In great news for dirtbags everywhere a Japanese court has ruled that any sex you pay for isn’t technically considered cheating.
The decision was handed down in Tokyo and involved a couple and a bar hostess.
In what can only be excused as some very confused finger pointing, the scorned wife demanded ¥4 million ($41,989 AUD) from the hostess (?!) for “psychological distress”.
According to The Japanese Times the man’s wife alleged that the woman had conducted a sexual relationship with her husband, a company president, for over seven years.
But the hostess claimed the sexual relations with the businessman were a case of “makura eigyo” – roughly meaning “pillow sales tactics” – and were engaged in to retain a good customer.
The presiding judge in the matter, Judge Masamitsu Shiseki dismissed the wife’s the claim by likening the hostess to a prostitute, saying that the only difference is whether she received payment for sexual intercourse “directly” or “indirectly.”
Judge Shiseki deemed that as long as the intercourse is for business, it “does not harm the marital relationship at all”.
While Judge Masamitsu Shiseki’s handed down the ruling in April 2014 it is once again stirring up controversy in legal magazine Hanrei Times, which covers court cases. The magazine features debate about the case from judicial experts as saying it was the first-ever case to discuss the legitimacy of makura eigyo.
Hayato Tamura, a legal expert on divorce and adultery in Japan, said court precedents showed that the cheating spouse and his or her extramarital partner should be held jointly responsible for damages.
The wife did not appeal the ruling but her lawyer said the case’s outcome posed “a vicious precedent” and feared it would weaken Japan’s current protections against adultery.
“Citizens should discuss whether compensation should be made by a hostess having a sexual relationship with a married man,” lawyer Katsuyuki Aoshima told The Japanese Times.
“A judgment like this case shouldn’t be set as a new standard without clear and logical reasoning,” he said.
Speaking of logical reasoning, we wonder if the woman considered that perhaps the person she should be suing is her lying scumbag hubby for ‘motional distress?
VIDEO: Sex and the City's alternative endings