Why not just get rid of the ABCD dating types altogether? I think it would be enough to have just two options: “Absolutely not” or “It could be possible if I like the other person.” Would anyone really be inconvenienced if there weren’t four categories?

Maezawa here. There are actually five dating types, from A to E. However, several years ago, it was decided that Type E wasn’t really suitable for a dating club, so it was treated separately. (E still exists today, though.) As a result, the number was effectively reduced from five types to four, so it’s possible that they may eventually be reduced to just two options. That said, I feel the four current dating types embody the kind of romance unique to dating clubs, and personally, I think the current setup is just right. Wondering what this particular woman was thinking when she chose her dating type can also be part of the fun. Whether or not you can develop an adult relationship (intimate) with a woman may be important, but from the perspective of enjoying the process leading up to that point—and then enjoying a long-term relationship afterward—I feel having four dating types allows people to enjoy the experience more. Also, because the practical number of types was reduced from five to four, the former Type E disappeared, and Type D is now treated much like the old Type E. Originally, however, Type D was different from Type E. It meant, “There is a possibility that this could develop into a relationship,” rather than meaning that the woman would definitely say yes. But with the practical Type E gone, Type D has come to be treated like the former Type E—essentially, as though a relationship after dinner is almost guaranteed. If we took this further and eliminated Type D to reduce the number from four to three, I feel Type C might then come to carry an almost guaranteed-yes meaning, even though the definition of the dating types themselves hadn’t changed. And if we reduced them further to just two options, “There’s a possibility if the other person is a good match” should, judging from the wording, imply roughly a 50% chance—or perhaps anywhere from 1% to 99%, since it only says “a possibility.” Yet it could end up being treated the same way as the current Type D, as though it were almost a definite yes. In that case, if a man went on a date and the woman turned him down, people might say, “If there was no possibility, shouldn’t it have been labeled ‘absolutely impossible’? Isn’t this dating-type fraud?” Thinking about it that way, I feel the current four-type system is actually well balanced. As an aside, when the system was reduced from five dating types to four, there was one staff member who strongly opposed the change. The reason was that Type D would end up being treated like the Type E of that time. And that is, in fact, what has happened today.