Ukraine-born Miss Japan winner relinquishes crown following affair
bbc.com
The Ukraine-born winner of the Miss Japan beauty pageant has given up her crown after a tabloid report revealed her affair with a married man.
Karolina Shiino, 26, was crowned Miss Japan two weeks ago but her win sparked public debate due to her heritage.
While some welcomed the naturalised citizen's crowning, others said she didn't represent traditional Japanese beauty ideals.
Amid the furore, a local magazine published an expose alleging an affair.
The article in the Shukan Bunshun reported that Ms Shiino had engaged in a relationship with a married influencer and doctor. The man has not provided any public comment.
You are viewing a single comment
I don’t really get any an affair would matter after the fact for what is essentially a popularity contest, but… sure I guess?
Participants can‘t even be married so it‘s probably quite big of a deal to them. And that might be shocking to some, but in many aspects the oh so praised Japanese culture is really lacking behind the west in many aspects.
Who is praising Japanese culture? Off to the reeducation camps with them!
Because the miss thing is supposed to represent the epitome of Japanese women on the international stage and having an affair is bad PR.
She wasn’t the one having the affair. He was.
But of course it falls upon women to ensure a husband’s fidelity, because we men are all slobbering troglodytes without a will of our own, only an incessant craving for cunt. Or something.
I thought some of my slobber was addling my brain - you had me check Wikipedia:
Perhaps you use a more limited definition. Anybody else agree with VZQ? (Only talking semantics.)
The way I use the word, the entire relationship is the affair, but only the cheater is having an affair.
YMMV of course.
I bet you use “the cheatin’ spoon” distinction too. /s
The person who committed to a monogamous relationship is at fault - not the unattached person. When you enter into a monogamous relationship you agree to a contract with your partner even though you know you'll, at times, be tempted to violate it. Cheaters are fucking assholes but "home wreckers" aren't seducing their partner to do anything they wouldn't do anyway. Don't be a jerk and purposefully try to pursue someone in a monogamous relationship... but if it happens it's the person violating their relationship rules that should carry the vast majority of the blame.
Just as a historical aside "the other woman" was often considered at fault because... you guessed it misogyny! The husband couldn't be at fault it was a temptress that lured him to do wrong. We're moving beyond this impression as a society but you'll still see it occasionally.
And, if you think monogamy won't work for you then be up front about wanting an open relationship... this isn't the 1800s, it's perfectly acceptable to have a non-monogamous relationship... just respect your fucking partner(s).
Not too bad to extend that to “respect people” eh? Fellow sufferers of the human condition.
We’re all adults, we all know hurt - I’d feel guilty if I were involved with a cheater, and I think that’s a good thing for humanity.
Glad we’re leaving that temptress narrative behind for sure.
Oh, definitely, respect everyone... but if you enter into a monogamous relationship then especially respect your partner. And the unattached person should feel guilty if they knowingly let themselves be used to violate a relationship... but they remain the less guilty party.
We should move away from it but we should be aware that it's ingrained in our genetics and emotional responses. A man sleeping with married women is a reproductive strategy that paid of many times - reproduction without material cost. A women in a materially stable marriage that is sleeping with a beautiful or strong man is improving her genetic lineage too. And the balance of power for sexual selection is somewhat wonky.
I'm not advocating any naturalist bullshit but we inherit some icky garbage from our evolution and evolved some social behaviors to deal with them (e.g. stoning adulterers). Some behavioral patterns and emotional responses won't go away easily and can't be easily negated using purely intellectual arguments.
My point is that it's at least ok to find Karolina Shiino less popular after knowing she had an affair. Especially for something as superficial and primitive as a beauty contest.
Yeah, that's a discussion you won't win.
I've tried everything from "she's not the one who promised loyalty" to the fact they were two consenting adults so mind your own business.
Blame the cheater, not the person who they cheated with, I fully agree - but I think lemmy and reddit have been cheated on a few too many times.
In Japan, you can be on the hook (sued) for knowingly engaging in a relationship with someone you know to be married. It's usually about breaking up the marriage, from what I understand. Sex of the people involved doesn't matter here.
Oh wow, you are right! They have civil liability for adultery. That’s wild.
An affair still involves two people (or more!) even if only one is married
Yes. What is your point?
She was in an affair
No, she got some dick.
The extra marital affair was him.
And?
You said she wasn’t, but she was.
I did not. I said she was not having an affair.
She was in an affair, but it’s was the dude having it.
Hmmmm… does it work like that?
Yeah I suppose so. Stupid English.
Politics are always ugly. We should get rid of them altogether.
This is a giant non sequitur.
We should get rid of that as well then.
We should also get rid of this guy - they want to get rid of a lot of shit and that's disruptive.
Yes, get rid of everything. For peace of mind.
Reject universe, go back to pre-bang non-existence.
Ah, if it weren't but a dream...
technically she's not Japanese
It says naturalized, so what else would you call her?
Non-ethinic japense citizen
So, Japanese?
The fact we are talking about it now, means the context is important to many Japanese people to make a distinction between ethnically japanese and japanese citizen.
Well in this case there is no distinction, she is Japanese and ethnically she is eastern European/Ukrainian. So... Japanese? It's cool that you like the distinction, but I responded to someone who said she is technically not japanese, which is technically incorrect. She is, just not ethnically.
We are in a busy restaurant and I ask you to drop water off to the japanese guest.
This might prove difficult in this instance because of the context around the word japanese. I would need to take time to explain the Japanese guest does not look ethnically japanese.
For ethnocentric cultures, which Japan (the people) very much is，they would want the context when talking about a Japanese citizen, who is not ethnicity Japanese, like in this article.
If japan opens up immigration and more non-ethnic japanese become citizens then it would be less and less important to make the distinction. But that depends on the frequency in the future
I agree that leaving out the destinction might cause you to need extra time to explain. This is a consequence of having multiple cultural and ethical backgrounds in your society. Or not, because why does the appearance of skin or face matter, who cares? You could call them dark skin or Caucasian japanese, but that is just a type of Japanese person, a dark skinned, or south American or middle European Japanese person is till just that, japanese. Which is what I said in the first place
Ethnocentricity should be about culture, but you applied it to race. Even while immigration services and the state agree: this person is naturalized and thus their nationality is now fully Japanese, you still feel the need to distinguish.
That's what I like about living here
So I'm a non-ethnic Canadian citizen?
For a mostly mono-ethnic country people make assumptions from one name to another. We get these in places where the ethnicity and country share the same name.
Contextually nobody is writing articles about non-etnic Canadians being surprisingly special for being non-ethnic.
You must be the kind of guy who insists on calling a black US citizen an "African-American" just to make sure they understand their position as not being true US citizens no matter their citizenship status or the number of years their family has been living in the country.
Interesting staw man argument. But no, American is a term which people associate with many ethnicities, it is not necessary to specify a ethnicity when using American in context.
I think the argument here is just about using vocabulary based around the status quo vs the ideal future. I think both are equally correct but I feel that moving towards that ideal future is also important. Otherwise, we won't make much progress.
Technically, it's the culture that's being represented.