Why Visual Kei Musicians Need More Accountability: Yoshiatsu (Fukuro/DRUGS) / Kou (DAMNED)
Disclaimer: This is not a drama blog. This is not a gossip blog. This is a place where nothing sent to me is posted/shared. But this IS a safe place where people can offload/talk ([email protected]).
I’m a former visual kei listener (since 2008) and fan from the UK. Recently our government announced their plans for under 16s to be banned from accessing social media. I know you may be wondering what that has to do with the recent events on visual kei twitter specifically, however I think that it is a great place to start when opening a discourse about young, vulnerable people having access to content and to people that may harm them.
I’d like to start with a brief overview of my personal experience:
As a teenager (from the ages of 16 to 19) I was frequently approached by older men online, some of whom I dismissed as ‘creeps’, and some of whom I engaged with. Naively, my decision of whether or not to respond to them was usually determined by their looks, their platform, or profession. Of course as a young naive teenager I would also reach out to bandmen in the hopes of capturing their attention. If a response came from a bandman, I would respond; feeling ‘safer’ in correspondence with them than I would with any other man of their age, and I’d wish to continue said correspondence. When we view it this way, I would respond very differently to a DM from a 38-year-old Japanese bandman than I would to a 38-year-old builder from Brixton.
However, both variations of men had the same intentions.
Over the past few months we have seen an uprising from visual kei fans on the internet, intent on having their stories heard regarding the behaviour of bandmen.
The allegations vary in severity, from inappropriate comments, to touching fans inappropriately at lives, to as far as grooming and corresponding inappropriately with minors. This uprising comes in the wake of international outcry by women for more emphasis placed on holding men accountable and prioritising believing alleged victims of harassment, sexual abuse and grooming. It also follows several years of the term ‘cancel culture’ at the forefront of social media and prevalent in the news. This has begged the question of whether or not the recent events in the world of visual kei are happening to bring justice to victims, or are being assembled simply to cancel and destroy the images of certain artists by visual kei fans with ulterior motives.
On July 6th 2026, announcements were made that Yoshiatsu (core member of Fukuro, DRUGS and former member of DADAROMA) would be suspending all of his ongoing projects indefinitely following allegations of inappropriate relations with fans. The news came following a string of screenshots provided by the friend of a ‘victim’, who claimed that her friend had been young and impressionable at the time of her relationship with Yoshiatsu. After coming forward, the woman confirmed that their relationship had been consensual, albeit between 38-year-old Yoshiatsu, and her 18-year-old self (at the time). In addition, other none-proven claims of inappropriate touching at overseas performances and other claims of harassment by Yoshiatsu circulated.
Within his personal statement, Yoshiatsu wrote:
“While I recognize that part of the claims circulating online are based on real facts, many are inaccurate, misleading, or entirely false. However, it is also true that I failed to exercise sufficient care regarding the appropriate boundaries and manner of interaction with fans. I take seriously the fact that this contributed to a situation that gave rise to considerable speculation and suspicion.
Over the years, Looking back, I have at times engaged in private comunications with certain fans.
I recognize that there were occasions where I failed to maintain the
appropriate boundaries expected of me as an artist.” (The full statement can be found here)
In my opinion, Yoshiatsu's statement does not fit neatly into the categories of either complete denial or full admission. Instead, it occupies an uncomfortable middle ground while failing to take proper accountability. While rejecting many of the claims circulating online as "inaccurate, misleading, or entirely false," he simultaneously acknowledges that he communicated privately with fans and failed to maintain "the appropriate boundaries expected" of an artist. Regardless of how someone may interpret the allegations themselves, this admission raises an important question: where should the line be drawn between what is legal and what is ethical?
In recent years, conversations surrounding abuse of power have increasingly focused not only on whether a crime has been committed, but also on the responsibilities that accompany positions of influence. A relationship between a musician and an adult fan may be entirely consensual in a legal sense. However, legality does not automatically resolve ethical concerns. Public figures hold positions of influence, and unfortunately younger fans tend to approach them with admiration, trust, and emotional investment. These dynamics can create an imbalance of power that we must consider more carefully.
The visual kei scene presents a unique environment in which these boundaries can become blurred. Unlike most mainstream and Western artists, visual kei musicians may often form relationships with fans that may lean into or encourage ‘parasocial’ territory due to their nature. They allow fans a unique closeness to them that is rarely observed in the West (meet-and-greets, two-shots, cheki, letters). These interactions form part of the genre's appeal, building a sense of intimacy between artists and supporters. Yet the same accessibility that strengthens fan communities can also complicate the distinction between a professional relationship and a personal one.
I believe that as a community is is incredibly important to educate the younger fans of such boundaries, and to strongly discourage blurring the line between ‘admired artist’ and ‘friend’, which may encourage a spiralling effect risking manipulation, abuse, or mental health issues. The discussion should therefore extend beyond one individual.
For visual kei, this conversation may be long overdue. The genre has historically operated within a culture where men dominate the stages, and women are objectively their customers and target audience. In addition platforms such as X/Twitter and Tanuki make way for rumours, private encounters, and relationships between musicians and fans that have often been dismissed as an accepted part of the scene. Yet changing social attitudes have challenged the assumption that longstanding practices should continue unquestioned. Fans are increasingly asking whether traditions that once seemed normal should remain acceptable simply because they have always existed. The answer is no. Absolutely not.
Holding artists accountable does not require abandoning fairness or due process. Allegations should be scrutinised carefully, evidence should be examined critically, and individuals should not be condemned solely on the basis of online speculation. At the same time, accountability also means recognising when behaviour falls short of the professional standards expected of someone in a position of influence (even if that behaviour is not criminal). It is within this distinction between legality and ethics that the future of the visual kei community may ultimately be decided.
Which brings me onto my next gripe, and the next topic of this discussion: Kou of DAMNED, a musician that I have been highly and very publicly critical of for over a year now.
If the visual kei community is genuinely committed to accountability, then that accountability cannot begin and end with one individual. It must be applied consistently, regardless of a musician's popularity, current activity, or personal relationships within the scene. Otherwise, accountability simply becomes selective outrage.
One of the biggest problems with discourse in visual kei spaces is that genuine concerns are often buried beneath an avalanche of anonymous rumours. Websites such as Tanuki and posts across X have, for years, circulated claims that are impossible to verify. Some may be true, many may not be, but without evidence they should not be treated as fact. It is neither fair nor responsible to condemn someone based solely on hearsay.
The situation surrounding Kou, however, is different because there is material that can actually be examined in the same way as the screenshots of conversations between Yoshiatsu and fans.
Screenshots that have recently circulated publicly appear to show Kou, a man in his mid-30s, engaging in private conversations with an 18-year-old fan (who, for those who know the lore will understand is no saint but nevertheless) and regardless of whether her age was disputed or not, Kou was clearly under the impression that she was 18, and was still happy to converse in the same manner with that understanding in mind.
Within the messages, he allegedly tells her that she is "very mature for her age," makes comments about her breasts, and engages in a style of conversation that many would consider ethically inappropriate between an established musician and a young admirer (consensual or not). He can also be seen asking for/accepting money.
Whether every screenshot is authentic should always be approached with appropriate caution. However, if they are accepted as genuine, then they raise many of the same ethical questions discussed in relation to Yoshiatsu. Once again, the issue is not simply whether a criminal offence has occurred. The issue is whether an artist in a position of influence has respected the professional boundaries that should exist between themselves and their fans.
This is where being consistent with these bandmen matters.
If Yoshiatsu's admitted failure to maintain appropriate boundaries was serious enough to result in the suspension of his projects and widespread calls for accountability, then similar evidence involving another musician deserves to be examined through the same ethical lens. To dismiss one case while amplifying another, without a principled distinction between them, risks reducing accountability to popularity contests and online narratives rather than consistent standards.
Accountability cannot depend on who the artist is. It must depend on what the evidence demonstrates, and as fans of visual kei we deserve to enjoy an environment where we feel safe, where younger fans can feel protected/guided by older fans, and ideally even comfortable coming forward when they feel that they have been mistreated by someone they idolise. “But she was 18” is no longer an excuse.