This is Mac. Something still doesn’t sit right with me, so I’d like to confirm Maezawa-san’s view.

Question

Regarding the example from Love Vaccine, Episode 1, “The Girl Who Wants to Be Choked” (the question posted on 2019/08/12 at 11:27), you said that Maezawa-san considered it a violation of the rules. On the other hand, you said that five people deepening their friendship at a wine gathering (the question posted on 2019/08/12 at 16:49) is not a violation of the rules, and that the difference is not whether the person concerned had given their consent, but whether or not the parties involved were participating themselves. If so, is it correct to understand that the problem in the “Girl Who Wants to Be Choked” example was not that Mac was introduced to the girl by Win-san, but that he was given information by email beforehand saying, “Embarrassing or painful things are okay, but dirty things are not”—and that this would still be a violation of the rules even if the information had been shared with the girl’s consent? I’m not asking for Universe’s official position; I’m asking how Maezawa-san interpreted the situation. If that is indeed the case, then: (1) If Win-san introduced me to a girl without providing any information beforehand, simply saying, “Just meet her,” and the girl herself told me, “Embarrassing or painful things are okay, but dirty things are not,” would that not constitute a violation of the rules? (If so, I’ll revise the article accordingly.) Also, (2) in the wine-gathering example, Notre-Dame-san did not make a formal offer to Lemon-san or November-san through Universe. In that case, would telling Notre-Dame-san about Lemon-san’s and November-san’s preferences before the gathering, with their consent, be interpreted as a violation of the rules? I’m not trying to put Maezawa-san in a difficult position. Even if it were only a “strict warning” with no actual harm caused, I wouldn’t feel good about it. More importantly, if the article “The Girl Who Wants to Be Choked,” from Love Vaccine, needs to be taken down or partially revised, I feel responsible as the writer and want to deal with it promptly. (As I mentioned earlier, I also believe Universe bears some responsibility for leaving the matter unaddressed.)

Answer 1

Maezawa from the President’s Office here. Let’s consider whether the article from the first installment of *Love Vaccine*, “The Girl Who Wants to Be Choked,” needs to be taken down or partially revised. The first thing I wondered was: Where, exactly, is the information obtained through our club? > Win emailed me three days ago. > “I found a really interesting girl!” I don’t see any information in this passage that could have been learned through our club. For example, if the exchange had gone something like: “I found an interesting girl. She’s Club Name ___, member number ___.’ “Oh really? Let me see. Ah, this girl. She’s blah blah blah…” then I would consider that a violation of the rules. But that isn’t what was written. > Since a dating club’s role is simply to provide the opportunity for the initial meeting, even if one of them dated a girl after making an offer, they could introduce her to the other person after obtaining her consent… This part is a little questionable. The reason is that it could be interpreted as allowing someone to start something resembling a dating club based on women they themselves have dated. (Normally, that wouldn’t be acceptable, would it?) If we think about this along the same lines as determining whether something constitutes an unauthorized legal practice under the Attorney Act, I believe the deciding factor would be whether it is being done as a business. Based on this column, I didn’t feel that it was being operated as a business. Also, this may be a separate issue from the part in question, but even if a member reads the column and comes to a certain conclusion, does that create any responsibility for the person who wrote it? Members are adults. They should be capable of making their own decisions. They become members after agreeing to follow the rules explained at the time of joining, so they should make their own judgments, and they are responsible for the decisions they make themselves. Even if someone says, “I did it because it was written in the column,” as an adult, they would ordinarily still bear responsibility for their own actions.

This is Mac. Something still doesn’t sit right with me, so I’d like to confirm Maezawa-san’s view.

1 answers

🏆 Select as Best Answer

✉️ Set a password

This is Mac. Something still doesn’t sit right with me, so I’d like to confirm Maezawa-san’s view.

1 answers

Related Questions

🏆 Select as Best Answer

✉️ Set a password