Language is important. It shapes the way we view and act in the world. That’s why a recent news item caught my attention when media outlets reported on a case of sexual assault in wildly different ways.
Around 10:30pm on June 9, a 64-year-old elementary school custodian ate and drank with an acquaintance in her 20s at a restaurant in Hamada, Shimane Prefecture. After dinner, he drove her to a michi-no-eki roadside station. While they were talking in his car, he kissed her without her consent.
Afterward, the woman’s health suffered, and she told the school what happened. (It’s unclear if she worked at the school.) When confronted, the man lamely replied, “I thought she was cute. I regret doing it.”
The board of education suspended him for one month, saying his actions “were completely inappropriate and undermined public trust.” He resigned the same day. He has not been charged in the incident.
This is, sadly, not an uncommon story in Japan or elsewhere around the world. What drew people’s attention was the language used to describe it. Four separate newspaper accounts all agreed on the facts.
Where they disagreed was the language used. The difference in vocabulary and headlines reveals how the media in Japan helps soft-pedal sexual assault…that is, when it chooses to cover it at all.
Only one paper centered the sexual violence
There’s no mincing words here: this was sexual assault. The custodian kissed her without her consent. In such a case, the official term for reporting the incident would be わいせつな行為 (waisetsu na kōi), “obscenity/indecency.” The official crime being committed is 不同意わいせつ罪 (fudōi waisetsu zai), nonconsensual obscenity.
Only one paper, however, fronted this in its headline.
