A question about the new relationship types.

https://universe-club.jp/information/date-type/ I understand that the system was reviewed in response to opinions like “Please do something about Relationship Type B,” but honestly, do you think the new relationship types will resolve men’s uncertainty and suspicion? The following is just my personal opinion from a man’s perspective. The problem with Type B is that, assuming the two people continue meeting, there is a need to resolve the uncertainty over whether things will genuinely progress after the second date—or whether the woman is simply stringing him along and only agreeing to dinner dates. It would be much clearer if she simply declined the second date. Of course, I do think the new Type B is a valid relationship type. However, all the new Type B really makes clear is that it may not be possible to make a decision even after the second date. The concept of “taking things slowly” remains vague. Does “slowly” mean the third date, or five years from now? As things stand, men who offer to meet women under the new Type B (the current Type B) need to protect themselves. For example, during the first date, they might say, “Please decide by our Xth date. If you don’t feel it will work by then, I’ll step away.” I often speak this way to women currently classified as Type B. If possible, I think it would be helpful to include a guideline in the explanation of the new Type B, such as “generally within around five dates” (the number is just an example). Personally, if more than five dates are needed and there is still a possibility that she cannot decide, I would rather see women guided toward choosing Type A. Ultimately, this is a relationship involving an allowance. If a woman needs the same amount of time—or even more time—to get to know a man through dinner dates before deciding whether the relationship will develop, just as in ordinary romance, then at least from the man’s perspective, there is no benefit before making the offer. I also think the new Type C would be clearer if it were explained along these lines: “The first date is dinner only. However, during the first dinner or by the time we meet for the second date, I will decide whether I can begin an adult relationship from the second date onward.” Since the current Type B is being subdivided, this seems like a more precise explanation. The underlying intention should be that if the relationship cannot—or will not—progress to the second date, the woman should decline the relationship altogether, including dinner-only dates. Honestly, there are also women who are secretly more like Type A among the new Type D (the current Type C). So I think it would be better to explain it as follows, without creating excessive expectations: “If we hit it off, the relationship may develop into an adult relationship on the first date. However, if we do not hit it off on the first date, there is a possibility that things will not progress even after the second date. If both parties agree, they are free to continue meeting.” That would encourage both men and women to approach the first date with the right level of commitment. Of course, people are people. Even if a woman is secretly more like Type A, there is nothing wrong with continuing to meet if the man genuinely enjoys simply having dinner with her and both parties are comfortable with that. Conversely, a Type A woman may also choose, of her own accord, to progress from the very first date. In any case, most men make their offer based on the relationship type selected by the woman, at least up until they meet in person. If she has no intention of deciding whether to proceed according to the stated relationship type—or if she is unable to express what she wants—then I believe the relationship types need to be revised so that they do not allow things to be prolonged through dinner dates alone, with the exception of Type A.