Once again, there’s a lot of nuance that’s lost in the attempt to be succinct.
As you can probably guess from its name, the Japanese government’s Gender Equality Bureau isn’t a fan of imbalance in interpersonal relationships. What is surprising to many people, though, is the bureau’s assertion that “not paying for any dating expenses” is committing an act of domestic violence.
On its website, the bureau lists four categories of “dating domestic violence.” Examples of “physical violence” are pretty obvious – striking, pulling hair, throwing objects, that sort of thing. “Sexual violence,” the bureau says, includes coerced sex, refusal to use contraception, and nonconsensual naked photography or video recording. “Psychological violence” is described as making insulting or disrespectful remarks, forbidding a romantic partner from seeing their friends, or monitoring their email communications.
It’s bureau discussion of “economic violence,” though, that’s been raising some eyebrows online in Japan this week. While one could argue that this is using the word “violence” in its broadest possible sense, most of the examples are things that would be considered wrong under basic common sense/decency, such as not paying back money borrowed from a romantic partner, taking money from their bank account without permission, and forbidding them to work outside the home or forcing them to quit their job. But then there’s this example of economic violence:
“Not paying for any dating expenses.”
Japan may not have a reputation for being the most chivalrous society, and going Dutch, or warikan, as it’s called in Japanese, is more common in casual dating here than it is in some other countries. That said, it’s not at all unusual for guys to pay for everything on a date with a girl, and the government of Japan saying that this is a form of domestic violence has been provoking a lot of responses online to a recent Twitter post pointing out the bureau’s stance.
“Yeah, it’s practically theft, so it’s obviously a form of domestic abuse.”
“Wait, I’ve never made a girl pay on a date, so does that mean that I’ve been subjected to economic violence in the eyes of the government?”
“There are a lot of guys who are the victim of this kind of domestic abuse.”
“Does this make guys who habitually treat the girl on dates masochists for actively encouraging dating domestic violence?”
“Let’s all make sure to properly split the bill, because the government has said that anything other than that is considered economic violence, OK?”
“That’ll show all those gold-digger girls who hang out in Tokyo’s Minato Ward.”
“This is wonderful for men. I think all us guys are thinking ‘Hey, can’t you pitch in a little?’ but we can’t say it to the girl because we’re trying to look cool.”
“Coerced treating is a crime.”
“I think they mean it’s wrong for both guys and girls to refuse to pay for dating expenses.”
There’s probably at least a little wry humor behind some of those comments, but the last two are the ones that really get to the heart of the matter. As clarified by a spokesperson for the Gender Equality Bureau when this example of economic violence also became a topic of online discussion a few years ago, the bureau recognizes that “Both men and women can be victims of this kind of violence” and that “If both sides are OK with [one person not paying], it’s not domestic violence.” It’s when one person attempts to force their partner to shoulder all of the dating costs against their will that it crosses the line into unacceptable behavior, or when someone demands to be reimbursed for past dating expenses that, at the time, they offered to pay for.
▼ Just like going to a butcher shop on a date is fine if that’s what both you and your sweetheart are into, so too is it OK if you’re in agreement that you’ll be treating her to a half-kilo of ground beef.
In other words, the bureau’s guidelines are more about discouraging someone from unilaterally declaring “We’re going out, and you’re going to pay for me” or becoming verbally abusive if asked to chip in, not shaming someone for consistently accepting offers to be treated. But while we’re on the subject of “other words,” as mentioned above, this is not the first time the vague language used on the bureau’s website regarding who pays on a date has caused confusion, and the list of examples being followed by the declaration that “All of these are violence” leaves the door open to misinterpretation that context and a couple’s specific circumstances are irrelevant. The statement has remained on the site in its current form since 2018, so maybe it’s time for an update that puts a finer point on things.
Source: Gender Equality Bureau, Hachima Kiko, Twitter/@anzuchanw
Top image: Pakutaso
Insert image: Pakutaso
● Want to hear about SoraNews24’s latest articles as soon as they’re published? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!