In papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan), I assume dates and meals themselves aren’t illegal. But in what situations would the woman be breaking the law if the relationship became an adult relationship (intimate)?

I thought “sexual dating” was a pretty good term—a combination of “sex” and “dating.” When you say “proof of a monetary exchange,” you mean proof of prostitution, right? Prostitution itself is illegal, but since there are no penalties for it, it’s supposedly okay. “Approaching men and propositioning them, like street prostitutes do” falls under Article 5(1) of the Anti-Prostitution Act: “soliciting a person to become a customer for prostitution in a manner visible to the public.” So that’s not allowed. Prostitution itself carries no penalties, but the idea is that you shouldn’t do it openly—you’re expected to keep it hidden. The Anti-Prostitution Act isn’t very long, so it’s worth reading through once: https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/331AC0000000118 > So if you receive an allowance and have an adult relationship, that’s always illegal, right? No, no. The law refers to “sexual intercourse with an unspecified partner,” so it’s legal if the other person is specifically identified. That’s why you can simply introduce yourselves first: Man: “My name is ___ from ___ Co. Nice to meet you.” Woman: “I’m ___ from the ___ Department at ___ University. It’s nice to meet you.” Then you can move on to negotiating the allowance. In that case, it isn’t prostitution. Rather than getting into the childish argument that “prostitution is evil because it’s illegal even without penalties,” I think the biggest practical risk is the married-person risk: ＝＝＝＝＝ The Civil Code does not contain an explicit provision directly stating that spouses have a duty of fidelity—the duty not to have sexual relationships with anyone other than their spouse. However, because Article 770(1)(i) of the Civil Code lists infidelity by a spouse as grounds for divorce in court, this duty is recognized as a legal obligation. Infidelity may also be grounds for a claim for damages based on the tort provisions of Article 709. ＝＝＝＝＝ To avoid the risks associated with married people, I recommend leaving a record in your early LINE conversations such as: “Just to be sure, you’re not married, are you?” “No, I’m not married!” In reality, it’s okay even if you know they’re married. What matters is clearly leaving evidence that you believed they weren’t married. I think there was a question before along the lines of, “Do you take off your wedding ring?” Personally, I think refusing to take it off is extremely rude, because it means forcing the “married-person risk” onto the other person. In the same sense, I’m not sure what to make of someone telling their partner, “I’m married.” Don’t mistake them for a good person just because they’re being honest. The most sincere person would be someone who says, “I’m actually married, but for your sake, I’d like us to treat it as though I’m not.” But unless you explain it very carefully, they probably won’t understand or accept that. Additional note: As for why prostitution is illegal despite having no penalties, perhaps, as Fuu wrote, the intention is to punish the surrounding activities—but logically, that would be inconsistent unless prostitution itself were defined as illegal. Really, “buying and selling sex is illegal” would probably have created a better balance between men and women. I wonder whether the gender-discriminatory attitudes of the time also played a role. I looked into it a little. It was interesting, so I’m reposting what I found. ① Overview of countries where buying and selling sex are illegal Japan Law: Anti-Prostitution Act - Prostitution—sexual intercourse in exchange for compensation—is illegal. - In principle, prostitution itself carries no criminal penalty and is treated as a matter for protection and guidance. - However, arranging, soliciting, providing a place, managing, or engaging in prostitution as a business is punishable. - Example: arranging prostitution may carry “up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine.” ※ In Japan, the person selling sex is generally not punished, while businesses and other parties involved are punished. United States - Buying and selling sex are illegal in many states. - Both buyers and sellers may face anything from misdemeanors to felonies. - Fines range from several hundred to several thousand dollars. - Detention ranging from several days to several months. - Exception: licensed legal brothels exist in some counties in Nevada. Sweden The so-called “Nordic model” - Only buying sex is illegal. - Sellers are not punished. - Fines may be based on income. - Imprisonment of up to one year. - This model has influenced other countries as well. Norway - Like Sweden, only buying sex is illegal. - Imprisonment of up to six months to one year. France - Buying sex became illegal following a 2016 legal amendment. - First offense: a fine of up to €1,500. - Repeat offense: up to €3,750 plus mandatory educational courses. South Korea Law: Act on the Punishment of Prostitution - Both buying and selling sex are illegal. - Up to one year in prison or a fine. China - Buying and selling sex are illegal. - Detention for up to 15 days. - Fines. - More serious cases may result in criminal penalties. Saudi Arabia - Buying and selling sex are strictly illegal. - Flogging. - Long-term imprisonment. - Foreign nationals may be deported. Characteristics of Japanese legal thinking 1. Emphasis on maintaining public order and morality - Prostitution is viewed as conduct that disrupts social order and morality. - The focus is on public standards and social propriety rather than sexual self-determination. 2. The seller is generally not punished - Prostitution itself is illegal but carries no penalty. - Sellers are considered subjects for protection and rehabilitation. - This reflects the postwar view that women are generally in the position of victims. 3. Heavy penalties for businesses and intermediaries - The primary aim is to eliminate exploitative structures. - Organized management, solicitation, providing locations, and similar activities are punished. Japan could be described as a system that protects vulnerable people rather than punishing them, while still preserving moral order. The “Nordic model” in Sweden and elsewhere Core ideas - Buying and selling sex constitute violence against women and structural exploitation. - The commodification of sex is a result of gender inequality. Legal structure - Only the buyer is punished. - The seller is treated as a victim. - Support for reintegration into society is provided as part of the system. The Nordic model emphasizes gender equality and human rights. French thinking - An extension of efforts to combat human trafficking. - Based on the idea that “supply exists because there is demand.” - Buyers face fines and reeducation programs. The underlying idea is to “shrink the market.” South Korean thinking - Since the 2004 Act on the Punishment of Prostitution, - Strong, state-led crackdowns have been carried out. - Both sellers and buyers are punished. This is an across-the-board prohibition model that treats the conduct as illegal. ② Overview of countries where buying and selling sex are legal Germany Legal system - In 2002, a legal amendment recognized prostitution as legitimate work. - In 2017, regulations were tightened, including registration requirements and mandatory health consultations. Ideological background - Sex work is work. - Protection of workers and access to social insurance. - Transparency and regulation rather than driving the industry underground. This reflects a liberal philosophy that emphasizes self-determination and labor rights. The Netherlands Legal system - In 2000, the ban on brothels was abolished. - Businesses may operate under a licensing system. Ideological background - Pragmatism. - Regulation rather than prohibition. - Emphasis on public health and maintaining public safety. This is a model of practical governance rather than morality-based regulation. New Zealand Legal system - The Prostitution Reform Act was passed in 2003. - Prostitution was decriminalized. Ideological background - A human-rights-centered approach. - Ensuring the safety of sex workers. - The state should not intervene excessively. This model emphasizes preventing harm and respecting self-determination. Australia (varies by state) Examples: - New South Wales → largely decriminalized. - Victoria → has recently been moving toward a legalization model. Ideological background - Harm reduction. - Preventing the industry from going underground. Switzerland Legal system - Sex work between consenting adults is legal. - It is subject to registration and taxation. Ideological background - Respect for individual freedom. - The state does not impose morality.

> I understand that approaching men and soliciting them, like street-based sex workers do, is not allowed. I see. Because some women misunderstand the law that way, they end up standing around thinking that as long as they do not approach anyone, they are in the clear—that is, not breaking the law. In fact, “loitering for customers” with the intent to engage in prostitution is also illegal. In other words, even if you do not approach anyone and are merely standing there waiting for someone else to speak to you, you can still be arrested for violating the Anti-Prostitution Act. Of course, before the number of street-based women in Shinjuku increased, it seems that no one was arrested for this. But the fact that host clubs were exploiting women and even driving them into street-based prostitution appears to have made the authorities take the issue seriously. As a result, they may have started making arrests for conduct that previously would not have led to one. As for how they distinguish between someone who is simply standing there and someone waiting for customers, I think it may come down to the location. There could be people waiting to meet someone in the same area, so an undercover male officer might ask a woman something like, “How much?” If she answers “two” or “three,” for example, that can be taken as evidence that she is there for prostitution, and she may be arrested for soliciting customers. Apparently, the fine is up to ¥20,000, so you might expect her to be released quickly. However, it seems they deliberately keep her in detention for the full maximum of 23 days before issuing the fine, in order to make her reflect on her actions. I imagine it is an extremely difficult situation for the women who are arrested. Of course, if you hire a good lawyer, you probably would not be detained for that long. But ordinarily, someone in financial difficulty may not be able to afford a lawyer—or may feel that hiring one is not worth the expense. > In what circumstances would the woman be breaking the law if she had an adult relationship—in other words, sexual relations? Exchanging money itself does not automatically constitute prostitution. Couples give each other presents, after all, and even if the gift is cash, that alone would not make it prostitution. So where exactly does it become prostitution? Frankly, only the courts know. Even courts can reach different verdicts depending on the judge, so at the first-trial level, it seems to come down to the judge’s interpretation. My own view is that the key difference between a romantic relationship and something else may be whether the two people already know each other, or whether they met for the first time that day. If you have sexual relations with someone you have just met for the first time in exchange for compensation—such as money—I believe that would constitute prostitution. In that sense, relationship types C and D would be prostitution if the adult relationship involved compensation on the first day. B2 might be just on the borderline of not being prostitution. However, even with B1 or B2, if you have an adult relationship involving compensation on the day you first meet, that would be prostitution. With B1, since the two people have met several times first, it is more likely not to be considered prostitution. With A, you are basically trying to win over a woman who initially expects dinner only (no intimacy). So even if it eventually develops into an adult relationship involving compensation, it would be on the same level as a boyfriend giving his girlfriend a present. If that were considered prostitution, then unmarried men and women everywhere would technically be engaging in prostitution whenever they exchanged Christmas presents or other gifts, wouldn’t they? It seems very far removed from prostitution. So, if you ask why these relationship types exist in the first place, the only answer seems to be that there is demand for them. As a club, we have suggested writing in various places that, regardless of the relationship type, members should refrain from entering into an adult relationship from the first day. But apparently, that is not so easy. The way of thinking may be somewhat similar to how every election is technically ruled illegal because of excessive disparities in vote weight, yet the election results are not invalidated based on the circumstances.

I sometimes think about the risk of being sued for non-consensual sexual intercourse by a woman after having an adult relationship with her once and then fading out of contact. The government is moving toward penalizing the men on the paying side, right? I think that’s a good thing. I feel Universe Club should be fine as long as it maintains its long-standing position that it “doesn’t get involved in adult relationships,” but Patro might be in trouble. You can negotiate the terms of an adult relationship in advance there, after all.

I think the other respondents have already explained the current legal issues surrounding dating-club activities well enough, so I’ll add this as a side note. If I remember correctly, perhaps before the latest Lower House election, there was news that discussions were deepening under the Takaichi administration about revising the Prostitution Prevention Law, with the main points of the revision expected to be compiled by the end of this year. Following the election landslide, it seems likely that both the process and the substance will move forward even more quickly. For details, you could try asking Gemini something along the lines of “the revision of the Prostitution Prevention Law under the Takaichi administration,” but the main purpose of this revision appears to be criminalizing the purchase of sexual services. Until now, penalties have applied only to prostitution—the selling side. Under the new provisions concerning buyers, language is also expected to be added covering cases where the buyer takes advantage of the seller’s financial hardship. Another important issue is the tightening of regulations and penalties for online prostitution-related transactions. If this legal revision is implemented as currently outlined, I’m sure Uchu Club is already considering its impact on dating-club activities. However, those of us who use these services should also give the matter some serious thought. Given the current direction, I suspect the impact on dating-club activities may be limited. Perhaps the main response would be simply not to list financial hardship—such as being unable to make ends meet or repay student loans—as the reason for registering for a relationship on the woman’s side. The impact on Patro, however, seems likely to be considerable. In any case, one thing does seem certain: society is steadily becoming more difficult to live in.

As everyone has pointed out, Article 3 of the Anti-Prostitution Act contains no penal provisions. I’m no expert in law, but my understanding is that people can only be punished for something expressly set out in the statutes, so the absence of a penalty means that even if it involves an unspecified number of people, it isn’t punishable. In other words, prostitution is, in practice, not a crime in Japan. What’s more, Article 4 expressly states: “In applying this Act, care must be taken not to unjustly infringe upon the rights of citizens.” In other words, it specifically addresses the balance with rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as Articles 22 and 29. The Constitution’s provisions concerning acts that do not conflict with the public welfare must be taken into consideration, while things like operating a prostitution business are illegal and do carry penalties. For individuals, I think the questioner probably needs to be more concerned about other risks.

In general, I think it would be virtually impossible for this to be illegal. However, in your case, the possibility of it being illegal isn’t completely zero. There may also be a chance that it could be considered fraud. There’s nothing illegal about two consenting adults being intimate because they genuinely like each other, or about money changing hands. If you don’t have those kinds of intentions, though, that may not necessarily apply. Even without an intimate relationship, if it involves only meals or dates, it could still potentially be considered illegal or lead to an arrest depending on the circumstances—similar to a romance scam—even if you never actually meet in person.

As Mac also points out, the Anti-Prostitution Law has a distinctive feature: it does not impose penalties on the people directly involved in the exchange itself—the parties engaging in the intimate act. However, it does prescribe severe criminal penalties for related activities such as soliciting, brokering, or providing a place for it. Simply meeting a papa (a male supporter) by mutual agreement and entering into an adult relationship (intimate) does not, by itself, usually result in immediate arrest. However, soliciting customers on the street, acting as an intermediary, or involving someone who is underage can quickly expose people to the risk of serious criminal penalties.