I was deeply moved by Taro’s view: “From a man’s perspective, paying to have sex and financially supporting a woman he loves may look the same, but they’re completely different.”
This content is machine-translated.
If you truly love someone, you want to support her. Money is necessary for a woman to live a physically and mentally healthy life. That’s why he can give her money unconditionally, even when they can’t meet.
Don’t you think this is no longer a transactional relationship between a man and a woman, but genuine romance?
I’d love to meet someone like that through a dating club someday.
👤Asked byGuest👩GenderFemale🎂20s👑Universe female member
I can’t bring myself to be some kind of volunteer or philanthropist who gives money even when we can’t meet, so I honestly don’t understand.
If it were a romantic relationship, money wouldn’t be involved in the first place.
With papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan), I wouldn’t feel inclined to pay an allowance unless it was clearly in return for actually meeting.
(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.
> Paying to drink alcohol is one thing, but
Paying to drink alcohol, versus investing in a sake brewery—or should I say the brewery owner?—and then drinking the sake they produce are two different things, I feel.
The difference seems to be in the feelings involved.
But if the brewery or its owner said, “So naturally, you’d give us money unconditionally, even if you didn’t receive any sake in return,” I think the response would be, “That can’t be right.”
It’s the kind of thing that tramples on someone’s goodwill, I suppose.
When someone says things like that, I think it makes you not want to give them money anymore.
(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.
If only one person is in love, you won’t reach that kind of relationship—or rather, it won’t last. I agree with what Potassium said.
If unconditional love exists, it might be toward one’s children. Even then, we still have expectations for their future, so it’s not as though we expect nothing in return.
Whether it’s a relationship between a man and woman or a job, nothing lasts unless you respond appropriately to what you receive in return.
Even if you become blindly infatuated for a while, you’ll eventually come to your senses. The more you receive, the more effort you’re expected to make.
(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.
Thank you for calling me Taro. And thanks for quoting me, too. What is it today—everyone’s calling me Taro, Taro（笑）. Should we officially call October 9 “Taro Day” from now on?
I’m really sorry to the person who asked the question, but that’s a complete misunderstanding.
I said, “The form is the same, but…” Right? What you’re saying—that you’ll receive money unconditionally, even if you can’t meet at all—isn’t the same thing whatsoever. The basic flow of “being intimate and receiving money” is the same, but I’m only saying that the feelings behind it are different. Please don’t take the conversation somewhere I never intended（笑）
That said, I now understand that this was difficult for women to interpret. In a way, I had the same reaction as the woman I said those words to. “Supporting the woman I love financially” is such a powerful phrase that the rest probably didn’t register. I’ll be more careful from now on. It was also the reason my words hurt her in the conversation afterward, so I’ll try to phrase things more thoughtfully.
“Being close through a dating agency” and “supporting someone financially even when you can’t meet” are about three levels apart. In clothing sizes, it’s like the difference between S and XL; in bra sizes, like a B cup and an E cup. The amount of time you both spend because you want to see each other or be intimate is vastly different to begin with, and there’s a process in which the relationship deepens each time. That’s how you end up three levels further along.
I once supported a woman financially while we were long-distance and could only meet one weekend a month. One day she told me she’d come up with an amazing invention, and when I asked what it was, she said, “We won’t sleep on the weekends we’re together.” No, that’s impossible—stop, I have work again on Monday（笑）. You understand the fundamental difference here, right?
This is probably a difficult concept for women who measure affection in money and put money first. I’m sorry. Follow your own path. I’ll support you—but not financially.
Taro
(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 with Potassium!
> Don’t you think this has gone beyond a transactional relationship between a man and a woman and has become genuine romance?
I don’t think it quite qualifies as romance, but if you keep at it without getting your hopes up too much, something good might happen.（笑)
(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.
Isn’t it basically the difference between paying for a drink and having a drink while thinking, “I’m supporting my favorite alcohol brand”? It’s all about how you feel—in other words, probably just in your head, lol.
(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 just scatterbrained old Pottapotā Potashium.
I don’t remember where a certain respondent gave that answer, so I don’t know what they meant by it. But personally, I think:
If you’re not considering marriage, then maybe you shouldn’t pursue genuine romance at a club, right?
The balance probably collapses the moment either person starts relying too heavily on the other.
I see the allowance as the man’s way of showing gratitude to the woman, while the woman reciprocates by spending time with him. That’s what this kind of relationship is built on, in my opinion.
And of course, it isn’t all about the physical side. You should respond with genuine feelings too—being emotionally present as well.
If you don’t both remain grateful and humble, while keeping a little distance, then this isn’t ordinary romance. All you’ll create is a woman looking for something for nothing and a man who just bankrolls her. Eventually, one side will become dissatisfied, and that’ll be the end of it.
If the questioner simply wants someone to bankroll her, I think she’d be better off finding that outside a club.
Actually, I feel like saying: How long are you going to keep relying on men?
Oh my, pardon me. I seem to have gotten a little too opinionated there.
(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.
Why do you have to ruin things by making everything about your desires?
When you reduce the conversation to that level, I can no longer see it as love.
(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.
