The Tokyo District Court has basically conclude that it's okay to commit adultery - IE, actual sex - if it's sex that benefits one's job.
In this particular case, Judge Shiseki Masamitsu (surname first) made a ruling on Makura Eigyo (pillow sales tactic), in this case saying that sex was allowed outside the marriage since it helped retain a good customer for a business.IE... helped consummate a business deal.
Hey - whatever she's selling, I'm buying.
Apparently the case revolved around a wife suing a hostess at a Japanese bar for compensation because the hostess had sex with her husband, a long-standing customer.
The wife was suing for ¥4 million (~$40,000) in damages from the hostess to cover her psychological distress.
I wonder how one comes up with that dollar amount? If it's to cover the amount of money her husband gave to the hostess, I'm guessing that the ¥4 million amount is pretty low.
That's only ¥571,428.57 a year… that's about CDN/US $5,700 a year... I'm pretty sure I've spent that much on annual booze consumption going out on Friday and Saturday nights 15 to 25 years ago… and I am hardly a company president being wooed by a Japanese hostess.
Judge Shiseki says the wife isn't eligible for damages, implying marriage sanctity can be excused if it's to help the business, regardless of who's business it is actually helping.
This ruling flies in the face of PAST cases that have seen damages awarded against the third-party (woman) who had sex with a married man… these cases—and the damages allowed—support the sanctity of holy matrimony, or whatever it is the Japanese think they have.
I have long stated that most Japanese men have either had an adulterous relationship or were involved in one, and the the wife didn't usually care as long as the money was still coming in to support the entire family.
Let's not be prudes here… sex sells, in all its various forms and media. A pretty face and a nice turn of the ankle can attract better sales.
Makura eiygo is the practice of a hostess having - and maintaining - a sexual relationship with a customer to ensure he comes again… uh, to the club, with more regularity.
The guys pay for the sex… whether it's in gifts or actual money, they pay for it… and the hostesses, yes… they prostitute themselves to make more 'legal' money at the club.Plus the guy is very likely to come back to the club hoping to sing Rub Me Tender... a favorite Japanese karaoke version of an old Elvis tune. No... really... I've heard it sung that way dozens of times.
It's not just Japan… every single guy who was made to feel nice by a stripper, hooker or massage parlor attendant may not admit it it out loud, but the women don't really care for them… it's all business.
Pleasure might occur if the twosome actually date or have sex without the need for gifts or money to exchange hands… with the assurance that he - the man - need not come back to the establishment to pay for something he can now get for free.
I'm sure that occurs in Japan sometimes, just as I am 100 per cent positive it can sometimes occur say, in Canada where I live.
The judge noted that as long as the sex was for business it "does not harm the marital relationship at all."
The implication is that the hostess, in this case, is not trying to steal the man away from his wife ergo no danger to the marriage.
Now… despite what the judge ruled, he also seems to have assumed the hostess was lying, as she claims to NEVER have had sex with the man.
This, of course, could also be a mistranslation of the phrase 'sexual relations'. Does a hand-job or oral satisfaction denote sexual relations - yes, in my book. Is it intercourse - god, no. That's when the man hides his thingy inside the woman's yoo-hoo. That's what you get when sex education isn't taught in schools.
I'm assuming the judge assumed (lots of assuming here) there was no way in hell this guy would have been with a hostess for seven years without sex being involved. And not just any old sex, but full on penetrable intercourse sex.
It's pretty damn funny… people are worried that this Japanese case will change or weaken legal protections against adultery… but… the hostess said she never had sexual intercourse with him… which means that any sort of relationship a person has with a Japanese hostess is okay, and isn't a crime against marriage.
Uh… yeah… basically, what the Japanese judge has effectively ruled, is that just because a man may have gone blown money on a legitimate business - regardless if it's food & beverage, sex-industry, media, whatever… a wife can't sue for lost monies spent by her wastrel husband…
No kidding. What if I go out and spend money on a LEGO Star Wars Death Star model kit that costs $500… could my wife sue the LEGO store because they made it sound so enticing that I just had to have it? No.
I think key to the whole case is that the hostess didn't have sexual intercourse - if so, she should never have been sued for damages.
But the fascinating thing is that the Japanese judge ignored testimony from the defendant regarding the true nature of her relationship with the married man…
In fact… the judge, in dismissing the case compared the hostess to a prostitute noting that the only difference was whether she received payment for sexual intercourse “directly” or “indirectly.”
Personally, I think Japan needs better judges.