I wish men who mistake a monthly arrangement for a lucky unlimited-dates deal would disappear.
This content is machine-translated.
A monthly arrangement is supposed to be for wealthy men—those earning at least 100 million yen a year and with assets of at least 1 billion yen—who secretly date a beautiful woman while paying, because of their own male selfishness, what is essentially an apology for:
- hush money
- making her settle for being second place during the prime of her life
- the possessiveness of not letting her have a boyfriend, even though she is still second place
Isn’t that what monthly payments are supposed to mean?
Of course, there are women like Aya who have a main boyfriend while also seriously dating multiple men. But they make various efforts and adjustments so that each man feels, “I’m the one she truly wants,” and in some cases, that is what leads to a monthly arrangement.
So I don’t think a monthly arrangement is some convenient, discounted package that lets you meet frequently.
If a woman says, “○ yen is enough,” and you think, “Great, I get unlimited intimacy on the cheap,” that’s hardly something to brag about, is it????
I think women who need money but aren’t attractive enough to wealthy men are simply lowering their own value on purpose to keep hold of a valuable monthly partner. Am I wrong?
Being able to date someone for a low allowance doesn’t mean you have any particular appeal as a man. It just means she has no other prospects and has to settle for that level.
So dating someone for a low allowance is basically like publicly announcing, “I have no financial means and I’m not popular, so I can only attract women of a mediocre caliber.”
Please don’t act so high and mighty over a monthly arrangement of a mere 200,000–300,000 yen.
I think you should at least reach the level where you can comfortably pay 500,000 yen.
Even 500,000 yen is cheap.
Though I doubt truly wealthy men like that are reading this site and bothering to respond out of frustration.
What I’m trying to say is that a monthly arrangement isn’t a system for meeting many times cheaply. It’s a bond in which both people build trust and a connection that go beyond money and can sustain a long-term relationship.
For women, I think it can also be a major source of emotional support to receive a stable, set income from a man they enjoy seeing and genuinely like.
Please don’t lower the standard of monthly arrangements.
I wish ordinary salaried workers and people with a little money would change the way they think about them.
Sorry for the long post.
Thank you.
👤Asked byGuest👨GenderMale🎂20s👑Universe female member
💗Likes0👁️Views123💬Answers16
🔖IDvKVe8-00000🎯Looking for answers from
Anyone
Company representative
Got it.
Don’t worry. If you’re cute, he might still make you an offer, but once he finds out how you really feel, it won’t continue.
If you’re going to complain that much about every little thing, why not work and earn the money yourself?
(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.
Questions and concerns about allowances are completely normal. In fact, they’re one of the main topics when it comes to dating clubs, so they’re more than welcome.
Please feel free to ask as many questions as you like.
Some answerers don’t like questions about allowances, but if they do, they can simply skip them.
(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 think the questioner has the wrong idea.
What you’re describing is a kept woman—someone who doesn’t see other men either, essentially a mistress in the old-fashioned sense.
Just because it’s a monthly arrangement doesn’t mean she’s prohibited from seeing other men as well, does it?
If you want to have exclusive access to a woman, then as you say, even ¥500,000 a month would be cheap. (If she were active like a professional papa-katsu girl, she’d probably make over ¥1 million a month at ¥50,000 per meeting…)
But as Mac-san says, men who give women huge allowances throw off their sense of money, make them unable to leave, and then dump them later. I think that’s cruel.
Personally, I’d rather get along with a woman who has a proper day job and thinks that having around ¥100,000–¥200,000 extra each month would make her life more comfortable.
(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 Taro, a male member.
I did answer the follow-up question, so this may sound a little odd, but a half-hearted monthly arrangement ultimately just becomes “a lucky guy who gets off cheap” versus “a happy woman who secures a fixed income with minimal effort.” No matter which side you take, it’s hard to seriously support that kind of battle, isn’t it? I just think neither side is truly committed.
I feel like Chizuko Ueno or Toru Kenjo would say something similar if you asked them. Sorry you wrote so much, but that’s not really the point.
(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 getting pretty tired of all these questions about allowances.
It’s better not to worry too much about the going rate. You can’t maintain an arrangement when you’re too focused on that.
I’m not saying you should cling to just anyone, since there are men who will try to pay as little as possible. But you shouldn’t ignore your own worth and settle for less just because the offer is low.
Can we put an end to this soon? No matter how many times it’s explained, some people just don’t seem to learn.
(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.
That’s true.
Apparently, a friend of my papa (a male supporter) gave his former mistress, a woman in her late 40s, ¥100 million after she became ill and ended their relationship. It was his way of thanking her for devoting the best years of her life to him, and apologizing for the fact that she had missed her chance to marry because of him.
But seriously, what percentage of Japan’s population do you think consists of men that wealthy?
Universe, by making papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan) more mainstream, has allowed ordinary women to experience things that were previously available only to a small number of women in the nightlife business or professional mistresses. Conversely, it has made it possible for ordinary salaried men—not just a tiny number of wealthy men—to have a mistress or a woman to date outside of marriage.
That’s where the matching comes in, and if both parties agree, then that’s all that matters.
I don’t think I’m worth receiving hundreds of millions of yen over my lifetime, nor am I confident enough to ask for ¥100,000 pay-per-meeting.
There are all kinds of relationships, and allowances vary. What’s wrong with that?
For an ordinary woman, the chances of meeting the kind of papa you’re talking about are incredibly low. If we exclude men offering low allowances, women who are currently continuing relationships even for modest amounts will have no way to keep dating at all.
I don’t like going on and on about allowances, but lately both men and women—questioners and respondents alike—have been making an awful fuss about them, so I wanted to share what I think.
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.
Then don’t ask the question here. Let’s keep the going rates for pay-per-meeting and monthly arrangements shrouded in mystery, lol.
How would I know? I wasn’t the one who suggested a monthly arrangement. She said I was giving her too much and wouldn’t accept any more, so I just took advantage of her kindness and said, “My bad! Thanks!” I only kept seeing her because she said she wanted to meet.
The woman I had a monthly arrangement with is genuinely a great person. We’re still friends even now. Money wasn’t her number-one priority. She’s a person—a human being—not some allowance-seeking cyborg.
All I can do is answer based on the facts and my past experiences.
Instead of obsessing over going rates and the big picture, why not just focus on one person matching with another?
To hell with going rates! lol
Okay, sorry. I’ll be leaving soon. I don’t feel comfortable here anyway. It’ll be more peaceful that way.
(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.
