tattoos aside, absolutely no sympathy from me.

Well, I guess we can all be glad that no one asked for your sympathy when they decided to stand up to all kind of rules, regulations and laws that were cruel, stupid, unnecessary and or in violation of people's right.

Stephen Jez: This is what anime has boiled down to, it's sad really.

This is what anime has always boiled down to, maybe not all of it, but a fair amount of it has featured sex and what many would consider to be deviant or inappropriate sex or have you never heard of such manga as Midori Days, Marmalade Boy, Hot Gimmick and of course, The Rapeman?

That little old lady is adorable!

sensei258: The sad thing is this will help indoctrinate some young people into having sex at a younger age.

Really? Indoctrinate? Will it indoctrinate them any more so than Romeo and Juliet did or the bible (Lot, Jacob and so on). For purely biological reasons teens have always and will probably always want to have sex. That's the way it was when people died around 40 and had to pop out those babies early. We live much longer now but in many ways our bodies haven't caught up. And if a manga is going to make a brother and sister want to sleep together then there are a whole host of other issues going on in that house which cannot be blame on a comic.

notasap: While the punishment seems harsh no one has a right to a tat.

You certainly do have a right to have a tattoo since they are not illegal and having one infringes on no one else. Your workplace may also have the right to make you cover the tattoo or not hire you based on your having one but that would depend on employment laws and constitutional interpretations. Just because you may not be allowed to have a certain job if you have a tattoo doesn't mean you don't have the right to have one.

Note to future posters and pop psychology experts: Read some of the comments already posted. We get it. This isn't the west, Japan is collectivist, tattoo equal Yakuza etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. The woman with the tattoo IS JAPANESE!!! This is her culture and she has every right to try and change it. Change happens, even in traditional, collectivist Japan. Do you see the majority of men and women here wearing kimonos, dying their teeth black, wearing chonmage, not being allowed to travel outside of the country, being only allowed to write in hiragana (women)? No, you don't. Traditions change. It's as simple as that. Will tattoos become a more common, non-yakuza thing in Japan? I've no idea and part of me hopes not because I'm not a huge fan of tattoos. But then again, part of me hopes yes, simply because I'm not scared of change. It's going to happen whether you like it or not and fighting against it is pretty much like trying to block out a hurricane with your hand. That and the idea that tradition should be the sole argument for maintaining something is a shallow, empty argument used by fear mongers, those with nothing more intelligent to say and those wanting to maintain the status quo, usually because the status quo benefits them the most at the expense of others.