Quote Originally Posted by kokusu
Consider, for example, that Japan was culturally very open regarding homosexuality until the middle of the Meiji period. During this time, Japan sought to emulate Western countries in a hope to become modernized, part of which was to adopt Western views regarding medicine, psychology, and sexuality. Thus, Japan developed a . . . 'homophobia', if you will, from the influences of Western thought. (If someone really would like citations for this information, PM me and I will find them ).
I believe this is correct. Unfortunately, Japan has kept the same "western" views about psychology as 100 years ago.

As for homosexuality I would say that this is a mostly a Judeo-Christiano-Islamic taboo, not a "Western" one. Ancient Greeks and Romans had no taboo about it. Many great leaders (Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar...) were homo- or bisexuals. The recent acceptation of gayness has happened mostly in places where Christianity has become much weaker. In the US (the most Christian Western nation), we are not near to see a legalisation of gay marriage.

The Japnese also kept their approach to sex to levels unseen since the 1970's in Western countries. It's like AIDS had never existed for most present-day Japanese. However, I don't think it's a Western influence. The Japanese were already very "promiscuous" before the Westernisation. Thanks to fake beliefs that all Westerners are promiscuous (which couldn't be falser if "West" is associated with Christianity), they justified their own traditional attitude.

Moving on, I would say that perhaps the most influential Western influence upon/import to Japan in the 20th century is Japan's very own consitution. Think about it: the Emperor loses his divinity, women gain the right to vote, Article 9 turns Japan into a pacifist state, democracy is institutionalized, and so on.
Here I completely disagree. The constitution was imposed by the US, but it is not at all representative of "Western" systems. In fact, the divine status of monarchs is very European. Muslim or Hindu leaders didn't claim to get their power directly from god, or to be near gods. Roman emperors thought of themselves as gods in a very similar way to Japanese emperors, but centuries before Japan even had a state or a writing system. Medieval European monarchs were crowned by the Pope in the name of god. Even Napoleon, during the atheistic years of the French Revolution, got his imperial crown from the Pope (well, he took it from him as the Pope hesitated, but the intention was there). The Japanese only institutionalised that system frmom Meiji, copying the West. Parliamentary monarchy was copied on the British system in the late 1800's. It's not the Americans who introduced it in 1945.

Women's voting rights were a Western influence, but some Western countries only got it years after Japan (e.g. Switzerland in 1971, Portugal in 1976 and Liechtenstein as late as 1984). However, women still suffer more discrimination in Japan than in almost any Western country. Only 7% of Japanese MP's are women, as opposed to 15% in the USA, 20% in China or Canada, and between 27 and 45% in Europe.

As for democracy, Japan introduced a parliament with democratically elected members in the lower house since 1875 and had its first Prime Minister in 1885. The system was so well copied on the British one that Japan also had a House of Lords, and the government created nobility titles copied on the British ones : Koushaku (Duke), Koushaku (Marquess), Hakushaku (Earl), Shishaku (Viscount), Danshaku (Baron) and Naitoshaku (Knight). These titles did not exist before Meiji and differ from teh traditional Japanese nobility or samurai class. This system was abolished by the US. So the Japanese system became more similar to the American one, and less similar to the British one. So the 1945 constitution was not "Westernisation"; it was purely "Americanisation".

Finally, regarding Article 9 and Japan's pacifism, this can certainly not be regarded as Westernisation. No other country has such a clause - not even Germany. So it was imposed by the US so that Japan would be more easily controllable politically and militarily, but that is just a special case that has never been applied to a Western country. You could call it discrimination (although it does have clear economic advantages).

What did you have in mind in the "and so on" part ?