I came across this in a male member’s November date review.
This content is machine-translated.
“There were two issues with my date that I felt could not be overlooked, so I’m writing the following. I explained the points below very clearly at the beginning of the date. I also confirmed that [name] understood.
【Regarding travel expenses】 The amount is between 5,000 and 10,000 yen, and the decision is left up to the man.
I give travel expenses based not on the outcome of the date, but on ‘honesty.’
Even if the date ends with just a very short coffee meeting—for example, because she turns me down, or because I turn her down based on the conversation—if she has honestly told me what she thinks, I will gladly give her 10,000 yen as travel expenses.
However, if I feel that she has not been honest, I will give her only 5,000 yen, no matter how wonderful she is.
If she is honest, I will give her the full 10,000 yen as a gesture of respect for her honesty, regardless of the outcome, so please feel free to tell me honestly even if it’s something negative.
—(The rest omitted)—”
This man clearly states that he gives the travel expenses after the meal, but did the staff warn him about that?
If they chose not to warn him because they didn’t want to cause friction or because it depends on the circumstances, shouldn’t they remove the rule requiring travel expenses to be paid upfront?
If there were no such rule, it wouldn’t bother me. But because the rule exists, I often find myself thinking that this person is someone who doesn’t follow the rules.
I’m Dai, a male member.
Are you saying you won’t continue seeing him because he broke the rules?
Or would you continue seeing him if his allowance were generous, even though you knew he was the kind of man who breaks the rules?
I’m sorry, but I don’t think whether the allowance is paid upfront or afterward is such an important rule.
For reference, with Type B arrangements, I pay upfront.
With Type C arrangements, I pay afterward because the amount may change when negotiating the allowance for an adult relationship (intimate).
(3 replies left)
(3 replies left)
💡 This question has no password registered, so the reply feature is unavailable.
If you access from the device/browser used to post the question, you may be able to set a password later.
I’m Fuu, a column writer.
To begin with, wasn’t this rule meant to deal with people who don’t even pay transportation costs? Since it’s a rule, isn’t it fine as a deterrent?
There are traffic rules too, but no one follows every single one. In reality, when there’s no one around on a road with a 30 km/h speed limit, it’s hard to actually drive at 30 km/h.
This papa is paying, right? I understand banning him if he didn’t pay and ran off.
Not handing over the allowance in advance is a rule violation.
That’s true, but the person asking wasn’t actually harmed. Are you really that concerned that you went out of your way to pull this from the survey?
Even though there’s a chance of receiving ¥10,000? If you warn this papa, it’ll become ¥5,000. Is that really okay? You’ll end up losing money.
You’re someone who takes rules very seriously, aren’t you? You seem so rigid that you might end up losing out.
What is it you’re trying to get out of this? A good papa and a generous allowance—that’s the goal, isn’t it?
Or is there some other rule you think he’s failing to follow?
P.S.
Hmm… maybe I’m wrong?
Are you bringing up the rule violation because you’re someone who only received ¥5,000 from this papa?
(3 replies left)
(3 replies left)
💡 This question has no password registered, so the reply feature is unavailable.
If you access from the device/browser used to post the question, you may be able to set a password later.
Maezawa from the President’s Office here as well.
> People often get the impression that this person doesn’t follow the rules.
If people think, “This person doesn’t follow the rules,” then everyone will start following them, so that’s a good thing.
So you mean I should write more clearly that transportation expenses are paid in advance?
Hmm, I see.
But if I spell out too much, people who already follow the rules will wonder why I’m stating the obvious. So I think the current level of detail is just right.
Please continue to follow the rules properly when going on dates.
> Has the advance payment requirement become a rule again instead of just a request?
This is a request.
I’m sorry, but I’d appreciate your cooperation.
I think phrasing it that way would avoid causing unnecessary friction.
There are occasionally strange people who say things like, “It’s not written in the rules, so I don’t have to comply with some request, right?”
As a precaution against people like that, it’s useful to keep it written in the rules. Then, when you decide, “There’s no way this person is going to work out—I want them to leave,” you have various options available.
Ordinary people will say, “Got it, I’ll be careful,” so with those people, I think it’s fine to simply say, “It’s a request.”
(3 replies left)
(3 replies left)
💡 This question has no password registered, so the reply feature is unavailable.
If you access from the device/browser used to post the question, you may be able to set a password later.
I’m Kazu, a male member.
I’m responding after reading Marika’s answer.
> Has it changed from being something you ask for to being a rule again? Paying upfront, I mean.
As far as I know, it has been written in the rules continuously since January 2019.
(3 replies left)
(3 replies left)
💡 This question has no password registered, so the reply feature is unavailable.
If you access from the device/browser used to post the question, you may be able to set a password later.
Has paying upfront become a rule again instead of something you simply ask for?
From this man’s review of the date, it’s impossible to tell whether he paid ¥5,000 upfront and then added another ¥5,000 afterward. We can’t say for sure that he didn’t pay upfront, either.
Either way, he sounds like a troublesome man. Poor thing, being exposed on a site like this.
So, what exactly was the question?
Was it whether the man had been warned? If so, only the staff or the man himself would know.
Sorry.
Marika
(3 replies left)
(3 replies left)
💡 This question has no password registered, so the reply feature is unavailable.
If you access from the device/browser used to post the question, you may be able to set a password later.
I’m Date◎Yume, a male member.
> I often get the impression that this person doesn’t follow the rules.
I completely agree.
Since the transportation allowance is supposed to be given at the beginning, I think you should simply hand it over at the start.
The issue only becomes complicated when you try to decide based on how the dinner goes. I completely understand how you feel, though… (lol)
It seems like something that could be settled simply by giving her 5,000 yen from the outset.
(3 replies left)
(3 replies left)
💡 This question has no password registered, so the reply feature is unavailable.
If you access from the device/browser used to post the question, you may be able to set a password later.
