I’m the person who asked a question for reference for a paper last time.

I use both, so I’ll answer based on that experience. There are certainly some people on both platforms who make the kinds of comments you mentioned, but proportionally speaking, I think the dating clubs have far fewer of them. Also, I believe most of the respondents are either gentlemanly themselves or are involved with people who are. So I think you may simply be asking in the wrong place, and you probably won’t get the kind of answers you’re hoping for. That said, if your goal here was to find counterarguments, then you’ve done a pretty good job of provoking everyone into giving you the answers you wanted. Sorry to be harsh, but even if you did get the answers you were looking for, asking only here would still give you too small a sample size to be sufficient for an academic paper. That said, undergraduate papers are often little more than lengthy essays written just to earn enough credits, so I suppose it’s fine. I also received a good evaluation for mine, despite finishing it quickly and rather casually. I doubt your professor expects very much either, so if you’re asking these questions simply for your own satisfaction, I suppose there’s nothing wrong with that—as long as the post isn’t hidden. I’m curious about your true intentions: Is “a paper on women’s sexuality, its darker side, and how it is changing” simply a subject you’re personally interested in, or are you trying to argue your case so you can expose that darkness and become a leader who stands up for justice? Good luck with your paper. As for your question, the other respondents have already given you the answer.

> I’ve gone undercover on numerous papa-katsu websites and apps. You went undercover on papa-katsu websites and apps, so why don’t you do the same with dating clubs? What’s more, this is a website operated by a dating club. I really don’t understand why you would write about a completely different company, and about a completely different type of business at that. For example, if the questioner were a university student, how would you feel if someone wrote: “University students all engage in prostitution, but they wrap it in euphemisms, make it sound cute, and call it being a university student to lessen their sense of guilt”? Wouldn’t you think, “Which university students are you talking about?” I imagine many people would say, “I don’t do anything like that.” But saying, “No, no, I’ve seen all kinds of university students engage in prostitution,” is on the same level. It completely misses the point, and what’s being written isn’t true either. As for papa-katsu, the term was popularized by Universe Club, but originally it referred to “the activity of looking for a papa.” However, some people interpret it differently. That’s because, when papa-katsu was first covered on television, they deliberately explained it in a way that differed from its original meaning. So, for people who believe that television explanation, papa-katsu may seem completely different from prostitution. I don’t know why you don’t address that, but there are certainly people online who stubbornly insist on that interpretation while doing papa-katsu. By the way, are you someone who has never had a boyfriend or any experience with men? If so, perhaps this is unavoidable. But if you’ve had experience with men and have been in a relationship before, I assume you’ve received a present at least once. If receiving a present means you engaged in prostitution, then that would apply to you too, wouldn’t it? Oh, right—because it’s taboo, you call it a boyfriend-type relationship to justify it to yourself and make yourself feel better, don’t you? You wrap the language in euphemisms, make it sound cute, and call it a relationship to lessen your sense of guilt. But if someone gives you presents or pays for you, that means it’s prostitution, right? Unless you write that much, I don’t think it qualifies as a proper thesis. In reality, though, almost no one considers it prostitution when they receive a present from their partner. Nor does anyone seem to think they’re justifying themselves or trying to lessen their guilt. Why not think carefully about what the difference is?

To put it plainly, my papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan) is about “looking for a kept lover.” Just as people look for a marriage partner through marriage-hunting, I was looking for a male lover through papa-katsu. And I actually found a papa (a male supporter) I adore. He keeps me in the traditional sense of a mistress, and I’m living a comfortable, pampered life. I have never engaged in prostitution during my papa-katsu. That said, as I mentioned last time, people negotiating things like “X yen, hotel fee separate” on apps may be doing something closer to buying and selling sex. In any case, it seems the person asking this question is trying to justify their own feelings and subjective views, and is planning to write their paper with that same attitude. That’s a common pattern in papers written by humanities students, so I’d recommend switching to discourse analysis—such as “Changes in the Discourse Surrounding Prostitution”—or to comparative sociology, including cross-country comparisons and historical analysis. As it stands, it’s an essay, not an academic paper…

No one is particularly trying to justify it. If anything, it feels like you just want to look down on men who do papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan). If someone on an app made you that kind of proposal, why not actually meet him and ask him directly? I doubt anyone answering here is offering a room-inclusive rate, so I think you’re fundamentally asking in the wrong place.

I’m Fullerene! I’m answering for the first time in a very long while. Most of you may be seeing me here for the first time. (I’ve been taking a break for a while.) First, let me answer your questions. > Do you use this term to justify and convince yourself that what you’re doing is papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan)? → I never have the opportunity to use it in the first place, since it’s not something that ever comes up when I talk with anyone. If anything, I’d rather not use it. I don’t find it cute, and I don’t feel like it gives me any basis for justifying myself. That said, if someone asked me, “What you’re doing—is that papa-katsu?” I’d probably answer, “Yes, I suppose it is.” Likewise, if someone said, “Isn’t that just buying sex?” I’d probably answer, “Yes, I suppose it is,” all the same. > Also, how do those involved feel about the general public’s image of papa-katsu? → My reaction is basically, “Ah, they’ve come up with yet another marketing term, like enjo kōsai.” The reality the questioner is concerned about has existed in some proportion in every era. So why do all these different terms keep appearing? I think it’s simply because human beings have an inherent desire among young people not to be lumped together with older generations. That’s why the image of the term papa-katsu will gradually become worn out and stigmatized too. At this point, however, I feel that papa-katsu encompasses elements of a privately run hostess club. That may be why some people, like the questioner, see it as relatively mild, but I suspect those who actually participate understand the reality far better than the questioner imagines. People who drink beer and people who drink shōchū are all still drinkers. To someone who doesn’t drink, they may all look like the same kind of drunk, but the people themselves know exactly what they’re drinking. I wonder if that makes sense... Now, this isn’t part of my answer, but if you’re thinking about writing an academic paper or something, please define your terms more carefully when asking questions, as I mentioned in my answer to your previous question. Otherwise, I don’t think you’ll get the answers you’re looking for. The people here are all pretty formidable.

At first glance, this looks like a logically structured question, but it really isn’t. First of all, apps and websites are different from dating clubs and Universe Club. Please don’t lump them together without justification. Next, you’ve forced the phrase “choosing from among an unspecified number of members” into the discussion, but allowance negotiations are conducted with a specific person. They don’t take place when the other party is unspecified. Whether the pool you chose from was unspecified has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of prostitution. It doesn’t seem like you’re asking because you genuinely intend to discuss the issue. Rather, it seems you want someone to validate your preconceived notions. Research conducted with a predetermined conclusion isn’t acceptable in an academic paper. I’ll say it again: I don’t believe this constitutes prostitution or solicitation, so I don’t even feel there’s anything to justify. Your question is based on a false premise.

Even with papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan), you can sometimes meet someone who suits you better than a romantic partner or spouse. Both sides are actually very rational. Romantic relationships and marriages are determined mostly by factors other than physical compatibility—because sex with love can be fulfilling beyond mere compatibility. At a dating club, men can find the right partner based on whatever balance they prefer between physical compatibility and other forms of compatibility. Women can also choose based on their preferred balance between financial compatibility and other forms of compatibility. I’ve never used dating apps and have no interest in them, so I can’t really say, but at least dating clubs provide an extremely rational way for men and women to meet. What’s more, it doesn’t turn into something like being blinded by love, nor does it burn hot and then cool off. You can stay calm and consistent the whole time. As an answer, I know it’s generally seen as something bad that people shouldn’t do. But precisely because it’s a forbidden world that most people don’t know about and would never dare enter, once you immerse yourself in it, it can turn out to be an incredible world—more than just an oasis.

Perhaps it’s not just Japan, but Japan does tend to keep things ambiguous. I’m not sure this really answers your question, but let me share Joe’s perspective. First, regarding whether prostitution is a crime or not: ① Countries that prohibit all prostitution, such as China and probably North Korea. Historically speaking, these countries apparently aren’t actually in the minority. ② Countries that officially recognize prostitution under certain conditions through a regulated system, such as those in Northern Europe and the Netherlands. The problem with ① is that prostitution goes underground. With ②, because prostitution is tolerated, ethical concerns are often raised. So where does Japan stand? It’s neither ① nor ②. In practice, prostitution is quietly tolerated under the name of “free love.” Take soaplands, for example. They notify the public health center and receive permission to operate, but their official designation is “special bathhouses.” When you think about it, isn’t that an incredible name? You can’t help but ask, “What exactly is so special about it?”—and in reality, that’s precisely the point. Yet because they’re classified as “special,” prostitution is effectively permitted there. I’m not mocking Japan; I think this is simply part of the country’s character. Japan tends to wrap inconvenient things in euphemisms. A soapland is “special,” but it’s also a “bathhouse”—that is, a sauna—so each room contains a small steam sauna that is never actually used. The rooms also have windows. The official position is that if there are windows, no sexual activity could possibly be taking place there. In other words, the authorities tacitly acknowledge that sexual activity with unspecified partners is taking place there. The steam saunas and windows are there as excuses. In conclusion, the fact that we aren’t the only ones using clubs to ease our guilt by wrapping things in euphemisms doesn’t mean I’m trying to justify it. Joe’s view is that Japan’s ambiguity has given rise to these kinds of alternative expressions. By the way, regarding Universe Club, I don’t know the details, so I may end up writing complete nonsense, but they’ve filed some kind of notification under the “dating ordinance,” haven’t they? I’ve never read it because I’m not particularly interested, but I have a feeling it contains some surprising things. Why do I say that? I once had the chance to see the notification submitted to the public health center for a special bathhouse, and I nearly fell over. If you’re writing your graduation thesis, definitely check both of them out. You might gain a new perspective. Good luck with your thesis.

It might be something like this: viewed from directly above, a cup is just a circle; viewed from the side, it’s a rectangle; but viewed at an angle, you realize it’s a cup. As for reducing my sense of guilt, I justify the exploitation of sex by giving an allowance that’s clearly much higher than the going rate (5) in my case m(｡>__<｡)m Of course, no matter how much the allowance is, from the questioner’s perspective it would probably still be “prostitution is prostitution,” so my argument has zero persuasive power. One thing I wonder about is that the lounge hostess I’m seeing initially received no allowance. Was that sexual exploitation? I started giving her money monthly at my own suggestion, but does it become prostitution the moment money changes hands? If so, I feel terrible for her. By giving her money, I apparently transformed her from “her” into a “prostitute,” and I’m deeply sorry and regret it immensely. If we broaden the scope, does becoming a full-time housewife and living off one’s husband’s money count as a variant of prostitution? Are women whose boyfriends pay for pretty much everything also prostitutes? If that’s considered acceptable, why? What’s the basis for that claim? Some women in papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan) genuinely love their papa (a male supporter). If they’re willing to be together without an allowance, but it becomes prostitution when they receive one, is that how it works? Could you get around it like pachinko—give them a prize once, then have them exchange the prize for cash? Would it be prostitution if the allowance were paid in Amazon gift cards? What about vouchers? PayPay? Gold bars? If Sho Hirano gave a 19-year-old woman ¥10,000 upfront, calling it “cab fare,” before they became intimate, would that be prostitution? If he didn’t call it cab fare, would it be prostitution, but if he did, would it not be? What if it were ¥30,000—even if he called it cab fare, would that count as prostitution? What about ¥100,000, or ¥1,000? Suppose the papa (a male supporter) the questioner met through Universe were a handsome young papa, better-looking than her boyfriend, and far more skilled at intimacy—and she found herself thinking, “I want to see him every day.” Would it still become prostitution the moment she accepted money? What I’m trying to say is that there will always be gray areas that can’t be neatly divided, so I don’t think this can be discussed as a simple either-or question of whether it is prostitution. Also, any paper that fails to rebut or disprove all of these examples—the Sho Hirano case, the gold bars, boyfriends paying for everything, the lounge hostess, and so on—gets a failing grade, unfortunately. In my view, relationships where the woman is putting up with things like “The allowance is pretty low” or “Do something about that hairy, round belly” do feel like they cross the line into prostitution, or at least sexual exploitation. But relationships like those of Marika or Aya, where they genuinely love their papa and feel no stress, shouldn’t be called prostitution. I think papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan) is the appropriate term. I believe what President Kida, Maezawa, and the other employees want to provide for us members is also this kind of papa-katsu. I hope it turns into a good paper.