**Man A**
Late 50s, a small but stable business owner
Never married, with assets of around ¥100 million
We’ve known each other for 10 years and have been together for 3
We have the kind of relationship you’d expect from a long-married couple.
There’s affection between us, but we’re sexless, and I feel lonely.
**Man B**
Early 50s, a business owner who has already sold his company
Divorced once, with an adult child, and assets worth several billion yen
We’ve known each other for six months, and it feels like we might start dating
He has a good personality, but his body and bedroom game aren’t quite up to par.
For now, he treats me very well.
Both men are my type physically, and we share similar views on marriage and other important matters.
I’m currently dating Man A. I have no concerns about our future, but our relationship has become more like that of a married couple, and we’ve become sexless...
I understand that money isn’t everything, but I find myself drawn to Man B, who is wealthier and leads a freer lifestyle.
I feel that if things continue this way, I may find myself wondering in my 30s or 40s whether I really enjoyed life as a woman.
This question may be considered off-topic for a papa-katsu Q&A forum, but I feel the two situations are similar in that both involve having a relationship with someone who wants to protect and support you financially because they care about you. The only difference between papa-katsu and marriage, in my view, is whether there is a legally binding commitment.
In reality, neither of them would marry me; I would remain their girlfriend. So I’m sorry to ask this here, but I wanted to hear your opinions.
I’d be grateful to hear what you all think.
👤Asked byGuest👩GenderFemale🎂20s👑Universe female member
This is Fullerene!
So you’re dating A while also being intimate with B, right? Since you’re already perfectly fine with cheating, go ahead and keep looking.
Also, is that 100 million yen from A really accurate? I feel like it might be even more.
(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 I were a woman:
If both of them give you an allowance, keep seeing both.
If neither gives you an allowance, break things off with #1 and continue seeing #2 while receiving an allowance from him?
Or look for someone else who’s good in bed, like a casual partner.
If you’re not planning to get married, I think it’s perfectly fine to date multiple people.
(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.
Both men ① and ② will give you an allowance, right?
It would be fun to share the same hobby with the first one.
As for the second one, you can just teach him what you like. Do you really have to choose between them?
If it were me, I’d date both of them. Also, hobbies can turn out to be surprisingly fun once you try them, so why not explore different things 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.
I don’t think I’d be satisfied sexually with either of them, and I can’t tell whether there would even be an allowance. If there’s no allowance, then love and sexual satisfaction are essential—but even with an allowance, I still want both affection and good sex.
Sorry for being greedy.
So, besides those two, I’ll look for someone who’s good in bed.
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.
If I felt that we could both be happy dating without getting married, I’d go for it.
I agree with Mac and would look for a third person.
No matter how much money he has, if he isn’t willing to spend it on me through papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan), I wouldn’t date him.
(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.
First of all, your 30s and 40s aren’t years to look back on and wonder whether you enjoyed life enough.
If you have money during those years, you can travel, eat good food, and spend your money and time on the things you want to do.
The men on Universe are also able to enjoy adult relationships with young, beautiful women because they have a fair amount of money right now.
As for your question, both men seem dissatisfied with their intimate lives.
There’s no doubt that the wealthier man leads a freer lifestyle. However, if you won’t be left with any assets when you eventually part ways with him…
The fact that your standard of living has gone up could make things difficult afterward.
Also, if it were me, I think I’d probably have developed feelings for him, so I have a feeling I’d choose A.
(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.
> It’s true that they’re similar in that they provide financial support.
What concerns me, though, is the fact that you’ve been together for three years and are already sexless??
Maybe I’m the strange one for still not being sexless after more than 20 years, but I can’t imagine becoming sexless after three years—or after knowing each other for ten years.
Also, if a man of that age has never been married, then, considering the generation he belongs to, there must be some extraordinary reason. All of the friends around me from that generation are married and have stayed married… with one exception—the kind of person everyone understood, the one people had joked since our student days would never get married.
So I can’t help worrying about A’s future.
I think it’s only natural that you’re drawn to B.
If you’re looking for a mistress-type relationship or a romantic partner, B seems like the safer choice.
If you’re thinking about marriage, I don’t think either of them would necessarily be a problem.
Even if you don’t actually get married, I think it would be worth having that conversation. You could see whether he would consider getting engaged to you.
Even after getting engaged, various things can come up before marriage, and you can still reconsider, so the two of you would have time to think it through carefully.
If you become a couple who have promised to marry, then even without actually getting married, in a sense you’ve made a commitment to each other. I think that can create a lasting sense of security and a strong bond.
(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.
> The equipment or the bedroom activities aren’t quite up to par
↑
That gives me a little pause, but I think it really comes down to the degree and whether you can compromise.
Personally, I’d go with:
Man A, maybe?
Having only ¥100 million in assets feels a little too low, but his money seems to be working for him, so…
The intimate side can be taken care of through mama-katsu!
Same as my papa-katsu, lol.
With Man B, if there’s no money coming in, I’d be worried about the future.
If he’s an executive who receives dividend income, that gives him a slight advantage, lol. As for the equipment and bedroom activities, it really is just a matter of degree!
(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.
