A question for female members. Men, please refrain from answering.

Maezawa from the Corporate Planning Office here as well. I don’t understand why a question about the law would be limited to women. Could it be that you thought women wouldn’t understand it well and therefore could be deceived? > It falls under the definition of prostitution in the Anti-Prostitution Act. Article 2: “For the purposes of this Act, ‘prostitution’ means having sexual intercourse with an unspecified person in exchange for compensation or a promise of compensation.” Based on this wording, it does seem to fit the definition. However, as Papuwa-san points out, whether the other party is truly “unspecified” is open to debate. Also, Article 4 states: “When applying this Act, care must be taken not to unjustly infringe upon the rights of the people.” As for the criminal penalties set out from Article 5 onward, there are no criminal penalties imposed on the person who had intercourse with the unspecified party defined in Article 2. Why is that? I think it is reasonable to conclude that punishing the individual would constitute an unjust infringement of the rights of the people. In other words, legally speaking, even if someone has intercourse with an unspecified person, it could be viewed as merely exercising their rights as a member of the public, and therefore not something that needs to be punished. (It may also be difficult to determine whether the other party is actually “unspecified.”) If something is recognized as a right of the people, it seems unnecessary to ask questions in a way that could easily cause misunderstanding.

I’m Meg, a female member. This doesn’t fall under the definition of prostitution under Japan’s Anti-Prostitution Act, does it? Please take a close look at the answers from Papuwa and Mac.