Do you think some people might feel that, because they climax too quickly, it would be a waste to give an allowance for an adult relationship (intimate)?

If he takes advantage of finishing quickly and considers the job done, you might feel like your allowance was wasted.

Whether it’s quick or slow, whether anything happens or not, once you’ve gotten a girl undressed, the allowance is owed. Papa-katsu is really difficult, especially when you factor in the time you’re keeping someone. Women look for a papa (a male supporter) who finishes quickly and lets them leave early, right? I understand that demand, so I try to accommodate them as much as possible. But I have girls like my monthly arrangement partners who keep coming back and will even spend an entire day with me, so no matter what I do, I can’t promote the time-and-cost-conscious girls to monthly arrangements. It wouldn’t be fair to the monthly partners I already have. They worked hard to earn that position. I reward the girls who put in the effort. I give them unlimited allowance—I don’t mind spending the money. Even the monthly partners who got married, had children, and no longer get intimate with me still receive the same amount as before. That’s because they worked hard for me in the past. Even with my monthly partners, I absolutely never extend the time I keep them. I don’t push them, and I never become slow to finish either. I have to be so careful because I never know when I might step on a landmine, so it’s nerve-racking. Papa-katsu is really difficult. Right at the start of the New Year, one of my stunningly beautiful monthly partners asked me to move in with her. But I don’t know whether I should take her seriously, so we’re stuck in this mysterious back-and-forth. What are us old guys supposed to believe?

That’s not the case at all. To begin with, I give the allowance when we meet, just like the transportation fee. And once we start seeing each other, the allowance is always the same, regardless of whether we have an adult relationship (intimate) or not…

Because he ejaculates too quickly? I’ve gotten to the point where I’m more of a delayed ejaculator, partly because of my age. In fact, I sometimes can’t even get it up the first time because I’m nervous. As we spend more time together, the nerves naturally fade, but I still usually don’t end up ejaculating. Even so, I’ve never felt it was a waste. Some relationships end after just one time, while others are now entering their third year. I’m grateful that they’re satisfied with me as I am.

I don’t think so. As men get older, their energy declines in all areas, and when they’ve experienced everything before, things no longer feel fresh or stimulating. That side of things can also become more difficult, with losing an erection, taking longer to finish, and becoming so accustomed to stimulation that finishing isn’t easy… Being able to finish successfully and fairly quickly would actually seem very valuable. If the topic is reducing the allowance: If he finishes quickly, he may be satisfied and done in 10 or 20 minutes, so if anything, the allowance could even be higher. From a woman’s perspective, if two or three hours ends after just 30 minutes, that would be welcome, so there’s no need to reduce the allowance just because it lasted 30 minutes. Even if you only meet for 50 minutes or 30 minutes instead of the expected three or four hours, I don’t think the allowance needs to be reduced—you still got to meet that woman. Likewise, if the woman wants to spend more time together, I don’t think the allowance needs to be increased just because the time gets extended. That said, this only applies when the woman has complete control over all the time you spend together. So if a man says he wants to see her even when she doesn’t have much time, then even if they can only meet for three or five minutes, the allowance hardly changes. After all, he’s going there to give her the allowance… Conversely, he could even choose to give her a little extra for the time they weren’t able to meet. Apparently, I finally didn’t receive a single New Year’s card this year… I stopped sending New Year’s cards about five or six years ago, but this year I finally didn’t receive even one. Maybe I’ll only get some from people connected to work… As for LINE, this year I’ve only exchanged messages with my older sister. I haven’t been in touch with anyone else—not even my family. In the middle of all that, the women I meet through the club and my girlfriend messaged me on LINE shortly after midnight on New Year’s, and again today. I didn’t expect to hear from them this year, so I’m happy that our relationship remains unchanged.

There may be people like that, if you’re asking whether they exist or not… But if you think about it normally, I don’t think that idea would even occur to someone. So, to answer: > Do you think there are people like that? No, I don’t. As you can tell from the phrase “allowance for an adult relationship,” it means the allowance paid when you enter into an adult relationship. Even if the man has premature ejaculation, it’s still an adult relationship. So the idea of not paying the allowance despite having an adult relationship, when it was specifically an allowance for an adult relationship, simply doesn’t make sense. On a separate note, when it comes to an “adult relationship,” most people would naturally consider the relationship to have taken place once the act itself has occurred. However, there apparently are some men who engage in an adult relationship and then try to negotiate a reduced allowance because they didn’t finish. I can’t help but think that’s incredibly cheap of them. Thank you, Mac. My previous answer should be hidden, so people viewing this normally are probably wondering, “What is this about?” But I’ll take your response into consideration.

To Maezawa-san, I’ve heard of allowances being reduced because a man finished too quickly, but reading Paper Airplane-san’s earlier answer reminded me of something else. I’ve heard multiple stories of male and female respondents getting close and becoming intimate after meeting at an offline gathering, only for the woman to be shocked because she received no allowance—or an amount that was far too low. There have also been several incidents where the female respondent complained about it to other male respondents, who then became outraged on her behalf. So I think it would be good to add a line such as: “However, please be very careful, as it is disrespectful to women to mistakenly assume that an allowance can be reduced—or, worse, not paid at all—simply because it was a reverse offer or because the respondents became close.” Men seem to want to reduce the allowance or make it free at every opportunity. Part of that may be stinginess, but perhaps they also want to delude themselves into thinking they are still highly desirable. Women wanting as large an allowance as possible is also partly about greed, but it’s similar to the feeling that the amount reflects their own value and pride. In my own experience, I once made a reverse offer to provide specific advice about someone’s concerns in the question box—actually becoming intimate and helping resolve the issue—and gave her my usual ¥50,000 allowance. She told me, “Since it was a consultation about my concerns, I thought I wouldn’t receive an allowance.” So there are women, especially teenagers and other young women, who genuinely think that way. But if you’re pleased about getting free sex in that situation, you’ve sunk to the same level as the bad men lurking on dating apps. Even if you weren’t conscious of it, I would consider that an abuse of your position as a respondent. Sexual exploitation often occurs without the person realizing it. In that sense, it’s similar to sexual harassment or stalking. We should all be careful. I just realized something: socially, “sexual exploitation” usually refers to sex involving money—in other words, prostitution. But perhaps sex with no money changing hands is actually where the sexual exploitation lies. It’s similar to the old expression “impure relations between the sexes.” A relationship involving intimacy should be the purest form of interaction between men and women, so why was it called “impure”? > “When it came to offers to female respondents, I got the impression that many of them didn’t want their identities to be revealed. Unlike men, women have more details about themselves listed on their member pages, so the situation is different.” If there’s a reverse—or perhaps not quite reverse—offer to a female respondent, I think it would be best to first ask the respondent herself whether it’s okay to disclose her member page to the other person, and then proceed accordingly. P.S. I’ve heard girls say that their allowance was reduced because the man finished before he could enter. I can understand the argument that it should be okay because vaginal intercourse didn’t happen, but it’s also perfectly reasonable to say that he should pay the full amount for an adult relationship—it’s basically like canceling a hotel on the day of the reservation.