“Should Men Who Buy Sex Be Punished!?” The “Future” of the “Anti-Prostitution Law,” 70 Years After Its Enactment: A Missing Perspective

How are governments around the world cracking down on the sex trade? This is the final installment of Akira Ikoma’s series, “The Global Sex Trade and the State,” which has introduced four different approaches. In this concluding part, he summarizes Japan’s “abolitionist” stance and discusses what the future should look like.

[Part 1] “Prostitutes Are Criminals, Not Victims”: The Paradox of “Prohibitionism,” Where the Sex Industry Thrives Amid Crackdowns

Japan’s “Abolitionist Model”

Similar to the “prohibitionist” model is the “abolitionist” model. This term originates from the anti-prostitution movement, which sought to abolish the system of licensed prostitution.While it shares with the prohibitionist model the view that “the sex trade is an act that infringes upon human rights and dignity” and aims to eradicate it, this model regards those who sell sex not as “perpetrators” but as “victims.”The “Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others,” adopted by the United Nations in 1949, is based on this concept.

Under abolitionism, the act of selling sex itself is not subject to punishment; instead, women who sell sex are often treated as subjects of protection and rehabilitation. Acts subject to punishment include “operating brothels,” “facilitating the sale of sex,” and “soliciting for the purpose of selling sex.”

For a long time, buyers (primarily men) fell into a “legal loophole,” and there was no concept of reducing the demand for prostitution. To address this issue, the Nordic Model—introduced in the first installment of this series—adopts the approach of “criminalizing only the buyer.” For this reason, the Nordic Model is also referred to as “new abolitionism.”

Since Japan’s “Prostitution Prevention Act” stipulates penalties for sex trade operators and protections for women who sell sex, Japan is generally classified as adhering to this abolitionist approach.However, what makes Japan unique is that sex trade operators—who are subject to punishment under the “Prostitution Prevention Act”—are in fact permitted under the “Amusement Business Act,” a system considered rare even on a global scale.

Unique Regulations Centered on the “Anti-Prostitution Law”

Regulations governing the sex trade in Japan are centered on the “Anti-Prostitution Law,” enacted in 1956. Based on a traditional abolitionist model, the law prohibits prostitution itself without imposing penalties. It punishes pimps and establishes a “Women’s Guidance System” to protect and rehabilitate women who sell sex.

However, the law prohibits “solicitation for prostitution,” and women who solicit clients in public are arrested and punished. On the other hand, male clients are not punished even if they solicit services, leading to criticism that “punishing only women is unfair.”

Since the law defined prostitution as “vaginal intercourse between members of the opposite sex only, ” establishments such as “health clubs” and “delivery health services”—which offer “acts similar to sexual intercourse”— were legalized under the “Amusement Business Act” by exploiting this loophole, leading to the growth of the sex industry.

Furthermore, soaplands are tolerated under the pretext of being “bathhouses with private rooms,” and the Shinchi districts scattered throughout Osaka are tolerated as “traditional Japanese restaurants.” While the law proclaims a “ban on the sale of sex, ” the reality is one of “tacit approval,” creating a fundamental contradiction.

This ambiguous “ Japanese Model”—a mix of “half illegal, half legal, plus tacit approval” —is a unique legal system. It has long been operated under the principle of “prohibiting but not punishing,”where “the Prostitution Prevention Act prohibits it in theory, but the Entertainment Business Act tacitly allows it in practice.” Thus, nearly 70 years have passed since the “Anti-Prostitution Law” was enacted, yet neither its stated objectives—the “eradication of the sex trade” nor the “protection of women’s human rights”—have been fully achieved. In light of this situation, calls are growing for a review of the law.

The Fact That They Cannot Be Simply Labeled as “Victims”

Is the sex trade and the provision of sexual services “sexual violence” or “labor”? The author believes it “contains elements of both.” This is because human sexual emotions and behaviors are “extremely diverse.”

Women who begin selling sex due to unavoidable circumstances may initially be “victims of society.” However, there are many cases where they gradually transform into “voluntary workers.” There are numerous examples of women who, even if they initially lamented their unfortunate circumstances, changed their mindset over time and began actively seeking out clients on their own.

“ There are countless stories like this: a housewife who, driven to desperation by her family’s financial hardship, began working at a sex establishment and would sometimes shed tears immediately after providing a service. However, as she began receiving requests by name, she gained confidence as a ‘woman’; her appearance blossomed before our eyes, her income increased, and she rebuilt her life.” The mindset of those involved changes.

If one believes that “sex bought with money is a violation of human rights,” it’s easy to think that “women who provide sexual services are ‘victims’ of sexual violence at the hands of their clients.” However, when you actually interact with sex workers, you often find they’re enjoying their work more than you’d expect. This is something you can’t understand unless you’re on the ground.

A hotel escort in Shibuya, Tokyo, whom I interviewed in 2012 , replied from the bottom of her heart, “I’m really glad I got to work at this place. I couldn’t stick with my part-time job at a convenience store, and I wasn’t very good at working in a hostess club either. But here, the staff are kind, and it’s the best.” Seeing her speak with sparkling eyes , saying , “I’m happy to have found this line of work,” I didn’t sense any “victim” in her at all.

In many cases today, sex workers are happy when a client extends their session. And there are plenty of sex workers who plead, “Please come back,” as the client is leaving. This is because they view sexual services as a “job to make money.”

When considering an appropriate legal framework for the sex industry, rather than resorting to extremes—such as emotionally rejecting it outright by saying , “Prostitution is disgusting,” or, conversely, fully endorsing it by claiming , “Prostitution is ‘ordinary work’” —isn’t it important to accept that “sex has many different facets”?I believe it is important to accept that “there is a spectrum of views on the sex trade, and that spectrum is constantly changing.”

There is still no consensus on “the right answer.”

In this series, we have introduced four legal frameworks in order: the “Nordic Model,” the “Legalization Model,” the “Decriminalization Model,” and the “Prohibitionist Model.” Each model has its pros and cons, and it is impossible to say definitively which one is correct.

In Western countries, legal systems surrounding the sex trade have undergone years of trial and error, yet there is still no international consensus on “the right answer.” There is still no “unified global solution” regarding how to regulate the sex trade.

The optimal model varies depending on each country’s social context, the scale and nature of its sex industry, and the state of public consensus.The legal systems and policies that emerge depend on the differences in the principles upheld—such as “preventing crimes like human trafficking,” “protecting the human rights of those involved,” and “maintaining social order and morality”—and the objectives to be achieved. Furthermore, these continue to evolve over time.

Recently, there has been lively debate within the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel regarding whether “the buyers of sex should be punished,” but I believe “it is better not to punish the buyers.” The reason is that “simply changing the law will not solve the fundamental problem.”

Even if legal penalties are imposed, they are unlikely to lead to a meaningful solution as long as “social structures,” “sex education,” and “the nation’s culture itself” remain unchanged.Unless it influences public consciousness to a significant degree, I cannot help but feel that—just as when the “Anti-Prostitution Law” was enacted—many loopholes will remain, or we will be forced to turn a blind eye, ultimately rendering the law a “toothless law.” Human sexuality is a realm that cannot be resolved by a single piece of legislation.

The example of South Korea seems to prove this point. Furthermore, the Netherlands has legalized sex work because history has taught them firsthand that “even if the law prohibits it, the sex trade will not disappear.” A similar example is the United States, where drinking did not disappear even after Prohibition was enacted.

Should we adopt the “Nordic model,” which penalizes the buyer, to eliminate discrimination and inequality against women? Or, from the perspective of protecting sex workers’ rights, should we recognize the sex trade as “labor” and “legalize” it, or “decriminalize” it by treating it as a “choice made of one’s own free will”?Or will we “basically maintain the current framework and adapt accordingly”? What is now required is a thorough debate on which of these options is most desirable for Japanese society.

[References]

*The Black Hole of the Sex Trade* by Shinpak Ji-nyeong, Korokara, 2022

*Women’s Bodies and Human Rights* by Noriko Wakao, Gakuyo Shobo, 2005

*Sex Work Studies*, SWASH (eds.), Nihon Hyoronsha, 2018

*An Introduction to “Sexual Self-Determination”*, Shinji Miyadai, Yukiko Hayami, Naohide Yamamoto, Yoshiko Miya, Seiji Fujii, Hiroaki Hirano, Noriko Kanazumi, and Yuji Hirano, Kinokuniya Bookstore, 1998

In addition, I consulted numerous other books and online sources.