Can a monk do normal Unarmed Strike dmg?

[Gruftzwerg]

Can a monk choose to not use his improved unarmed strike damage? At first glance it seems to me that monks can't control their power ^^

The reason because I ask is related to naruto franchise adaptation.

As in 3.5, in naruto there are Mind-Affecting/Genjutsu spells (e.g. Endless Slumber) that can be broken by damage if a person fall prey it (fails his save roll).

A normal person would just do some minimal nonlethal damage with his unarmed strike. What about characters with the monk's unarmed strike ability? Can they choose to do normal unarmed strike damage?

RAI and from a DM perspective I would say yes, but RAW I'm not really sure.

Or is there any other rule to only do a single damage point to a creature that I am missing maybe? (torture maybe?^^)

edit:
For those who are curious:Itachi Uchiha

[Laughing Dog]

From the SRD:

Improved Unarmed Strike [General]
Benefit
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

Normal
Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

Special
A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.

A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Bolded for emphasis.

[Vaern]

The monk can deal nonlethal damage with no issue.
As for dealing less (standard 1d4) damage with an unarmed strike, I don't think you can do it according to RAW. There is no indication that you can deal more damage with your unarmed attacks, only that you do deal more damage. A monk's unarmed strike isn't listed as (ex), (su), or (sp); it's not an ability that they can activate or suppress at will. It's just an inherent quality that they have. It doesn't seem like they can choose to deal less damage with it any more than a fighter could choose to roll 2d4 instead of 2d6 with a greatsword.
This becomes much more hilarious when you grapple a monk. By RAW, the weapons table considers unarmed strikes to be a light weapon which the grapple rules then allow you to turn against the monk. You can put the monk into a "Stop hitting yourself!" type of situation where he is dealing full unarmed damage to himself as he is unable to reduce or suppress his increased unarmed strike damage.
Common sense would disagree, but RAW rarely cares what common sense thinks.

[Darg]

This becomes much more hilarious when you grapple a monk. By RAW, the weapons table considers unarmed strikes to be a light weapon which the grapple rules then allow you to turn against the monk. You can put the monk into a "Stop hitting yourself!" type of situation where he is dealing full unarmed damage to himself as he is unable to reduce or suppress his increased unarmed strike damage.
Common sense would disagree, but RAW rarely cares what common sense thinks.

The grapple rules mention that they have to be holding the weapon (and it has to be light, so no weapon supremacy weapons either if they aren't light). An unarmed strike isn't a held weapon. Neither is a spiked gauntlet or armor spike.