Ban or Legalize? What Japan Can Learn From Global Approaches to Prostitution

Calls to criminalize the buying of sex are growing louder. In November 2025, it was discovered that a 12-year-old Thai girl had been forced to provide sexual services at a private massage parlor in Yushima, Tokyo. The case revealed that she had serviced around 60 clients in the span of about a month, drawing not only criticism toward the parlor’s management but also intense condemnation of the customers. In the wake of the incident, politicians and women’s support groups in Japan began arguing that not only the seller but also the buyer should be punished.

In November of the same year, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, during a House of Representatives Budget Committee session, instructed Justice Minister Hiroshi Hiraguchi to consider regulating the buying of sex, noting that the current Anti-Prostitution Law contains no provision punishing the buyer. The Ministry of Justice is expected to establish a study panel including experts as early as March to begin discussions on revising the law.

But should buying sex really be something that is punished? To examine this question, we will look at examples of how other countries regulate the sex industry. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, this article will refer to the party buying sex as men and the party selling sex as women.

The light and shadow of the “Nordic model”

Today, two major schools of thought are in conflict worldwide regarding prostitution and the sex industry.

One is abolitionism. This view holds that this is sexual violence (sexual exploitation); demand must be eradicated and the system itself abolished. It is the anti–sex industry position.

The other is the sex-work perspective. This view holds that “this is work (an occupation); protect workers’ rights, remove criminal penalties, and improve working conditions.” It is the pro–sex industry labor perspective.

Abolitionists support the “Nordic model,” under which the buyer is punished while the seller is not. Sweden became the first country in the world to criminalize the purchase of sex in 1999. Since then, the number of countries adopting the model has increased: Norway in 2009, Canada in 2014, France in 2016, the Republic of Ireland in 2017, Israel in 2019, and others.

In Sweden, street prostitution was halved over ten years, and overall prostitution is said to be lower than in neighboring countries. Reported achievements include a reduction in street solicitation and a positive moral effect on the public—namely, the spread of the social norm that buying sex is wrong.

However, there is also strong criticism calling the law a failure. In Sweden and Canada, the following problems have been pointed out after its enforcement:

“Because men fear arrest, women are forced to operate out of public view, more often going to locations chosen by clients and being pushed into dangerous environments.”

“Since landlords and hotel operators can be charged with facilitating prostitution, women are evicted from housing and lose safe places to work.”

“In Nordic countries, the majority of those engaged in the sex industry are foreign women (immigrants without permanent residency). They fear the police because they risk deportation and are effectively excluded from social security and public healthcare, making it impossible to quit prostitution.”

“By fixing women in the role of victims, the law reinforces social stigma, expanding discrimination and exclusion.”

In France, after the law punishing buyers took effect, the number of women standing on the streets decreased, but more began waiting for clients in dark forests out of public sight. With fewer customers, many have been forced into severe poverty.

The Nordic model is therefore also said to have driven the industry underground and increased danger.

South Korea punishes not only the buyer but also the seller. When the 2004 “Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic” was enforced, red-light districts were simultaneously cracked down on. As a result, prostitution moved underground through the use of chat apps. Women began going abroad to places such as Japan and the United States for work, and men also started traveling overseas for such services. In other words, it merely became less visible; prostitution itself did not decrease.

The failure of legalized Germany

Meanwhile, even in Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany, where the buying and selling of sex is recognized as legitimate work and legalized, major problems have arisen. Legalization has created a two-tier structure in which only a portion of women recognized as formal workers can work legally, while many others are left behind and remain criminalized.

In Germany, operators and women must register with the authorities, and if they refuse to do so because they do not want those around them to know, they can no longer continue working. In addition to these privacy concerns, issues such as their status as undocumented migrants and the costs of complying with regulations mean that many cannot follow the legalization model.

As a result, illegal establishments operating without permits have increased. Women are exposed to police surveillance and the threat of crackdowns, pushing them into unstable environments where exploitation and violence are more likely to occur.

In Germany, the 2002 legalization led to an increase in sex businesses. Excessive competition drove down wages, and establishments with poor labor standards emerged—in other words, the same thing that happened in Japan’s delivery-health industry. Advertisements for prostitution also came to fill the streets, and buses and taxis began running with ads for major sex businesses.

In 2009, a flat-rate prostitution chain called “Pussy Club” appeared—an establishment where you can have unlimited sex acts for a fixed price. About 1,700 men reportedly lined up on the first day. Prices started at €70 (about ¥13,000 at the current rate), and customers could use the service for as long as possible. Services also emerged in which one woman would attend to multiple customers at the same time. These were extremely harsh for the women. Many collapsed from exhaustion and pain, and this became a problem, leading the German parliament to ban such practices by law in 2016.

In the end, it is said that the ones who benefited were the sex business operators and the men, while women’s safety and dignity were not secured. Legalizing prostitution, in effect, meant legalizing the business activities of the sex industry. Germany has been called the brothel of Europe.

The third solution: decriminalization

In the end, under current conditions, neither abolition nor “legalization” has become a decisive solution. What is therefore being recommended by the international human-rights organization Amnesty International, which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977, is the decriminalization model, in which prostitution itself is not treated as a crime.

Unlike the legalization model, which permits the sex industry only within the framework of laws specifically focused on prostitution, this approach does not criminalize the buying and selling of sex itself. The freedom to work of sex workers is guaranteed, and sex work is regulated by general laws such as labor standards legislation in the same way as other service industries. Many labor-oriented supporters of sex-work theory view the legalization model as a failure and recommend this decriminalization model as a superior success.

This model has been adopted in New Zealand, the Australian state of New South Wales, and Belgium. While some argue that it has created a highly transparent sex industry and produced positive results in terms of women’s health, human rights, and safety, there are also strong claims that in reality it is not much different from the legalization model. It has also been pointed out that the problem of the sexual exploitation of socially vulnerable people would not be resolved. Its guiding philosophy may be ideal, but it is unlikely to be a cure-all that solves every problem.

Should Japan criminalize the purchase of sex?

Considering overseas examples, the author’s answer to whether the purchase of sex should be criminalized is no. This is because, as seen in countries that have adopted the Nordic model, it would push women into even more dangerous situations and further into poverty. Like during the COVID-19 pandemic, a system that reduces the number of good clients is thought not to make sex workers happy.

That said, this does not mean that legalization or decriminalization should be pursued. In present-day Japan, where regulation of the sex industry is being strengthened, both would be difficult to realize.

From this perspective, the current in-between system—illegal under the Anti-Prostitution Law yet legal under the Entertainment Businesses Law—appears to be the most suitable.

By prohibiting prostitution under the Anti-Prostitution Law, authorities can keep a watchful eye on operators, prevent the emergence of excessive services like those seen in Germany, and curb the increase of illegal establishments and street prostitution. At the same time, regulating the industry under the Entertainment Businesses Law restrains its unchecked spread while meeting demand and generating tax revenue. In this way, it combines the advantages of both illegality and legality.

This legal structure was built over the long postwar period, and this ambiguous form of tacit acceptance plus management and control seems to suit Japan’s culture and national character.

The Nordic model makes the industry too invisible, while the legalization and decriminalization models make it too visible. The Japanese model, which is half visible and half invisible and incorporates elements of both, can be considered superior.

However, this does not mean the current system has no problems. Social issues such as the Thai teenage girl case mentioned at the beginning, anonymous criminal groups, and exploitative host clubs have occurred, and efforts to address human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and human-rights violations remain essential.

Basically, a realistic response would be to maintain the current legal framework while making timely legal revisions, as has been done up to now, to resolve social problems. Needless to say, steadily improving the social structures that produce these problems is even more important than legal reform itself.