It is time for Japan to change the idea that use of violence in sports including physical discipline is a valid way of coaching

A couple of comments to this Japan Times article:

1. 'Taibatsu' to me is a much stronger and negative term than 'ai-no-muchi'. Is 'taibatsu' really used in Zen Buddhism as the author suggests ? I would argue that what we are seeing there is more ai-no-muchi than it is taibatsu. The receiver in Zen Buddhism typically thanks the person showing ai-no-muchi for helping him in this way achieving his goal. In case of a true punishment, does one really thank the punisher ?

2. Harsh training methods are used abroad too, nothing special. Look in the US at things such as "boot camp" or training of marines or S.E.A.L.S. Equivalents exist elsewhere. Think of the S.A.S. in the UK, the Légion étrangère, or commando troops in other countries. Same in some sports, particularly combat sports, which is probably not coincidence given its clear link to the military. You don't create an army of men by submitting them to sissy training, one might say. In jûdô we used to get training that was referred to as "casser le moral". You would continuously be insulted, and made feel as inadequate, training so heavy you could never bring it to a good end. But, and this is the most important, no one really forced us. I went to these training sessions out of my own free will, and if I really would have wanted I could have simply said "f*ck you all !" and stepped off the tatami. You could argue that there was pressure in a sense that you would not get on the team if you did not submit to that harsh treatment, but even that is not really true. I am sure that if you were so good that you would beat everyone else while never training and doing nothing but sleeping and partying, no one could have blocked you. So just to keep the harsh training responsible for all the misery in the world is exaggerating. The same with the jûdô summer and winter training. Let's face it, these are today more cultural things than that they are some excruciating final tests. If you really want to you can go to the Kôdôkan spend all your time there sitting on the bench, get up when there is roll call and at the end you will get you certificate just like anybody else and can say you completed winter/summer training. Was it always like that ? No, it wasn't, but again, no one forced you. You would not lose your job, or not get any food or be gang-raped if you did not show up. In fact, no one really cared, period.

I would accept harsh training and corporal punishment every day again, and there is nothing for me to gain in terms of championships or teams as I am old and wasted. Just the fact that it would allow me to extend my limits of training would be more than sufficient, and one of the principles of training is in fact that it needs to become progressively heavier, and longer and more intense if you want progress.

3. The article contains the paragraph "Ichiko’s practice regimen, developed by the students themselves, included year-round training every day and intensive summer and winter camps. It was nicknamed “bloody urine” for it was said that the players practiced so hard they urinated blood at the end of the day." (...)

The reference to "blood urine" requires explanation, as it is not presented in the text in a sufficiently responsible way. It is simply presented as a phenomenon, and indicator of training. As many know, urine gets darker if you don't drink enough, but that is not the only reason. When you train you incur muscle cell damage. This is particularly so with two forms of training, namely either eccentric training or extreme endurance training. You see this during marathons and longer duration exercises or during exercises under external presure such as full-military gear forced marches in the military. What happens then ? The high break down of muscle cells reaches a point that the body start having problems processing it. It is call myoglobinuria or presence of muscle tissue in urine. That process in itself is reversible if you drink enough, and your exercise is finished when you arrive. However, myoglobinuria can evolve to a worse form, due to either not stopping exercise (for example, if the same training happens for an extended period day after day) or if somehow you are forced so far over your limits that the myoglobinuria simply deteriorates. That is called rhabdomyolysis. I studied this in judo in the 1990s. It's potentially fatal. In rhabdomyolysis basically the kidneys no longer can properly process the excess in muscle break down. Your kidneys work as filters, and if they don't properly work you basically are starting to poison yourself. It can lead to glomerulonephritis, which is a a life-threatening kidney problem. The medical literature mentions several fatal cases of athletes or people in the military forced to exercise who as a consequence of rhabdomyolysis died. These are problems that require medical critical care, dialysis, hydration, etc. So, it really is not a matter of having blood in your urine as a sign of good training. The fact that one has blood in urine is itself already problematic. A person who can handle the training and whose kidneys function optimally would not get blood in his urine. In other words, the fact that one does get blood in his urine is in itself already a medical symptom.

4. What strikes me is that the author somehow does not mention the term sexual violence at all and seems to be separating the sexual harassment things from what he seems to perceive as mere "harsh training approaches". Issues such as rape and molestation in jûdô really aren't about sex, but are about establishing control and power, as about any woman who sadly has been subject to these things will affirm. It is unfortunate that the author steers clear of sexual abuses in jûdô and sport in this context.

I agree with the author that there are probably external reasons for these things to enter the media, one of them being Tôkyô's bid for the Olympics, and probably political rivalry. It would not surprise me if some of these incidents are actually intentionally 'leaked' to the press, and somewhat misrepresented.

NBK wrote:There is another difference as well. Whereas in the U.S. sports were traditionally played for enjoyment and release of tension — at least on an amateur level — in Japan, generally speaking, the idea of athletics for fun was a foreign concept.

The martial arts, which were the primary form of athletics in Japan before the introduction of foreign sports in the Meiji Era (1868-1912), were a tool of education, designed to build physical strength and character, based on the idea that one must suffer to be good.

Do you personally think that these concepts are correct? You have some unique expertise beyond your researcher/historian/reporter role on this forum, I for one would be interested in what you think if you care to share it publicly.

First, do you think there is an athletics program in Texas ... or Arkansas for that matter ... where football is primarily about fun?

Second, does a program that presumes by testing how much pain and humiliation a young person can take really ... and scientifically ... create of higher percentage of skilled athletes, or a higher level of skill among even a few athletes? Does it make a better soldier or marine? Not that training for competition or combat can proceed without discomfort, without external motivation ... certainly it is a common knowledge, ancient and scientifically proven observation that muscles and brains both grow stronger under challenge.

Do people all over the world, but with a specific,matter-of-fact religiosity in Japan, interchange or confuse rites of passage with athletic and developmental science?

NBK wrote:Konjo was, and is, the sine qua non of a good athlete for it was (and still is) believed that superior mental strength and willpower could overcome any perceived deficiencies in physical power, and no measures in the pursuit of that end were considered too extreme, including beatings for they helped a player overcome his “natural predilection for laziness,”

Then again there is in fact a kind of person ... and a kind of terrier ... that you don't want to mess with because regardless of their size they are going to fight until they are unconscious or dead, or until the person that messed with them is dead. Death or victory is not a slogan with these folks. I guess part of the question is ... can you train that into a person by this method? Or just identify them?






Personal note, if I recall correctly, the Japanese militarists lost, partly in their zeal to suffer and die for the Emperor rather than to win one for the Gipper.

Second personal note, this subject is important because in judo we run across this issue frequently, among Japanese judoka who we share the mat, and among non-Japanese who seek to copy the methods ... or what they perceive as the methods ... of the Japanese. We perhaps should apply some real science to judo as a modern endeavor and study whether what is viewed as traditional and proper in some circles actually uses the principles of judo to accomplish to goal of judo.

BillC wrote:

NBK wrote:There is another difference as well. Whereas in the U.S. sports were traditionally played for enjoyment and release of tension — at least on an amateur level — in Japan, generally speaking, the idea of athletics for fun was a foreign concept.

The martial arts, which were the primary form of athletics in Japan before the introduction of foreign sports in the Meiji Era (1868-1912), were a tool of education, designed to build physical strength and character, based on the idea that one must suffer to be good.

Do you personally think that these concepts are correct? You have some unique expertise beyond your researcher/historian/reporter role on this forum, I for one would be interested in what you think if you care to share it publicly.

First, do you think there is an athletics program in Texas ... or Arkansas for that matter ... where football is primarily about fun?

Second, does a program that presumes by testing how much pain and humiliation a young person can take really ... and scientifically ... create of higher percentage of skilled athletes, or a higher level of skill among even a few athletes? Does it make a better soldier or marine? Not that training for competition or combat can proceed without discomfort, without external motivation ... certainly it is a common knowledge, ancient and scientifically proven observation that muscles and brains both grow stronger under challenge.

Do people all over the world, but with a specific,matter-of-fact religiosity in Japan, interchange or confuse rites of passage with athletic and developmental science?

NBK wrote:Konjo was, and is, the sine qua non of a good athlete for it was (and still is) believed that superior mental strength and willpower could overcome any perceived deficiencies in physical power, and no measures in the pursuit of that end were considered too extreme, including beatings for they helped a player overcome his “natural predilection for laziness,”

Then again there is in fact a kind of person ... and a kind of terrier ... that you don't want to mess with because regardless of their size they are going to fight until they are unconscious or dead, or until the person that messed with them is dead. Death or victory is not a slogan with these folks. I guess part of the question is ... can you train that into a person by this method? Or just identify them?

Personal note, if I recall correctly, the Japanese militarists lost, partly in their zeal to suffer and die for the Emperor rather than to win one for the Gipper.

Second personal note, this subject is important because in judo we run across this issue frequently, among Japanese judoka who we share the mat, and among non-Japanese who seek to copy the methods ... or what they perceive as the methods ... of the Japanese. We perhaps should apply some real science to judo as a modern endeavor and study whether what is viewed as traditional and proper in some circles actually uses the principles of judo to accomplish to goal of judo.

Wow. Not sure what the questions are, much less how to respond.

I'm probably one of the least qualified people to talk about team sports psychology. Never liked team sports, I literally can't name half the US baseball / football / hockey / whatever teams. I see it all as people being played by the big businesses that suck billions out of people.


I did play on a Little League team in which the coach was determined that everyone play. We sucked, got stomped by teams playing to win. Other than that, high school football in places like Texas or Arkansas is 'life'. Or as people sucked in by the coaches' egos, or whatever.

Of course people confuse rights of passage with correct training methods. Mediocre is a pretty low level in most areas of human endeavor, and sports training is no exception.

I guess that you mean my military experience. That comes into play with a variety of experiences, but bear in mind that the motivation of the military trainer is completely different, at least in my mind.

Take US Army Ranger training. The purported objective is training small infantry unit leaders, but along the way the stresses are piled up to force the trainees to demonstrate the ability to operate and operate effectively under incredible, debilitating stress - insufficient food, sleep, surprise attacks and explosions, lack of info, changing circumstances, forced marches, hypothermia, heat stroke, you name it - remembering the rote measures required (where's your primary / secondary escape routes / don't leave anyone behind / ...) while reacting quickly and appropriately to the ever changing fog of war. One of the more cogent arguments against women in combat units is the lengthy list of recent historic battles in which units were reduced to wearing rags, eating near nothing, no privacy, no hygiene, etc etc.... And those arguments are real. Very real. Not enough to overcome the idiocy of political correctness in the US, but real nevertheless.

Some people are naturals - everyone ever in the military has seen them. Tell them once, or not at all, and they get it and never forget it. Others will never get it, either simply don't have the faculties to pull it off or can do it but can't handle the stress. They have to be id'd and eliminated, because they get people killed. Most reasonably put together people that have passed the tough initial screening to enter such training fall in the middle, have some or most of the intellectual tools, or can learn them with training, but have to reach someplace they've never accessed before to pull it all together.

In many special forces training programs there is a particular drill that comes someplace in mid-training. After a particularly miserable session, usually a long march into a very difficult scenario where the trainees get confused / routed / chased away (think: Kobayashi Maru scenario), they head off to rendezvous, in military terms given a rally point and an almost impossibly short time to make it, usually tens of miles of slogging with an impossibly heavy load of gear, hearts already heavy because they've screwed up the mission.

So, as the clock ticks down, and finally you come into sight of the trucks at the finish line, and many of the trainees can't make it, and you finally think, Made It! with seconds to spare, the trucks crank up and drive away. And you're told that the rally point is now another 10km down the road.

Many, many simply drop to the ground and won't go on. The exercise is designed to find those that can't quit, those that despite everything, pick themselves up and slog down that road.

But most people are never put in such situations. Is that how you screen your final travel judo competition team? Some probably do, but are their results improved because of that approach?

On the other hand, if the tasks are purely low level physical, then scientific training makes much more sense.

I led an army training unit. Our task was to impart certain military skills and a level of physical training to the trainees, who had literally 3 days or less time in the Army. Standardized tests for everything. One perpetual problem was the Physical Training test, particularly the pushups. Rigidly scrutinized pushups are always a problem, as swayed backs, different chest structures, etc., can make it a problem.

The traditional fashion to train pushups was to do lots of pushups. All the time, dropping the entire platoon at once, individual doses of pushups for any minor infraction, hundreds a day. You'd ache from the number of pushups, but still significant numbers (>10%) typically failed the pushups in the final PT test.

I'd been reading about negative rep training (i.e., training to perform a certain number of pushups, even if you have lift yourself to the up position, then lowering yourself to stress the muscles beyond their ability to raise yourself up - it's been a long time, I'm screwing up the terms), and got one platoon to do that, and not allowed to use pushups as punishment, while the others went on with their normal hundreds of pushups a day.

After the first interim PT test the test platoon was over 80% ready, at the second 100% ready, and the other platoon leaders begged me to call off the test and let them all use the new method, which I did. The company passed pushups 100%, first time in the history of the base. As far as I know, first time in the history of the Army.

Now, some of the traditionalists didn't like it, as the pushup was a traditional 'motivational device', A.K.A. punishment, but they learned to like the alternative 'beat your boots' which I introduced from airborne training.

Again, there's a tremendous difference between training elite, individually or small unit special forces and mass troops. As I guess there's a difference between training a casual weekend judoka and someone aspiring to compete at the highest levels. Never done the latter.

Regarding the traditional Japanese approach, what you cite (that martial arts training traditionally was not a sport, but rather personal development) is consistent with what I have read in the mainstream histories of Japanese sports development. About the only pure sport seemed to be kemari, a Japanese court version of takraw.

Anyhow, the bottom line for me is performance. If Japanese harsh training methods worked well, why didn't they bring home all the medals?

I'm more interested in really scientific training of judoka. When you've exhausted all technical paths, maybe that's time for more character-building training.

I am not really in a position to say as I am not interested in the entire approach and its goals. And have probably screwed this all up, sorry 'bout that.

NBK wrote:
Now, some of the traditionalists didn't like it, as the pushup was a traditional 'motivational device', A.K.A. punishment, but they learned to like the alternative 'beat your boots' which I introduced from airborne training.

....

Anyhow, the bottom line for me is performance. If Japanese harsh training methods worked well, why didn't they bring home all the medals?

I'm more interested in really scientific training of judoka. When you've exhausted all technical paths, maybe that's time for more character-building training.

I am not really in a position to say as I am not interested in the entire approach and its goals. And have probably screwed this all up, sorry 'bout that.

Thanks, your familiarity with the military is indeed one thing I was referring to, though your current avocation and access to that version of recent Japanese history was as well.

My sensei and my Dad both used to say something like "don't use training as punishment" and "don't crush out the fire in your kids." Pushups are indeed a good example. If one desires excellence in doing something, it makes no sense to prescribe it as a consequence of failure and error. Maybe we can speculate that this is what leads to confused young people?

I trained in Japan for a year in the 1970s when I attended Waseda University. At one practice, I saw one of the instructors hitting the judo team members with a stick. I went up to the head instructor, Osawa-sensei and said, "I really respect you but I have to tell you that if anyone hits me, I'm hitting him back." Osawa said that he had traveled to the US, that he understood it was not the way it was in our country and no one would hit me. I'm sure other people at the time were shocked I talked to Sensei Osawa that way, but I meant every word and I did not want to get involved in some type of incident. I WOULD have hit him (or anyone else) back, regardless of consequences.

annmaria wrote:I trained in Japan for a year in the 1970s when I attended Waseda University. At one practice, I saw one of the instructors hitting the judo team members with a stick. I went up to the head instructor, Osawa-sensei and said, "I really respect you but I have to tell you that if anyone hits me, I'm hitting him back." Osawa said that he had traveled to the US, that he understood it was not the way it was in our country and no one would hit me. I'm sure other people at the time were shocked I talked to Sensei Osawa that way, but I meant every word and I did not want to get involved in some type of incident. I WOULD have hit him (or anyone else) back, regardless of consequences.

So AnnMaria, a similar question for you ... since you like Mr. Natural have particular expertise and experience unlike others on this forum. Did whacking your Japanese teammates with a stick make THEM better judoka? Is it possible, due to cultural differences, to beat the "want to" into human beings? Does working them to the point of destruction improve their ability to play judo? Or is something else going on?

I don't think it helped a damn bit. Now, Waseda certainly wasn't abusive - or not any more than the standard university hazing - but it seemed to me that the teammates I had who did best were exactly like here, they had a combination of natural talent, intrinsic interest, good coaching and strong family support.

annmaria wrote:I don't think it helped a damn bit. Now, Waseda certainly wasn't abusive - or not any more than the standard university hazing - but it seemed to me that the teammates I had who did best were exactly like here, they had a combination of natural talent, intrinsic interest, good coaching and strong family support.

Thanks for the insight, and hello by the way. Hope you are well, though you looked great in that snapshot with Allen Wrench. Cute couple!

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2013/06/11/more-sports/judo-chief-warns-japan-to-clean-up/#.UbYMqPkxAiU

Judo chief warns Japan to ‘clean up’

JUN 11, 2013

The world judo chief urged Japan Monday to clean up its act after the sport was sullied in its birthplace by scandals including abusive coaching, misuse of funds and sexual harassment.

International Judo Federation (IJF) president Marius Vizer told a news conference in Tokyo that Japan’s judo authority needed to shape up because he is aiming to raise the sport’s profile in the Olympics with reforms.

“The IJF follows very carefully the present situation in Japanese judo,” he said. “The IJF with the All-Japan Judo Federation will do our best to clean up the situation and start with new reforms and new development in Japanese judo.”

Japan’s judo community was rocked in February when the coach of the national women’s team, Ryuji Sonoda, was found to have used a bamboo sword to beat athletes, calling his charges “ugly” and telling them to “die” in the run-up to the London Olympics.

Sonoda later resigned.

In April, judo officials were accused of receiving subsidies for coaches from a government fund although they did not serve as coaches.

Then the Japanese federation said last month it was considering expelling Jiro Fukuda, 76, for life following the revelation that he made unwanted sexual advances toward a female athlete in 2011.

Vizer said the IJF had given the Japanese federation until Oct. 15 to submit a full report on the incidents and that the IJF would take appropriate action against any illegal acts.

Vizer, an Austrian businessman who became the IJF president in 2007, was visiting Tokyo after his May election as president of SportAccord, an umbrella organization for all international sports federations.

He said the visit was partly aimed at grasping the “situation” in Japan as his organization wants to convince the International Olympic Committee to allow a team competition to be added to the judo programme for the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics.

The 2016 program will be decided at an IOC session in Buenos Aires in early September.

“We have a great chance to go with the teams to the Rio Olympics,” said Vizer, 55, who is credited with promoting judo as a more visible international sport by establishing a full world tour, introducing world rankings and modifying rules.

He said the IJF’s efforts in the last four or five years had helped judo go up in a new revenue-sharing ranking of Olympic sports in five categories by which IOC fund allotments for the Rio Olympics are distributed.

In late May, the IOC executive board promoted judo to the third tier from the fourth tier. The top flight consists of athletics, swimming and gymnastics.

So nothing's going to happen. A few people get fired, the AJJF and/or Kodokan bow deeply and apologize and things go on as normal. Until the old guard leave, things will not change much.

Also, most interesting to me was Judo's promotion to third tier. Looks like it's not going anywhere soon.

rjohnston411 wrote:So nothing's going to happen. A few people get fired, the AJJF and/or Kodokan bow deeply and apologize and things go on as normal. Until the old guard leave, things will not change much.

What did expect ? It's the propagandist machine. Do you for a second believe the IJF did not know about harsh training methods ? If they really did not know then it would only reflect there absence of serious judo expertise. Besides, when it comes to those practices, Japan is nothing to Korea. By the way, which Korean leader was it again who forced one of his Olympic female jûdô athletes to become pregnant of him ?

Things are starting to spiral out of control. Inappropriately hugging someone is not molestation and it is not rape. Making sexual advances to a person who is not a minor is not a crime. The normal thing to do when this happens and is unwanted is for a person to say 'no'. If you make advances to a person you may often not know beforehand if the person is going to accept or reject you. Thus, even making an advance to a person who does not want you, is not a crime nor a disciplinary offense. In most cases in most countries in general, it only becomes harassment if one ignores the person rejecting you and still push ahead, or if you use physical or mental coercion or act from a hierarchical position, or when you retaliate to the person for rejecting to you, or when one tries to take advantage of a person in a special position like being a minor or child or his judgment or reaction impaired such as in the case of a patient, an unconscious person, or mentally disabled person. I would not like to feed the number of people among us all who might once have hugged or tried to kiss someone who we then learnt was not really interested in us, or where we misunderstood a potential interest in us, or the other way around. Jeez, we all probably even have tried to kiss or hug our wives or girl friends at times she wasn't in the mood. Considering to expel someone just for an unwanted hug or kiss is way over the top and not even to the point. What is at issue is the attitude that someone feels the entitlement to just hug or kiss someone while ignoring the others feelings, or can act from what he feels is his male privilege. Then again the process of romantic exploration is a complex one. Let's face it, we usually do not first make a written contract, signed by a witness and have it notarized just to ask for formal permission the first time we hold someone's hand, hug someone or kiss someone. Rather it is interplay of sensing interest combined with one's own and the others hormonal factors, and sometimes a certain amount of alcohol. As with every other situation, some people are good communicators and some people are poor communicators. It would probably be more appropriate to have these people go through a course of women's rights and learning to respect someone's borders, than expelling someone for that.

By the way, do you honestly think that the situation in Japan is any worse than in other countries ? You got to be kidding. The number of famous world and Olympic champions who had to bang their coach in order to fulfill the major selection criterion to get into the team would shock you, it seems. It was pretty common knowledge that the coach sat on most of the team except the heavy weights if they were real heavy ... Not that this is any justification for such things, but I assure you that the things I saw never involved the Japanese team. In fact, it used to be that the main difference between a judo camp and a bordello was that in the judo camp you only had to pay for your room and food while the sex was free, condoms optional.

Oh, and by the way, by far not all the initiative came from male coaches. Some rather famous female jûdôka perhaps weren't exactly nymphomaniacs but certainly went through more partners during a judo camp (or elsehwere) than bandages. At the time it was often hilarious when you consider it, like the incident of one famous Olympic champion catching his world champion girlfriend banging another judoka, the other judoka running naked through the corridor fearing for his life while the heavier Olympic champion is determined on throwing him through the window. However, as much as one can joke about it, fact of the matter is that it is hypocritical to the extreme of the IJF to play being shocked by some of the things in Japan that were recently reported in the press whereas what was going on in most of Europe went a lot further, and obviously involved people far below the age of 18 since the age of consent in most of Europe is only 16 and if you weren't 16, then the rule simply was "don't ask, don't tell".

There are many things that to some people today may be grounds for being shocked but that used to be quite common. I remember fighting semi-finals and finals in state championships, and you know what the biggest problem was for me ? The amount of cigarette smoke in the sports hall. I remember having to go up to the official responsible for the hall to complain about the smoking and demanding respect for our health and only getting an angry response that they sure couldn't start prohibiting the audience from smoking, what the heck did I think ?! I remember being one of fhe few jûdôka who didn't smoke. In today's culture that may sound strange and shocking now too, but it used to be the hard reality.

There are many things that to some people today may be grounds for being shocked but that used to be quite common. I remember fighting semi-finals and finals in state championships, and you know what the biggest problem was for me ? The amount of cigarette smoke in the sports hall. I remember having to go up to the official responsible for the hall to complain about the smoking and demanding respect for our health and only getting an angry response that they sure couldn't start prohibiting the audience from smoking, what the heck did I think ?! I remember being one of fhe few jûdôka who didn't smoke. In today's culture that may sound strange and shocking now too, but it used to be the hard reality.

This doesn't surprise me at all, I used to smoke 60+ a day for over 30 years......until it nearly killed me......and I know some former top level Aussie Jdoka who STILL smoke !!

Just because 'it's always been that way' doesn't mean that it's okay. Using your position of authority to demand sex is part of the legal definition of rape.

I am not singling out Japan for any other reason than their being the focus of the article.

rjohnston411 wrote: Just because 'it's always been that way' doesn't mean that it's okay. Using your position of authority to demand sex is part of the legal definition of rape.

If you carefully read what I wrote you will see that I addressed your concern when I wrote: "or if you use physical or mental coercion or act from a hierarchical position, or when you retaliate to the person for rejecting to you" (...)

"Using your position of authority to demand sex is part of the legal definition of rape.", yes, but only if an act of forced sex with penetration actually occurs. If I have a position of authority to someone and I tell the person "I am your boss and you need to have sex with me", I am not committing rape, but I am committing sexual harassment. The sexual harassment remains even if the person says 'no' and walks away, though clearly no rape has taken place. There is only rape when at least an act of penetration has occurred under most definitions of law though different countries obviously make their own laws.

Part of a definition does not mean that that just that part itself equals the offense. Holding a knife is part of the definition of murder by knife, but just holding the knife is not murder by knife as long as I don't actually plant it in the person. In fact, it isn't even murder unless the person dies, and only attempt to murder if he or she survives.

rjohnston411 wrote: Just because 'it's always been that way' doesn't mean that it's okay.

I do not see anyone here having condoned in in anyway any form of sex without consent, certainly not rape. Instead, what I have emphasized is the very considerable difference between an act of nonconsensual sex and a rejected invitation for romantic involvment. Moreover, hugging someone or trying to kiss someone is not sex. It is something that becomes harassment if the person says 'no' and you continue or when you use your position to do so, or when you kinda 'DSK' someone.

In addition, I criticized the level of bigotry with regard to the IJF press release when the IJF knows very well that things far worse than what has been happening in Japan have occurred for decades. That's all.

Although I do not want to personalize anything as I do not want to turn this thread into some ugly exchange, but could you honestly say you have never in your entire life tried to kiss of hug someone who objected or rejected your kiss or hug ? If so, I would promptly recommend you for sainthood. And in case you did, did this then also imply you were close to actually start raping the person ? I hope not. Otherwise every party, every college, this entire globe would be filled with nothing but nasty rapists. I point out that among people who may try to kiss or hug there would be quite a number of females trying to do so to a man. While rapes of men committed by females do happen, I doubt that most women whose attempt to kiss or hug a male and their effort is rejected, would be planning or even be able to rape the male, even if not by physical force than also not by hierarchical position or authority.

Cichorei Kano wrote:

rjohnston411 wrote:So nothing's going to happen. A few people get fired, the AJJF and/or Kodokan bow deeply and apologize and things go on as normal. Until the old guard leave, things will not change much.

What did expect ? It's the propagandist machine. Do you for a second believe the IJF did not know about harsh training methods ? If they really did not know then it would only reflect there absence of serious judo expertise. Besides, when it comes to those practices, Japan is nothing to Korea. By the way, which Korean leader was it again who forced one of his Olympic female jûdô athletes to become pregnant of him ?

Things are starting to spiral out of control. Inappropriately hugging someone is not molestation and it is not rape. Making sexual advances to a person who is not a minor is not a crime. The normal thing to do when this happens and is unwanted is for a person to say 'no'. If you make advances to a person you may often not know beforehand if the person is going to accept or reject you. Thus, even making an advance to a person who does not want you, is not a crime nor a disciplinary offense. In most cases in most countries in general, it only becomes harassment if one ignores the person rejecting you and still push ahead, or if you use physical or mental coercion or act from a hierarchical position, or when you retaliate to the person for rejecting to you, or when one tries to take advantage of a person in a special position like being a minor or child or his judgment or reaction impaired such as in the case of a patient, an unconscious person, or mentally disabled person. I would not like to feed the number of people among us all who might once have hugged or tried to kiss someone who we then learnt was not really interested in us, or where we misunderstood a potential interest in us, or the other way around. Jeez, we all probably even have tried to kiss or hug our wives or girl friends at times she wasn't in the mood. Considering to expel someone just for an unwanted hug or kiss is way over the top and not even to the point. What is at issue is the attitude that someone feels the entitlement to just hug or kiss someone while ignoring the others feelings, or can act from what he feels is his male privilege. Then again the process of romantic exploration is a complex one. Let's face it, we usually do not first make a written contract, signed by a witness and have it notarized just to ask for formal permission the first time we hold someone's hand, hug someone or kiss someone. Rather it is interplay of sensing interest combined with one's own and the others hormonal factors, and sometimes a certain amount of alcohol. As with every other situation, some people are good communicators and some people are poor communicators. It would probably be more appropriate to have these people go through a course of women's rights and learning to respect someone's borders, than expelling someone for that.

By the way, do you honestly think that the situation in Japan is any worse than in other countries ? You got to be kidding. The number of famous world and Olympic champions who had to bang their coach in order to fulfill the major selection criterion to get into the team would shock you, it seems. It was pretty common knowledge that the coach sat on most of the team except the heavy weights if they were real heavy ... Not that this is any justification for such things, but I assure you that the things I saw never involved the Japanese team. In fact, it used to be that the main difference between a judo camp and a bordello was that in the judo camp you only had to pay for your room and food while the sex was free, condoms optional.

Oh, and by the way, by far not all the initiative came from male coaches. Some rather famous female jûdôka perhaps weren't exactly nymphomaniacs but certainly went through more partners during a judo camp (or elsehwere) than bandages. At the time it was often hilarious when you consider it, like the incident of one famous Olympic champion catching his world champion girlfriend banging another judoka, the other judoka running naked through the corridor fearing for his life while the heavier Olympic champion is determined on throwing him through the window. However, as much as one can joke about it, fact of the matter is that it is hypocritical to the extreme of the IJF to play being shocked by some of the things in Japan that were recently reported in the press whereas what was going on in most of Europe went a lot further, and obviously involved people far below the age of 18 since the age of consent in most of Europe is only 16 and if you weren't 16, then the rule simply was "don't ask, don't tell".

There are many things that to some people today may be grounds for being shocked but that used to be quite common. I remember fighting semi-finals and finals in state championships, and you know what the biggest problem was for me ? The amount of cigarette smoke in the sports hall. I remember having to go up to the official responsible for the hall to complain about the smoking and demanding respect for our health and only getting an angry response that they sure couldn't start prohibiting the audience from smoking, what the heck did I think ?! I remember being one of fhe few jûdôka who didn't smoke. In today's culture that may sound strange and shocking now too, but it used to be the hard reality.

Sure, I have been shot down. If they say no, I get the hint that it's not going to happen and stop.

Anyway, I know the definition of rape. I am saying it's not okay. The tone of your post was, to me, that this sort of thing happens and it's not good but there's always been bad behaviour. Seems sort of dismissive to my eyes.

rjohnston411 wrote:Sure, I have been shot down. If they say no, I get the hint that it's not going to happen and stop.

Anyway, I know the definition of rape. I am saying it's not okay. The tone of your post was, to me, that this sort of thing happens and it's not good but there's always been bad behaviour. Seems sort of dismissive to my eyes.

I am sorry if I gave that impression. I did not mean to sound dismissive at all, but I prefer to place things in the proper context. The IJF is being hypocritical squared, and Japan is selling out. There are conceptual and institutionalized problems in judo, but also in our society as a whole. Just like they are not effectively addressed by things like "political correctness" or extreme reactions out of fear for litigation as we often seen in the US, they are not going to effectively addressed by press releases and executing someone who tried to kiss a woman who wasn't interested in him. Instead, education, respect for one's physical and mental borders and integrity, and acceptance of equality of people irrespective or gender, ethnicity, creed, religion would be a start. It is there where work is needed particularly because the sociological structure of judo is hierarchical just like it is in the military. Strongly hierarchical structures where there is little or no independent overview are prone to these kind of problems, and that is not specific to Japan at all.

I agree completely, CK. It's just that I would expect better of Japan, who harp on about'the spirit of true Judo'.