That the court declared companies are not allowed to make people engage in sex without their consent is a strong message against sexual exploitation of women.

It's hard to believe this would be considered a "landmark" ruling. If this is the threshold for what is considered exploitation, the bar is set pretty low — not such a "strong message against sexual exploitation of women" in my opinion.

And this follows on the ruling last week where the Japanese courts determined that a contract prohibiting an employee from dating is enforceable. Despicable.

Japan may be an economic power and a high tech giant, but when it comes to progressive laws and human rights, they're not much further ahead of China or some nations in the Mideast.

"companies are not allowed to make people engage in sex without their consent..."

I think that this "landmark" ruling is aimed at the wider business community. Every shop, every restaurant, every office...

I've always wondered why japan (this tiny little country) has the 2nd largest porn industry in the world.

companies are not allowed to make people engage in sex

That's right. No, means no! I can't believe the company didn't let her quit the industry and she had to pursue legal action against the company.

The quote and explanation need one whole hell of a lot more explanation. Without it, I am forced to assume the whole point is sensationalism directed at a certain agenda.

The woman signed up for sex work. No company has a right to force anyone to do any kind of work. Employees who don't want to do their jobs or can't for whatever reason, can of course quit.

Ultra-feminists...please, give it a rest already. You are not helping anyone like this, save maybe yourself if you make money off this pap.

Well, the lawyer said "without their consent".

@Peace Out

The woman signed up for sex work. No company has a right to force anyone to do any kind of work. Employees who don't want to do their jobs or can't for whatever reason, can of course quit

That's what she did. The woman had a contract to appear in multiple porn movies, she changed her mind (which is her right), but the company then thought they could sue her to enforce the extortionate 20 million yen in damages they were claiming. (I'm guessing for lost revenue rather than any money they pre-paid).

Despite what some people believe, contracts are often deemed unenforceable for many reasons. Normally, someone who is sued for breaching a contract has some choice to either perform the contract or pay the damages. But here, it was basically extortion because she had no other choice but to pay. The alternative would have resulted in rape.

@M3M3M3

But here, it was basically extortion because she had no other choice but to pay. The alternative would have resulted in rape.

I think the same as Peace Out, I cannot see how this is special, other companies would be in the same position. No matter what job they want the person breaking the contract was supposed to do, if that person don't want to do it then the company would also be doing extortion by asking for compensation because the alternative would be slavery.

@chikv

But the unique feature here is the sex/rape aspect. Using the law and financial pressure to coerce someone into fulfilling their promise of having sex (when they no longer fully and freely consent) results in a rape, a criminal offence. Using that same pressure to coerce a plumber to fulfilling his promise of showing up to fix your sink doesn't result in a crime. It's not seen as slavery.

There are a few alternative ways to see it. The contract could simply be void on public policy grounds or, now that real consent doesn't exist, the contract might also become impossible to perform and no party is held financially responsible. I'm not sure what the court's exact reasoning was but it's the right conclusion.

"companies are not allowed to make people engage in sex without their consent..."

All I can add is that this is a good idea.. and long overdue!!

I had no idea that it was like that... so these AV girls could, in some instances be, for want of a better term modern sex slaves? That's shocking!

Actually when I read the headline I thought it was big corporations using their female staff as prostitutes in order to get business from clients... Honestly, Japan really needs to drop their archaic attitudes towards women in all works of life, no matter their role. Come into the 21st century.

Wc626: I've always wondered why japan (this tiny little country) has the 2nd largest porn industry in the world.

Japan is the 10th most populous country in the world. Of so-called 'developed' nations, only the US (and arguably Russia), have a higher population. That fact plus a lack of religion-based restrictions easily explains the relatively size of Japan's industry.

chikc: No matter what job they want the person breaking the contract was supposed to do, if that person don't want to do it then the company would also be doing extortion by asking for compensation because the alternative would be slavery.

Not if they are getting paid it wouldn't.

@Thunderbird2 - "Actually when I read the headline I thought it was big corporations using their female staff as prostitutes in order to get business from clients..."

Nothing further to add!! ;-)

@M3M3M3

That's what she did.

Exactly. Its the forced mischaracterization I have a problem with. Sex without consent? Exploitation of women? What a contrived load of ultra-feminst stinking fermented BS clap trap.

But here, it was basically extortion because she had no other choice but to pay. The alternative would have resulted in rape.

No. One alternative would have been her paying reasonable damages. I don't know what they were claiming for damages, because it doesn't say. You say it was too much. If so, it should have been reduced. But, I don't know why she backed out because it doesn't say. If she had some medical/ psychological issue come up, that could very well see her get off without paying damages.

it was basically extortion because she had no other choice but to pay.

No. She had the choice of doing the job she signed up for. Or pay damages, although damages should be reasonable.

If we are going to call this rape, lets define the type: the rape that comes with sexual slavery. But if I called all people slaves who were forced to work any other type of job because a contract would have them paying damages, I don't think I would get much support.

The only reason this will get support is because its a hot button topic and people love to ride bandwagons. If this keeps up, women will be able to claim 5 years of good marital sex was rape because a woman decided her husband has been a jerk since last week and now wants a divorce.

Hi Peace Out,

Sex without consent? Exploitation of women? What a contrived load of ultra-feminst stinking fermented BS clap trap.

Consent is the key issue here. There is a 'promise' in the contract to have sex in the future but this is not the same as consent to sex at a specific time. Sex without consent is obviously rape.

If there is no consent, the contract can't be performed without someone raping someone. It would not be legal for the porn company to put a term in the contract stating that she agrees to have sex irrespective of consent, since you cannot contract outside of criminal law. So another way to resolve this would also be to simply say that one of the implicit terms of the contract was that it was entirely dependant on consent.

No. She had the choice of doing the job she signed up for.

That's not an option the court is going to accept. It essentially promotes rape and illegality. This might be a landmark case in Japan but there are many cases in western countries on sex/consent/contract/fraud. Most revolve around prostitutes who withdraw consent or customers who refuse to pay later. Some are clear cut, some are not. This case would be really straightforward.

One alternative would have been her paying reasonable damages.

If there was a liquidated damages clause which specified an amount to be paid in the event of a breach, the court isn't always able to just ignore it and replace it with another figure. This porn company was probably quite confident that they had created an airtight contract capable of exploiting people.

(By the way Peace Out, I thought you were a super liberal with all of your soft touch comments on refugees and migrants... I'm a bit shocked to say the least.)

@M3M3M3 I am certainly not a "super" liberal. I think in order for me to go there I would have to believe that all people are good or easily become good. I don't believe that at all. There are too many cons out there, and it seems to me there are cons on both sides of this case.

I wish you had addressed the slavery analogy. That you didn't suggests to me that you think this is different because it involves sex. Frankly, I think most people loose logic when the topic of sex is brought up or the word rape mentioned. I see Chikv didn't lose his logic.

Look, no one was forcing her to have sex, nor was that even about to transpire (the quote is a lie). Women all over the globe, every day make a decision to have sex even though they may not especially want it at that moment. If a woman figures that if she does not have sex with her husband, that he will be surly or cheat, and so has sex anyway, are you prepared to call that rape? I am not. Anyway, it was have sex or face the consequences of her own decision. She chose consequences. It was her choice.

That is why I insist the damages must be a fair amount. If its not a fair amount, then its true coercion. But if she has a genuine choice, then its not coercion. And its not like her choice was sex or get beat senseless.

Anyway, I have a very simple question for you: Do you think porn actresses generally really want to have sex when they perform? I would be surprised if 25 percent of porn turned out that way. That would make most porn rape by the definition you offer. I doubt even half of porn actors are really that into it. To label that rape is simply madness. We all do things we don't necessarily want to do. Sex is no different but for an extremely oversensitive few.

Several times my ex-wife pushed me into sex I did not especially want at that moment in time. She was an especially horny woman. I endured that for her, even though I was tired, not in the mood, whatever. Did she rape me? Please. You got to be seriously strapped to the ultra-feminist bandwagon to go along for this ride.

But the important thing to hang on to was that she had a choice. She had a choice when she signed the contract. She had a choice when she chose to break the contract. Its nothing but foolish to let this particular woman stretch the term rape thinner than it already has become. Its an insult to women who really were raped and frankly, makes light of real rape. This woman's cry of rape is as much of a con as the guy's who claimed excessive damages for breach of contract. Don't let yourself be led down this primrose path. This woman is abusing you and the system and even society at large by watering down the term "rape" into meaninglessness, all in an attempt to empower the female way past the point of equality and to the point of being overlords.

@Peace Out

I wish you had addressed the slavery analogy. That you didn't suggests to me that you think this is different because it involves sex.

The slavery analogy simply doesn't work because the plumber (in my example) is being paid the sum agreed in the contract. Yes, the fundamental difference here is sex. Unlike paid work, there are criminal laws against unconsensual sex!

Let me give you a complete different analogy that involves illegality but not sex. Imagine I'm a boxing promoter and I hire you as a boxer. You sign the contract. However, the government then makes boxing illegal and you refuse to fight because you do not want to participate in a crime. Can I still enforce the contract against you if you refuse?

The court will say no. They will either say that:

a) the contract cannot be enforced for public policy reasons because it relates to something illegal

b) the contract is now frustrated (void, voidable etc) because performance has now become impossible (assuming the law is followed)

c) there has been no breach because it was implicitly understood by both parties that everything in the contract would depend on boxing remaining legal. (or consent continuing to exist, in sex cases)

In the case of this woman, Yes, she is the sole person to decide what is legal or illegal, what is rape or not rape. She can turn her consent on and off like a tap. You can say it's unfair but that's how the law works. The lesson here is that you can't contractually limit people's freedom to consent to sex. You might not like it, but I'm not wrong!

I have a very simple question for you: Do you think porn actresses generally really want to have sex when they perform?

They may not want to, but 'want' is very different from legal consent to the 'nature and quality' of the act of sex at a particular moment.

But the important thing to hang on to was that she had a choice

The court probably didn't see this woman having a real choice, even if she had some limited choice. One of the fundamental reasons for the law of contract is to protect vulnerable people, not just enforce rights. There are two sides to the coin.

Frankly, I think most people loose logic when the topic of sex is brought up

Well there's no doubt that he law treats sex related crimes in a fundamentally different way. If I stick my finger in your ear the police won't even show up but if I stick it somewhere else, I go to jail for years. Obviously the law reflects people's subjective fears and values etc and you can disagree. I'm just telling it like it is.

If I stick my finger in your ear the police won't even show up but if I stick it somewhere else, I go to jail for years.

Not necessarily. One can argue "kanchou" (the practiced and acceptable- sticking a finger up one's butt). And yet, a woman has take legal action to get out of the porn biz. And yet, some japanese will deny that comfort women never ever existed.

I'm just telling it like it is.

@Wc626

Not necessarily. One can argue "kanchou"

lol, Ah yes, I forgot about that. Art 296(b) of the code of criminal procedure if I'm not mistaken.

The question is what inalienable rights do you have that the law does not allow you to sign away in a contract. Can I contractually agree to become someone's slave? No. Can a woman sign a contract saying that she consents to sex with someone in perpetuity, so that they never be guilty of rape? No.

M3M3M3

The slavery analogy simply doesn't work because the plumber (in my example) is being paid the sum agreed in the contract. Yes, the fundamental difference here is sex. Unlike paid work, there are criminal laws against unconsensual sex!

So there is no criminal laws against forced labor? The amount to be paid is of no importance, as long as the person who "has" to work don't want to do it then it becomes illegal for companies to force it, it does not matter if its having sex in front of a camera or cleaning streets. Again the situation seems the same to me. Companies are not allowed to make people do any kind of work they don't want to do even with a contract. The difference is only the name of the crime they commit when they force it.

@chikv

Companies are not allowed to make people do any kind of work they don't want to do even with a contract.

Hello chikv, you are correct on two points. Yes, there are crimes against forced labour and yes, a company or the court can't physically force you to work if you don't want to. They will award damages.

The difference with normal work is that the court has no qualms about ordering the worker to pay damages if they refuse to perform, because the worker was freely capable of working if they wanted to. In the case of sex, the woman can't perform the contract unless she is either raped or changes her mind about consent.

Here is something for you and Peace Out to answer. Firstly, do you agree that it's a basic principle of law that a person can't escape criminal liability through a private contract? (ie. I can't agree that you have the right to rape and kill me, and you can't rely on this as a defence if you do). Secondly, do you agree that a private contract can't limit the rights granted to people under the criminal law? (ie. The right to refuse sexual consent)

If so, imagine this: The woman shows up at the porn studio and announces that she has come to perform the contract as agreed. She removes her clothes but then she says that she asserts her right granted by criminal law not to consent to any sexual touching or sex. Has she breached the contract? She is ready to perform the contract, but clearly any man that touches her will commit a crime. Who's fault is it that the contract is now impossible to perform? If it's her fault, did she guarantee her consent in the contract? If you can't actually contract away your right to consent, was it even possible for her to guarantee this?

It's basically a paradox. However, the person responsible for the impossibility of performing the contract is the government. They are the ones who made rape a crime and gave us a right to refuse sexual consent which trumps any private contract.

The difference with normal work is that the court has no qualms about ordering the worker to pay damages if they refuse to perform, because the worker was freely capable of working if they wanted to. In the case of sex, the woman can't perform the contract unless she is either raped or changes her mind about consent.

And in the same way the court can order the woman to pay damages if they refuse to perform, again it does not matter what they promised to do with a contract, nobody can force them to do anything but the court can put penalties and order restitution of damage to the company for the broken contract, same situation.

Has she breached the contract? She is ready to perform the contract, but clearly any man that touches her will commit a crime.

That makes absolutely no sense, she is not ready to perform because she is not consenting, you cannot have one without the other, a street sweeper can do the same by showing in uniform and with full equipment and then refusing to perform the activities that are detailed in the contract. Anybody who touch him to make him work will commit a crime.

Who's fault is it that the contract is now impossible to perform? If it's her fault, did she guarantee her consent in the contract? If you can't actually contract away your right to consent, was it even possible for her to guarantee this?

Of course hers, in your example she made a valid decision to refuse to perform what she promised to do. Her "consent" is no more special than the "consent" of any other person to do whatever other job. In the moment anybody says "I don't want to do it" it becomes illegal to force them. Is it then even possible to anybody to enter any contract? I mean nobody can ever guarantee that they will do any kind of job, not even that they will want to do it. That is why in the contracts there are mutually agreed punishment and damages that have to be paid by the party that nullified the contract. A court can of course say that some or even all of the conditions are not enforceable and that would make the contract invalid, but that have nothing to do with rape or sex.

It's basically a paradox. However, the person responsible for the impossibility of performing the contract is the government. They are the ones who made rape a crime and gave us a right to refuse sexual consent which trumps any private contract.

No paradox at all, The government also made forced labor a crime and gave everybody the right to refuse to perform any activity against your will that will trump any contract. That of course does not mean that the person refusing will not have any negative consequences, they may have to give back any money already received or even pay for damages to the company for cancellations and so on, but again that will be the same no matter if the person was hired for an adult video or to take care of children.

To be perfectly clear.

1- Nobody can be forced to have sex, but neither to work in any other way.

2- Anybody can refuse to have sex even with a contract, but so can refuse to do any other kind of work, its their right.

3- People who refuse may still be subjected to penalties if they are fair and the contract valid, that will apply no matter if they were hired to have sex for a camera or to clean the room the next morning.

A completely different situation (and more in line with your position) is if the girl was hired to have sex (no camera) because that is prostitution and being illegal there is no contract ever that will be valid, she can refuse to have sex in that case and have no legal responsibility whatsoever. You can discuss how having a camera there suddenly made the job legal but that is another topic.

@chikv

And in the same way the court can order the woman to pay damages if they refuse to perform

No, because she isn't legally seen as refusing to peform or breaching the contract. She is, in fact, just excercising another legal right under the penal code to refuse consent to sex, which trumps any contract. You can't be punished for excercising your rights... it's your right.

Is it then even possible to anybody to enter any contract? I mean nobody can ever guarantee that they will do any kind of job, not even that they will want to do it. That is why in the contracts there are mutually agreed punishment and damages that have to be paid by the party that nullified the contract.

The law says sex is different. The criminal law says you have a right to refuse. A waiter at a restaurant doesn't have any special exemption to refuse. If he refuses to work, he has to pay damages.

3- People who refuse may still be subjected to penalties if they are fair and the contract valid, that will apply no matter if they were hired to have sex for a camera or to clean the room the next morning.

They will not apply if the court thinks there has been no breach or if the contract is completely void and unenforceable due to some other law stepping in... like the penal code.

a street sweeper can do the same

If you don't mind, another example: Imagine a street sweeper agrees to sweep radioactive waste off the streets of Fukushima. He signs a contract with his employer but then refuses to work because he thinks it's dangerous.

Imagine also that the government has passed a law call the 'Radioactive Waste Workers Protection Law 2015'. Article 1 reads:

Irrespective of any contractual term to the contray, no street sweeper shall be compelled to sweep radioactive waste, or suffer any consequences as a result of his refusal, if he no longer consents to the performance of his duties at any time for any reason whatsoever.

Do you agree that the street sweeper cannot now be sued because the law has stepped in to give street sweepers a special exemption that no other workers enjoy?

In the case of the porn actress and sex, how is my imaginary law any different from the actual Japanese Penal Code? Both step in to give street sweepers and sex workers the ultimate choice about whether they consent or not and both are seen to override any private contract.

@M3M3M3

No, because she isn't legally seen as refusing to peform or breaching the contract. She is, in fact, just excercising another legal right under the penal code to refuse consent to sex, which trumps any contract. You can't be punished for excercising your rights... it's your right.

She is still exactly in the same situation as the street sweeper that also have the legal right under the penal code to refuse to perform any word and that trumps any contract, in your way of thinking he (or anybody) could never be punished for exercising his right.

The law says sex is different. The criminal law says you have a right to refuse. A waiter at a restaurant doesn't have any special exemption to refuse. If he refuses to work, he has to pay damages.

Its the opposite, the law says that sex is the same as any other kind of work since the criminal law says that anybody have the right to refuse. A waiter in a restaurant doesn't need any special exemption to refuse, he can refuse to work and BOTH have to pay damages as long as they have valid contracts.

They will not apply if the court thinks there has been no breach or if the contract is completely void and unenforceable due to some other law stepping in... like the penal code.

That is exactly the same for both a waiter and a porn actress, still no difference, no "special law" is necessary, and no immunity from negative consequences from breaking a valid contract.

'Radioactive Waste Workers Protection Law 2015'. Article 1 reads.

That would be both an example of a special case and also a huge loophole that would guarantee that no company would ever take the job of cleaning Fukushima. Any worker would only have to accept the job, 3 seconds later refuse and still be paid every month as if he was still working because he could not be forced to work, nor fired nor his salary stopped, that is why no such law exist for anything, including sex.

I really need to see a reference for the article where a woman is protected against "any consequences as a result of her refusal" to have sex. The only article pertinent I could find in the penal code of japan is the Article 177　A person who, through assault or intimidation, forcibly commits sexual intercourse with a female of not less than thirteen years of age commits the crime of rape and shall be punished by imprisonment with work for a definite term of not less than 3 years. The same shall apply to a person who commits sexual intercourse with a female under thirteen years of age. So, the law protects against being forced to have sex, not against valid consequences of refusing to have sex.

In the case of the porn actress and sex, how is my imaginary law any different from the actual Japanese Penal Code? Both step in to give street sweepers and sex workers the ultimate choice about whether they consent or not and both are seen to override any private contract.

Your imaginary law is different because extends way over the protection against being forced to do something against your will so its fundamentally different from the real laws against rape and forced labor. A porn actress that refuse to perform her job its protected by law against being forced to do it, exactly the same as in any other job. But still can be liable to consequences because after all she did not perform her job.

This ruling was for very different reasons, nothing to do with being sex. A worker was being coerced to perform a job by illogical and excessive penalties that made the contract invalid. The lawyer declaration is mostly equivalent to saying "That the court declared companies are not allowed to make people work without their consent is a strong message against slavery." Obviously true, but not related to the reason why the company could be sued

First, for anyone who can read Japanese and is interested, the hanketsubun (Judgment) of the court is here: http://mimosaforestlawoffice.com/documents/20151002_hanketsubun.pdf

For those who can't speak Japanese, I'll try and summarize the salient points (darn you, Ito, did you have to squelch the ENTIRE Part 2 - how can we fully decide whether this is fair without seeing the Case Summary).

What seemed to have happened is that Defendant has signed a first contract when she was still a minor (below 20, but not 18 - might be interesting to Westerners) without bothering to get her parents' consent and on that basis should be voided due to the provisions of Article 5 of the Civil code:

Article 5 (1) A minor must obtain the consent of his/her statutory agent to perform any juristic act; provided, however, that, this shall not apply to an act merely intended to acquire a right or to be relieved of a duty. (2) A juristic act in contravention of the provision of the preceding paragraph may be rescinded.

[Fair enough, but anyway no objections seemed to have been raised during that period.]

Some gravure and one porn was produced based on the first contract. The company gets her to sign a second contract with "Porn" (AV) explicitly written. Shortly after that, she was informed they had signed her up to 9 AVs, and refusals will cost 10 milllion yen.

At the beginning of some month after that, Defendant informed Company she wants to break the first and second contract.

We move to the Analysis section. The judge shows his bias by complaining about the fact the amount and method monetary renumeration is not specified in the contract.

[It is obvious the kind of renumeration possible will depend on our Defendant's level of performance and success getting her access to different grades of work, and thus it is clearly impossible to specify these in advance. And no one is complaining about the fairness of the renumeration so it is not clear why this is even a point.]

He proceeds to also complain about how the shows were picked regardless of the Defendant's will.

[That's exactly as it is written in the contract and no one is complaining that the company is going out of bounds in its choices (particularly violent sex, for example) so it is not clear why it's there.]

Judge also complains about the youth of the defendant.

[Since he's forced to admit when the 2nd contract was signed she's fully in majority and even when she signed her 1st contract she is a minor only Japanese law, it is not clear why this is a point.]

He bumbles on to suggest the contract is similar to a labor contract and is thus covered under Article 628 of the Civil code.

[The conclusion's actually fine (bleeding obvious in fact), but most of his preamble had little to do with trying to prove that it is similar to a labor contract and plenty with trying to work up some sympathy for the defendant. Which is horribly unprofessional.]

The judge proceeds to, without referring to a single law or precedent, decide that sex is something that cannot be done against the subject's will. He proceeds to consider the 10 million yen large (so what, we are not allowed to even remind our partners of their contractual obligations now?) Thus, he considers it covered under Article 628, dissolving the defendant's duty to pay.

BTW, Article 628:

Article 628 Even in cases where the parties have specified the term of employment, if there are unavoidable reasons, either party may immediately cancel the contract. In such cases, if the reasons arise from the negligence of either one of the parties, that party shall be liable to the other party for damages.

[Judge, can we really say "I don't want to do it" is an unavoidable reason?

However you may sympathize with the girl, this judgment is a PoS and sets a dangerous precedent.]

@chikv

It seems like we probably aren't going to agree on this, and I think we are talking past eachother to some extent.

However, what is your fundamental argument? Do you acknowledge that the law on this, at least in all common law countries, has been pretty rock solid ever since 1797 when Franco tried to sue Bolton for refusing to fulfill her contract to be employed as his mistress? Are you saying that the law as it stands is not as I have described it, or are you making an appeal for why it should not be as I describe it? Or that there is some unique feature in Japanese law that was overlooked by this judge and the woman's lawyer?

She is still exactly in the same situation as the street sweeper that also have the legal right under the penal code to refuse to perform any word and that trumps any contract

Again, nobody can be physically forced to work but most people who refuse to work will not be paid and will have their employment contracts enforced against them. But not contracts where the end result is illegality.

That would be both an example of a special case and also a huge loophole that would guarantee that no company would ever take the job of cleaning Fukushima. Any worker would only have to accept the job, 3 seconds later refuse and still be paid every month as if he was still working because he could not be forced to work, nor fired nor his salary stopped, that is why no such law exist for anything, including sex.

Not at all. Of course, the street sweeper would not be paid if he declines the work.

I really need to see a reference for the article where a woman is protected against "any consequences as a result of her refusal" to have sex.

It's implicit in every law. It's generally argeed by everyone that you have a fundamental right to your own bodily integrity. The Constitution guarantees fundamental human rights. The entire legal system is premised on this. See Article 11 and others.

that is why no such law exist for anything, including sex.

Many laws like this exists, too many to count. There are so many contractual terms that are rendered void by statute in various countries. In most places you can't contract out of negligence resulting in death, or charge high interest rates or racially discriminate or circumvent cooling off periods in consumer contracts... the list is endless.

This ruling was for very different reasons, nothing to do with being sex. A worker was being coerced to perform a job by illogical and excessive penalties that made the contract invalid

Well, we don't know that do we? We don't have a copy of the judgement available. We are just speculating on what the reasoning might be based on what her lawyer has said. I've read a few Japanese articles on this and it's not entirely clear.

@M3M3M3

It seems like we probably aren't going to agree on this, and I think we are talking past eachother to some extent.

I can perfectly understand your arguments, but they are faulty because you keep trying to apply them specially for porn when actually they apply the same for all other kinds of work. When you say that taking back consent makes you immune from valid contract penalties that HAS to apply for everyone because without consent all kinds of work become forced labor. Obviously that is not the case, not for sex not for anything else.

Are you saying that the law as it stands is not as I have described it, or are you making an appeal for why it should not be as I describe it? Or that there is some unique feature in Japanese law that was overlooked by this judge and the woman's lawyer?

No, I am saying that there is nothing special in her situation, nobody can be forced to work in whatever job they do, her case is not special in any way. You keep bringing reasons that apply for all kinds of work and then trying to say that those are important only when sex is part of the job, that is not true.

Again, nobody can be physically forced to work but most people who refuse to work will not be paid and will have their employment contracts enforced against them. But not contracts where the end result is illegality.

That applies in both cases, the porn actress and the sweeper will have their contract enforced against them, and also for both forcing them to work would result in illegality. The only illegal result of this kind of contract would be a clause that says "The actress will have to perform even against her will" (or something like that) but that is of course NOT the case, she can refuse and then nobody will force her, nothing illegal happened ever so the contract is still valid and damages would have to be paid. Again this is the same for porn and for any other kind of work.

It's implicit in every law. It's generally argeed by everyone that you have a fundamental right to your own bodily integrity. The Constitution guarantees fundamental human rights. The entire legal system is premised on this. See Article 11 and others.

So your position is that the sweeper have no fundamental human rights? because he also has a constitutional right against forced labor. If the protection against "any and all" negative consequences of him taking back his consent is "implicit" as you say, then he has to keep getting his salary because getting fired is of course a negative consequence and he would be protected against it, right?

For some reason you keep trying to make a special case when sex is involved, but then use argument that apply for all kinds of work, that would be a very strong hint that maybe sex is not that special after all.

Many laws like this exists

Seeing how you cannot come with one, that does not seem to be the case.

In most places you can't contract out of negligence resulting in death, or charge high interest rates or racially discriminate or circumvent cooling off periods in consumer contracts... the list is endless.

That are completely different from a law that protects you from any negative consequences of refusing consent, and again that applies for all kinds of work so sex is just another kind of work that can't be forced

I've read a few Japanese articles on this and it's not entirely clear.

The previous post by Kazuaki Shimazaki is very informative, the link he provide is for the complete ruling that is based on Article 628, forceful sex is not the reason why the contract was considered invalid.

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

Thanks very much for finding the link! (You are my favorite person today.)

The judge proceeds to, without referring to a single law or precedent, decide that sex is something that cannot be done against the subject's will.

It's simply a basic principle in the law and rooted in the constitution and criminal law. Your body is your own. You cannot sell it or transfer any rights to it.

I feel completely vindicated. The judgment is exactly what I speculated above. Article 628 means the contract is what we would say in English 'frustrated', or 'impossible' to perform.

@chikv

When you say that taking back consent makes you immune from valid contract penalties that HAS to apply for everyone because without consent all kinds of work become forced labor.

No. Forced labour (or slavery) has absolutely no part in this discussion, whatsoever. You really must get over that point. No person can ever be physically assaulted to force them to do any type of work and the court can never order this to happen. The only tool the court has at its disposal is to decide whether to award monetary damages if they think the contract is breached.

When will the court award monetary damages? When they think the defendant could have reasonably been expected to perform the contract but didn't. (99.99999% of workers fall into this category)

When will the court refuse to award monetary damages? When the defendant has a legitimate defense for not performing the contract, such as her superior right to refuse consent to sexual activity as a fundamental right of bodily integrity and one found in criminal law. (Only workers who's job requires them to be physically touched in a way that would constitute a criminal assault or rape might fall into this category. It definetly includes sex workers but maybe also boxers or athletes? It's 0.0000000001% of workers.)

The law views any contract that requires physical contact as fundamentally different from one that simply applies financial pressure to compel performance. You cannot contract away your right to refuse consent to a rape or assault.

So your position is that the sweeper have no fundamental human rights? because he also has a constitutional right against forced labor.

Again, this is not forced labour. Forced labour would only occur if I assault you by grabbing the broom, physically sticking it in your arms and moving your arm in a sweeping motion. Or, if I threaten your life or hold you captive. Applying financial pressure such as legally withholding wages or attempting to sue for damages does not constitute forced labour under the law.

that is based on Article 628, forceful sex is not the reason why the contract was considered invalid.

Exactly as I speculated! It is impossible to perform the contract, the purpose has been completely frustrated by lack of consent. What is left unclear was whether it was because of illegality of rape or purely due to lack of consent, but they are two sides of the same coin so it's irrelevant. Justice was certainly done and I'm glad Japan is on the same page as every other industrialized country.

It's been really funny to debate this with you guys. (I'm a bit busy next week so I might be late in replying for a day or two)

@M3M3M3

I feel completely vindicated. The judgment is exactly what I speculated above. Article 628 means the contract is what we would say in English 'frustrated', or 'impossible' to perform.

Completely wrong, read again Shimazaki's post, the ruling considered the lack of consent "the unavoidable reason" for the breach of contract, that should apply for all contracts or for none. But in no moment the contract was considered invalid.

No. Forced labour (or slavery) has absolutely no part in this discussion, whatsoever. You really must get over that point.

I do know you want that to be true, but unfortunately is the main point in the discussion. You yourself argued that a contract cannot force the loss of fundamental rights of a person, so do you want to say that the right to refuse consent to sex is "more fundamental" than the right to refuse consent to work? that is nonsense. Both are basic rights and so both have to be treated the same.

No person can ever be physically assaulted to force them to do any type of work and the court can never order this to happen. The only tool the court has at its disposal is to decide whether to award monetary damages if they think the contract is breached.

Exactly, that is exactly my point. In precisely the same way that a court can never order someone to have sex it cannot order either that someone have to work for a company because of a contract. Its exactly the same situation, and because of that The court can award damages if the contract is breached in both cases

When will the court award monetary damages? When they think the defendant could have reasonably been expected to perform the contract but didn't. (99.99999% of workers fall into this category)

That applies even if the work consist on having sex (the right to refuse consent is fundamental for all kinds of work and for sex, the same)

When will the court refuse to award monetary damages? When the defendant has a legitimate defense for not performing the contract, such as her superior right to refuse consent to sexual activity as a fundamental right of bodily integrity and one found in criminal law.

That is the part were you are wrong, a sweeper also have the superior (fundamental, constitutional) right to refuse consent to work, part of his right for body integrity and that is protected also in criminal law. So sex is again in the same category. I know you want to consider the right to refuse work as something not important, easy to discard at the convenience of a company but actually in the eyes of the law and the constitution is of the same importance and both have to be protected.

(Only workers who's job requires them to be physically touched in a way that would constitute a criminal assault or rape might fall into this category. It definetly includes sex workers but maybe also boxers or athletes? It's 0.0000000001% of workers.)

That makes absolutely no sense, and its based solely in your imagination. Please show me that distinction in the law or accept that its just your very personal opinion. According to that very flawed interpretation the Porn company could have asked the actress to star in a "masturbation special", or a "dildo special" or a "long vegetables insertion special", nobody would need to touch her at all. So, when she refused to perform, then the company would be fine to sue for millions in damages? I hope you can see how this is ridiculous and makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know where you got the idea that being touched during the work is the important part but that have absolutely no importance, if somebody tell a worker that he has to do a job or else he will be beaten then that somebody is guilty of forcing labor (even if never touched the worker). If a director forces an actress to have sex on set with an actor that have no idea of this situation, who do you think is guilty of forcing a sexual act? The actor that touched her?

You cannot contract away your right to refuse consent to a rape or assault.

You can neither contract away your right to refuse consent to work. That is of course completely different than saying that that refuse will never have consequences, in both cases

Again, this is not forced labour. Forced labour would only occur if I assault you by grabbing the broom, physically sticking it in your arms and moving your arm in a sweeping motion.

I really want to think here that you are joking. In the very remote case that you really believe this is the case please check the definition of forced labor in any source you like.

Applying financial pressure such as legally withholding wages or attempting to sue for damages does not constitute forced labour under the law.

Exactly the same as withholding wages or suing for damages for lack of consent to perform in an adult movie does not constitute rape under the law (you still have not provided that article that supposedly proves this). I am beginning to think that you are really not joking about your definition of forced labor, but for example using the threat of impossibly high damages, jail, deportation, violence, etc perfectly constitute forced labor and is a crime

Exactly as I speculated! It is impossible to perform the contract, the purpose has been completely frustrated by lack of consent. What is left unclear was whether it was because of illegality of rape or purely due to lack of consent, but they are two sides of the same coin so it's irrelevant. Justice was certainly done and I'm glad Japan is on the same page as every other industrialized country

Did you even read the article? it only mentions "unavoidable reasons" and that the judge considered lack of will as enough (for reasons that apparently are not exactly objective) If your weird interpretation was correct the ruling would be that no single contract in the porn industry is valid (similar to the case of prostitution) and that was not the case.

Finally I got to understand from where your mistake in this discussion was born, that strange fixation in "touching" as the basis of forcing consent was why you considered sex as an special case, but since that is not true I hope its clear now that her case is perfectly equivalent to any other job.

@M3M3M3OCT. 04, 2015 - 05:36PM JST

Thanks very much for finding the link! (You are my favorite person today.)

You might not like me so much after reading the below :-)

Your body is your own. You cannot sell it or transfer any rights to it.

Have you considered that your statement is somewhat contradictory? Is something really yours if you can't sell it?

I feel completely vindicated. The judgment is exactly what I speculated above. Article 628 means the contract is what we would say in English 'frustrated', or 'impossible' to perform.

If the only barrier is "I don't want to do it", how by any reasonable logic, can that become "impossible to perform"? What's the point of contracts if they become impossible to perform on a whim?

When they think the defendant could have reasonably been expected to perform the contract but didn't. (99.99999% of workers fall into this category)

Quite frankly, I think defendant should have fallen into this category.

When the defendant has a legitimate defense for not performing the contract, such as her superior right to refuse consent to sexual activity as a fundamental right of bodily integrity and one found in criminal law.

It is at least as easy to say that she has voluntarily given it up (the idea the company applied undue pressure to her to sign Contract 1 or the most relevant #2 was never even proposed as far as the judgment is concerned), or alternatively, she has already consented when she signed the contract.

The idea of contracts is that sometimes for things to work, extensive preparations far exceeding those that can be made on the basis of the fragility on-the-whim consent is required. So consent is given in advance on both sides for a certain period under certain agreed rules. To say one side can, under any pretext abandon the contract at will is a blow against that very concept.

Have you considered why the judge, who is quite clearly siding with the girl, did not even try to make his argument look better by citing any law, precedent, or constitution? It's because there are none.

There are some contracts that indeed cannot be made. For example, your contract for murder services is not valid, even with continuous mutual consent, because murder collides with the Penal Code. That's probably also how Bolton got away with not fulfilling a contract to become a mistress, since adultery is a crime (not in Japan though, they actually used to have it but it was dumped after WWII as discriminatory).

In the Japanese Civil code, this is covered by Article 132:

Article 132 Juristic act which is subject to an unlawful condition shall be void. The same shall apply to any act which is subject to the condition that an unlawful act not be performed.

And of course, there is Article 90:

Article 90 A juristic act with any purpose which is against public policy is void.

You will notice the judge used neither, which is a strong sign that nothing in the contract is unlawful or against public policy.

Justice was certainly done and I'm glad Japan is on the same page as every other industrialized country.

I won't be so pleased if I were you. If this is allowed to stand, it basically gives every porn actress the right to abandon her obligations at any second she wants with no more loss than further earnings, regardless of the damage this does to other parties. Since even a porn video actually takes substantial resources to organize, what this means is that it becomes undoable as a legal business.

To declare some personal interests, I do watch porn but I'm definitely 2D. I tried glancing at some "real porn" but was unable to work up to it. So I won't be personally affected by the death of "real porn".

However, if we say that porn is way too primal a human instinct (like alcohol) to die just by making it illegal, what this judge has just done is to drive the entire industry underground. Need I say what that means to the people in it. They actually let her stop and charged her only 10 million (until she made it into a court case ... but you know judges always slash for cases like this so they are probably expecting to get 5 million at most) because they believed they had a valid legal option and they want to stay legal.

Is a contract for sexual services enforceable?

Is a contract for sexual services enforceable?

As long as the sexual services are not illegal and the contract have no other reasons to be invalid, yes of course they are. Even using your own strange example where the job involves touching, do you believe that no single boxing contract is enforceable?

As long as the sexual services are not illegal and the contract have no other reasons to be invalid, yes of course they are.

Absolutely not! There is no legal jurisdiction in the modern industrialized world where a contract for sexual services is enforceable! Google it. You are simply describing the law as you imagine or wish it to be, not as it actually is. There is nothing wrong about having your own opinion and advocating for law reform, but don't pat yourself on the back and give yourselves thumbs up for setting out an argument which has not been accepted by a single court anywhere in the modern world (including this case in Japan where you also lost).

Contracts for sex are not only declared invalid due to illegality. This might be the case in the US, but prostitution is not illegal in England unless you pick up customers on the street and yet, the contracts are still unenforceable on public policy grounds. Even in Germany, where prostitution is entirely legal and prostitutes register with the government for pensions and health insurance, the government has stepped in to make it illegal for the customers to sue prostitutes for not providing sexual services.

I've given the main reasons that that courts come to this conclusion (illegality, public policy, implicit term of consent) and I've gone into deeper detail about what the public policy exception (which is rarely elaborated on) might involve in connection to rape and assault. And yes, boxing contracts are still valid at the moment but I'm just speculating on the outer limits of the law, that's why I put a question mark there.

In any event, contracts for sexual services are not enforceable in any modern industrialized country and we can now add Japan to that list pending any appeal, .. I rest my case! .

.

(Some other responses to your previous posts)

Firstly, I meant to write that it was 'fun' to debate this, but my autocomplete made it 'funny'. Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as being that rude or patronising. .

.

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

Have you considered that your statement is somewhat contradictory? Is something really yours if you can't sell it?

Very true.

If the only barrier is "I don't want to do it", how by any reasonable logic, can that become "impossible to perform"? What's the point of contracts if they become impossible to perform on a whim?

You're mischaracterising it. The test is not 'I don't want to do it'. The test is whether the court sees some greater good in not enforcing the contract such as perserving people's physical autonomy or preventing sexual slavery. Like in Germany where a customer cannot enforce the sexual services part of the contract.

The idea of contracts is that sometimes for things to work, extensive preparations far exceeding those that can be made on the basis of the fragility on-the-whim consent is required. So consent is given in advance on both sides for a certain period under certain agreed rules.

I agree but the law isn't rational. Why can I sell my bicycle with a verbal contract but selling my house is invalid unless I sign a deed? People will find ways to conform to the law.

I suspect porn companies will now control their actresses by lending them huge sums of money and saying the debt can be cancelled if they act in the porn movie, otherwise it is still payable as an ordinary enforceable debt.

Have you considered why the judge, who is quite clearly siding with the girl, did not even try to make his argument look better by citing any law, precedent, or constitution? It's because there are none.

In Japan, the District Court judge is not really required to cite any precedent. They often don't since it's seen as stepping on the toes of the High Court if it gets appeals. Seeing as it was only 5 pages, there must have been discussion prior to the ruling, this is common. Apart from the supreme court, the rulings in Japan aren't really written for the public. In any event, they can always appeal!

There are some contracts that indeed cannot be made. For example, your contract for murder services is not valid, even with continuous mutual consent, because murder collides with the Penal Code.

You can now add sexual services to that list.

That's probably also how Bolton got away with not fulfilling a contract to become a mistress, since adultery is a crime

No, it was not illegal to be a mistress, that's why the case is held up as an important precedent. It was held to be unenforceable simply on 'public policy' grounds.

.

.

@chikv

Please show me that distinction in the law or accept that its just your very personal opinion.

The distinction exists everywhere in plain sight. Look at how tort law treats economic loss vs trespass to the person.

Exactly the same as withholding wages or suing for damages for lack of consent to perform in an adult movie does not constitute rape under the law (you still have not provided that article that supposedly proves this).

Just look at every case where financial pressure has been applied and it has not been held to be forced labour, there are thousands passing through the courts every single day. Again, let's describe the law as it actually is.

If your weird interpretation was correct the ruling would be that no single contract in the porn industry is valid (similar to the case of prostitution) and that was not the case.

Guess what!? Contracts for sexual service are unenforceable. It's the case in California, England, in Germany and now Japan. Again, I respect that you think this is illogical and disagree with it, but don't tell us that it's not the law.

If you are so convinced that the contracts are enforceable. Show me a case. Show me one case where a man has had an agreement for sex, the agreement is broken and he successfully sues for any damages (such as finding a more expensive prostitute on short notice). You'll have to start digging through law reports in Uzbekistan before you come across a case.

Absolutely not! There is no legal jurisdiction in the modern industrialized world where a contract for sexual services is enforceable! Google it. You are simply describing the law as you imagine or wish it to be, not as it actually is.

Every single porn movie is a collection of contracts with all the performers for sexual services that of course are enforceable, if they were not there would be no protection at all for either the company nor the actors, so the government would have to declare it illegal, they are legal so they are enforceable.

an argument which has not been accepted by a single court anywhere in the modern world (including this case in Japan where you also lost).

Wait, so you think there has been not a single case where there has been trouble in a porn film and the case went to the courts? because all those are sexual services.

Contracts for sex are not only declared invalid due to illegality.

Actually they are by definition, a legal contract is valid, any contract declared invalid is for reason that made it illegal either because the services by themselves are illegal or because the conditions of the contract are not reasonable.

the government has stepped in to make it illegal for the customers to sue prostitutes for not providing sexual services.

Provide a link with the pertinent law please, and remember that one thing is that the not allowing for suing is not the same as making the contract invalid, a German prostitute that received payment and then refused consent still have to give back the money because her contract is still valid.

And yes, boxing contracts are still valid at the moment but I'm just speculating on the outer limits of the law, that's why I put a question mark there.

But they are formed under equivalent principles (and the lack of consent should leave them free from giving back any money paid to them in advance according with your twisted logic) actually the opposite is true, both a porn actress and a boxer are protected by criminal law of having to perform their jobs if they don't want them but still can be liable for negative consequences because both their contracts remain valid.

In any event, contracts for sexual services are not enforceable in any modern industrialized country and we can now add Japan to that list pending any appeal, .. I rest my case! .

You do know that saying "rest my case" means that you ran out of arguments right? and since I already demonstrated that your arguments are false that is like giving up. Many many industrialized countries have enforceable contracts for sexual services (at least all those that have legal sexual services) so your argument is demonstrably false.

The distinction exists everywhere in plain sight. Look at how tort law treats economic loss vs trespass to the person.

Your lack of ability to put a reference can reasonably be taken as impossibly to prove it (for example with the article that says explicitly that being touched during work is the basis for forced labor crime) I have asked 3 times already for it so I think it is safe to say that you could not find it and so instead of accepting your mistake just keep saying that is "obvious" when of course it is not.

Just look at every case where financial pressure has been applied and it has not been held to be forced labour

Exactly the same when financial pressure (such as giving back any remuneration given to a porn actress) and it has not been held as rape, even this same case when a quite big financial pressure was applied and the jugde did not ruled that it was rape. You keep giving very strong arguments to demonstrate your position as false.

Again, let's describe the law as it actually is.

Shimazaki and me have already pointed out the law as it is with proper translations of the pertinent articles in the law, but you only provide your opinion about how the law is according to a twisted perception without ever being able to copy exactly where in the law says what you think is said. Put the article exactly in criminal law where Rape is defined as putting financial penalties in a valid contract against the lack of performance in an adult movie. I say there is no law like that and that is the law as it actually is.

Contracts for sexual service are unenforceable. It's the case in California, England, in Germany and now Japan. Again, I respect that you think this is illogical and disagree with it, but don't tell us that it's not the law.

Provide references for that, because its a complete lie. Contracts are perfectly enforceable even if they have understandable limitations the same as in any other work (for example its obvious that a company cannot ask for hundreds of millions of dollars on lost revenue for lack of consent, but of course it can legally ask for the money they paid to be given back).

Show me a case. Show me one case where a man has had an agreement for sex, the agreement is broken and he successfully sues for any damages (such as finding a more expensive prostitute on short notice).

That is a straw-man argument, there are many different kinds of sexual services and many different contract conditions that apply legally in them. Using only a single type of service and then a completely irrational damage claim is completely different from enforcing a valid contract with valid conditions. For example a production company was allowed to sue the actress Anne Greene for failing to provide sexual services (a nude scene), and as I mentioned before, a client of any legal sexual services (stripper, soap-land, sexual massage, etc.) can at least get his money back if the provider choose not to give the service, that would be impossible without a enforceable contract.

From the wikipedia Prostitution is legal in Germany. Prostitutes may work as regular employees with contract.

All these examples enough? because at least they are more than the ones you have provided (0).

Finally I think it is time you stop moving the posts about your position about forced labor, first you said that if you are paid then its not forced labor, then if you are not touched during work, what is going to be next? shouldn't you just accept that forced labor is as protected by criminal law as rape and still the vast majority of the contracts are valid?

In my opinion your ideas are fundamentally misconceived and not based on evidence chikv, I'm sorry. I think we just have to disagree and leave it at that.

I don't want to sound patronising but the reason that I'm not posting hundreds of links and sources to prove or disprove every single claim is because alot of it revolves around basic legal principles. I obviously don't have time to provide any basic law school tuition, I'm sorry. If you are interested, it's all there to be Googled:.

"contracts to render sexual services are currently unenforceable."

Contract - Freedom and Restraint: Liberty, Property, and the Law, Richard A. Epstein - 2013 Harvard Law Review

"An agreement based on the performance of sexual services is obviously unenforceable."

Murray on Contracts - John Edward Murray Jr. - 2011 LexisNexis

"The fact that it does not involve or may not involve the commission of a criminal offence in no way prevents the contract from being illegal, against public policy and therefore unenforceable."

Sex and the Contract - Vincenzo Zeno-Zencovich 2011

If a client is not able or unwilling to pay, a sex worker can sue for payment. However the client cannot enforce services promised and does not have any particular contractual rights in the case of default in performance.

The Price of Sex - Belinda Brooks-Gordon Routledge, 2013 [About the German Law]

You can just look all this up on google books, or you can type 'Sexual Service' 'Contract' 'Unenforceable' (or 'Enforceable') 'UK' 'Germany' 'America'.

@M3M3M3

In my opinion your ideas are fundamentally misconceived and not based on evidence chikv, I'm sorry. I think we just have to disagree and leave it at that.

The difference is that I can put a lot of evidence about what I say (ignoring it post after post does not make it dissapear), and also can demonstrate that your opinions are incorrect. You are of course totally free to disagree, but if it is before demonstrating your point with valid arguments (like right now) then its just persevering in a false opinion even in front of evidence of the contrary.

I asked clearly where in the Japanese law a valid contract involving legal sexual services cannot be enforced, and you bring references in other countries about how a invalid contract involving illegal sexual services cannot be enforced. That is completely different from what you said could be proved.

Three words before your first quote is written "nonenforcement of illegal contracts" and immediately after "because of the illegality of prostitution" That is like asking proof that a contract about sweeping could not be enforced when the sweeper refuses to consent to work and then you bringing how you cannot enforce a contract on smuggling drugs. It is a completely different situation that I already said is neither valid nor legal.

Also, Just before your last source is written "In civil law, under article 1, section 1, a sex work contract is enforceable" and after your quote it says "contracts between sex workers and brothel owners are valid" It is completely clear that the only rights that the client cannot enforce is that that the service have to be provided and that is clear from the beginning in this discussion and applies also to every other kind of work (or else becomes Forced labor which is illegal). Again legal sex services are exactly the same as any other job.

That misrepresentation of a source is a very dishonest practice called cherry picking and consist in cutting out words from a source until it appears to say something different than its really being said, Its very sad that someone that asked for the "law as it is" actually have to lie and cut the quotes in order to make them appear as the complete opposite of what they really are.

The real reason you are not posting hundreds of sources is because apparently there is none. I specifically asked about a completely legal contract about legal sexual services in Japan and you bring quotes about invalid contracts about illegal activities, obviously those cannot be enforced but are completely different from what is pertinent to the topic (Porn is legal in Japan, prostitution is not).

At least it is now very clear that if the only sources that you can bring to the topic are completely unrelated, that can only mean that you have zero sources about what is actually being discussed (again, completely legal contracts in completely legal sexual services). It is not lack of time, its lack of evidence.

Its interesting also to see how you failed also to provide proof that not touching or receiving pay is enough to prevent the crime of Forced labor, neither how asking for legal and valid economic penalties in a porn contract its equivalent to the crime of rape, it appears that none of your arguments are actually based on (real, not twisted by cherry picking) evidence other than your opinion. Also, since you could not prove false any of the examples that I already put here it seems that you have to accept them as true, that sort of make your points false but apparently it does not bother you so you keep believing whatever you like without letting small things like reality distract you from your "truth".

No, no, no, don't try to whittle down your argument to only Japanese law after I provide you irrefutable sources for my claims in other countries! We have clearly been talking about other jurisdictions and you have even mentioned the case of the actress in California (which hasn't gone to trial by the way).

Do you at least now admit that contracts for sexual services are not legally enforceable in most other countries? (with the exception of Japan as you now claim?)

I asked clearly where in the Japanese law a valid contract involving legal sexual services cannot be enforced

The public policy exception. As Kazuaki Shimazaki has pasted the Article in the civil code above.

Its interesting also to see how you failed also to provide proof that not touching

Yes, this is simply my opinion on what now supports the public policy exception, the human right to your own bodily integrity. The public policy exception used to be supported by religion, immorality, misogyny in 1797 in the Franco case. Now it is supported by basic human rights and the fear of sexual slavery. (When the court announces something is against public policy, they don't always explain what the policy is)

Here's what I don't understand about your argument. The court has clearly decided against your position, right? So do you simply think this judge and the woman's lawyer are completely crazy? Do you think every other legal system and legal expert around the world has a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law and when human rights render part of a contract unenforceable?.... But somehow you are right because a) forced labour and b) the entire porn industry wouldn't be here if you were wrong?

No, no, no, don't try to whittle down your argument to only Japanese law after I provide you irrefutable sources for my claims in other countries! We have clearly been talking about other jurisdictions and you have even mentioned the case of the actress in California (which hasn't gone to trial by the way).

I asked for japanese law, you asked for any kind of examples, you did not gave any Japanese law, I did gave you examples around the world, so you did not provide what I asked but I did provide what you asked, its that simple. Also, I already refuted your sources by putting those sections that you left out in all dishonesty and that demonstrated that sex worker contracts are valid and enforceable as long as they are about legal work (exactly the same as any other kind of work) and are only invalid when they are about illegal sex work (exactly the same as any other kind of illegal work).

Also the actress in California is important because a Judge ruled that the producing company is allowed to sue her, that means that the Judge already decided that there is merit in trying to enforce the contract. So yes, a sex service contract can be enforced.

Do you at least now admit that contracts for sexual services are not legally enforceable in most other countries? (with the exception of Japan as you now claim?)

Of course not, because most countries have legal sexual services (such as Porn) and those contracts in all those countries are legal, valid and completely enforceable. I never claimed that only Japan have legal sex jobs (please quote me when did I wrote that or accept that you just lied).

The public policy exception. As Kazuaki Shimazaki has pasted the Article in the civil code above.

Bad at reading comprehension? I ask again, Give me an example of when a VALID contract involving LEGAL sexual services cannot be enforced? If you read Shimazaki quote any contract against public policy is INVALID and ILLEGAL no matter what kind of job it is. You seem to fail to understand the meaning of something being contrary to public policy. In this case in specific acting in a porn movie is NOT against public policy (its legal, allowed by law, licensed, etc.) As a rule of thumb, doing anything against public policy lands you in Jail (and no, before you go back to your weird touching opinion, nobody ever forced the actress to perform, only sued her to pay damages something completely legal).

Yes, this is simply my opinion on what now supports the public policy exception, the human right to your own bodily integrity.

Exactly the same as for any other job. the human right to your own bodily integrity is fundamental for the right to refuse work, any kind of work. Thank you for asserting again that acting in a porn movie is exactly the same as any other job in the aspect that forcing consent is not legal (but enforcing penalties or damages is not).

The public policy exception used to be supported by religion, immorality, misogyny in 1797 in the Franco case. Now it is supported by basic human rights and the fear of sexual slavery. (When the court announces something is against public policy, they don't always explain what the policy is)

But they HAVE to rule that its illegal, that did not happened in this case because the sex service in the contract is of course legal, and so not against public policy (and neither is illegal to ask for compensation of the contract, so that was also NOT against public policy) Again, read the complete ruling that is already posted and see how in no moment anything was ruled to be either illegal nor against public policy.

The court has clearly decided against your position,

That is completely false, my position is that a contract cannot force anybody to work in any kind of job, having sex in front of a camera is not in any way a special case at all, the court did not provide any argument at all to contradict it (else put where the court said that other examples of work can be forced as long as there is no sex involved).

So do you simply think this judge and the woman's lawyer are completely crazy?

As Shimazaki presented, the Judge took a very biased decision not based in any known precedent, you must live in a bubble if you think this is the first time something like this happened. No court decision is infallible and there are very strong reasons to say this was just another of those cases. And of course the woman's lawyer will always agree with anything that benefits in any way his client, it would not be the first case that a lawyer gets lucky with an inappropriate ruling and will stick with it for as long as possible, it is after all his job.

Do you think every other legal system and legal expert around the world has a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law and when human rights render part of a contract unenforceable?

Oh no, I think that first you misunderstood all other legal systems and legal experts and finally in your previous post maliciously misrepresented their opinions to make it seem that no contract with sex is ever enforceable when actually only those illegal are so and the experts even say clearly that legal sex services contracts ARE enforceable. (that is the bad thing about posting sources expecting people not to search for them, just by reading the whole paragraph it was easy to discover the deception and use your sources against your argument, better luck next time).

But somehow you are right because a) forced labour and b) the entire porn industry wouldn't be here if you were wrong?

No, I am right because you failed to prove that sex is magically more protected than forced labor, and that also you failed to prove that all the contracts in legal sex services (including porn) are actually non enforceable. That means that all my arguments are still solid and all of your have been demonstrated as incorrect opinions and lies.

How about the "masturbation special" argument? you keep trying to say that being touched during the job is the main part about making illegal to enforce the contract so I used the most absurd example to try and prove that that is nonsense, right now I began to think that actually you really believe that if the actress was in a movie where she did not had to be touched by anyone else, then she would have to pay millions when refusing to work. Is that actually right?

Its is actually interesting how you implicitly accept the accusations of dishonesty by misrepresenting a quote and expect that nobody would call you again on that, must be really nice living in a perfect reality where you can just ignore things and they disappear from your mind as if they never existed.

Judge took a very biased decision not based in any known precedent, you must live in a bubble if you think this is the first time something like this happened.

So now you are complaining about the ruling because a Japanese judge, in a civil law system, did not cite any precedent to support his ruling?

This is what I mean when I say that there are many fundamental errors and assumptions in your legal reasoning that make it difficult to respond to you point by point. I can't write an essay here. I don't mean to be extremely rude but with the amount that you have written here, you could have spent that time reading the first few chapters of a Contract Law 101 textbook. It would answer all your questions and theories on forced labour.

How about the "masturbation special" argument?

This is odd but interesting. First, you have to check the Penal Code to see if having someone perform a sexual act on themselves is in any way criminal, then you have to ask the judge if this also falls withing the public policy exception. If it doesn't, (and that is a big IF) it might not even be within the terms of the contract if the contract specifically states all of the specific sex acts that the film will include. You can't unilaterally alter the text or waterdown the terms of your contract to save it from being declared unenforceable.

Anyway, I don't think we will convince eachother and I will just be repeating myself if I continue. I will check back from time to time to see if anyone else has posted but I've said everything I have to say. We can chat again if there is an appeal.

(Thanks to the moderators who had to read through all of this)

So now you are complaining about the ruling because a Japanese judge, in a civil law system, did not cite any precedent to support his ruling?

No, I am complaining because as Shimazaki has already explained the judge actions were full of bias from the very beginning, it was a highly controversial ruling that generally requires the support of very clear precedent to avoid being overruled easily later and nevertheless none was provided. It is a very unusual way of ending a trial contradicting the usual understanding of the law without any real objective reason offered, that is the complain.

This is what I mean when I say that there are many fundamental errors and assumptions in your legal reasoning that make it difficult to respond to you point by point.

That or that the same up to now you cannot do it (maybe because there are no such errors), or maybe because you got shot in the foot the last time you tried to deceive by mutilating your sources thinking that nobody would take the minute to search for them to see what they really were saying.

I don't mean to be extremely rude but with the amount that you have written here, you could have spent that time reading the first few chapters of a Contract Law 101 textbook.

Well, if you keep thinking that "touching" is the main point in any kind of forced labor crime I would give back the advice, but probably would be more productive to recommend you basics of dialectic and logic before you try law of any kind. I have absolutely no questions about forced labor, its crystal clear because I don't need to imagine complicated and fantastic situations about irrelevant details. Forcing work of any kind is illegal, being it sex or sweeping, enforcing a contract does not require at all forcing consent nor for sex, not for sweeping.

This is odd but interesting.

Actually it is not, that you need to do mental juggling and contortion to accommodate your strange theories about touching and forcing consent makes its clear that is just a excuse and nonsense, Its much more simple, easy and correct to understand that being touched or not have absolutely nothing to do with forcing consent, and because of that Forced Labor is a crime that can be done without any need of touch, and because of that Acting in a porn movie or waiting tables are both protected in the same way ONLY against being forced, not against other valid, legal repercussions of breaking a contract.

Anyway, I don't think we will convince eachother and I will just be repeating myself if I continue.

That is a very strange way of accepting that you are not open to valid arguments and prefer to keep a closed mind no matter what but well, to each his own.

I will check back from time to time to see if anyone else has posted but I've said everything I have to say. We can chat again if there is an appeal.

In a discussion normally is more productive to recognize your own mistakes (such as all the arguments that you quietly abandoned hoping that nobody remember them when you realized you could not defend them anymore) but as long as finally its clear that legal sex services are not more nor less protected by law than any other kind of legal work, that is fine.