I had a 30-minute conversation with an advisor at a marriage agency, and I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp of the business overview. The conversation veered off into a related topic: “Do members self-report non-consensual sex?” I was impressed when the advisor told me, “Normally, if a woman reports it, the terms of service stipulate that sexual intercourse during the dating period is treated as a successful match, resulting in mandatory expulsion, so it doesn’t lead to any trouble.”


There was also a post on X suggesting, “If a woman alleges non-consensual sex, shouldn’t the man simply report that it was non-consensual as well?” While this represents an “affirmative” perspective given the political climate at the time the statute on forcible sexual intercourse was enacted—which recognized that men could also be victims—there also seems to be a cultural viewpoint, grounded in criminal law theory, that there is no need to define “consensual sex.” Ultimately, given that women are in a physically vulnerable position due to the structure of their genitalia when a claim of non-consensual intercourse is made, and if we adopt a relatively strict interpretation that “acts similar to sexual intercourse are not sexual intercourse,” it is probably unavoidable that the woman will be the one to determine whether consent was given or not.


While the crime of forcible sexual intercourse was accompanied by a detailed list of examples, the crime of non-consensual sexual intercourse seems to have foregone such a list. In other words, whether consent was given or not—to use the terminology from Masari Toyama’s “Binary Criminal Law Game Theory”—is structured as a nested framework of criminal intent/negligence and civil intent/negligence. Given that it is clear this differs from the concept of “lack of consent” in the crime of non-consensual abortion, and taking into account that criminal law is shifting from punishment toward education, the debate can be resolved by using the criterion of whether civil damages were intentionally caused, separate from the infringement of criminal legal interests.


結婚相談所のアドバイザーの人と30分程話し込んだが、事業の概要は大体把握できたはず。派生の話で「会員は不同意性交を自己申告するか」という話になり、「通常は女性の方から申告があれば、規約上は交際期間中の性交は成婚扱いで強制退会なので、トラブルにはならない」と言われて感心した。

「女性側からの不同意性交の訴えには男性側からも不同意性交を申告すれば良いのでは」というXポストもあったが、強制性交等罪の条文が置かれた時期の政治状況(男性も被害者になり得る、という機運)からはAffirmativeな考え方だとして、刑法学理からすると「不同意でない性交」を定義する必要はないという文化の考え方もあるようで、結局女性側から不同意を申し立てられたら性器の構造上弱いところもあり、「性交類似行為は性交ではない」とする厳格な解釈を比較的採用するなら、やはり不同意かどうかは女性側が決める事になるのは致し方ないところなのだろう。

強制性交等罪には細かい例示列挙が付随していたが、不同意性交等罪は例示列挙を諦めた感がある。つまり、不同意かどうかは遠山の政理の一「バイナリ刑法ゲーム理論」の言い方で刑事的な故意/過失と民事的な故意/過失の入れ子細工になっており、不同意堕胎罪の不同意とは違う言葉だという事は明らかであるとして、刑事法が制裁ではなく教育にシフトしてきている事を加味し、刑事的な法益侵害とは別に民事的な損害が故意に生じたかをメルクマールにする事で議論を整除できる。

Leo J Toyama