[Suggestion] I unexpectedly found myself sympathizing with the president’s office’s frustration: “B Type is a good category created to protect women, yet a handful of women exploit it, undermining its intended purpose, which is truly infuriating” (paraphrased).

That said, I’m somewhat concerned that the idea that “some women are bad” may be misidentifying the real issue. The true problem is not so much that “scammers exploit the system,” but rather that “even without malicious intent—or, in some cases, precisely because there is no malicious intent—a woman can end up effectively doing the same thing as a scammer.” (Among male members’ actual complaints, aren’t there probably more along the lines of, “I went on dinner dates with her over and over, but in the end she couldn’t bring herself to move forward. She was a nice girl, but I couldn’t exactly complain,” rather than, “Isn’t she just running a ‘let’s do it’ scam? What are you going to do about it?”) In this kind of moral-hazard situation caused by a flaw in the system, the less experienced a woman is, the more likely she may ultimately fall into what amounts to “scamming” someone. Unless the man is exceptionally generous—such as the often-mentioned but completely unhelpful model case of the “Don Juan of Kishu”—this is not something he can simply ignore. Conscientious women are probably worried about it as well. Abolishing the B Type category would be a fundamental solution. (For women seeking what has traditionally been covered by B Type, you could simply add a note, as many other clubs do: “She would like the relationship to begin with dinner dates.”) However, if the category is to remain, the current wording—“if you hit it off on the second date or thereafter”—contains two layers of ambiguity: “thereafter” and “hit it off.” Since these are what cause the problem, the only realistic countermeasure may be to make the interview questions one level more detailed. So, as a male member, here is my [Suggestion]. I don’t think placing an excessive burden on the interview process would be realistic, but in my opinion, it should be possible to ask B Type women to answer a multiple-choice questionnaire along the following lines. (I assume similar questions are already asked during interviews, but if possible, I’d like some of this information about B Type to be made public. I believe knowledgeable staff members are already trying to include these points in their comments, and that some of them are also covered by the Mistress Compatibility Questionnaire.) 《Please choose just one point you consider most important when deciding whether to move toward an adult relationship (intimate).》 1) Personality, trust, and compatibility 2) Looks 3) Age 4) Cleanliness and hygiene 5) Financial support 6) How enjoyable the dates are 7) Other 8) I don’t know 《At this point, how many dinner dates do you imagine you would need before deciding whether to move toward an adult relationship?》 1) I could decide after one 2) I would need two or three 3) It might take more than that 4) I don’t know 《What do you think about the burden placed on the man by dinner dates?》 1) I didn’t realize that was a consideration 2) I’d like to be able to give him an answer sooner 3) I understand, but I don’t think it’s something I can decide immediately 4) I don’t think I’d be compatible with a man who sees it as a burden 5) I don’t understand ※When the debate over “dinner-only scams” became heated about two years ago, Universe Club responded properly. Staff began noting impressions such as, “She seemed more like A than B,” and they also started issuing warnings when a woman changed the relationship type she had selected upon registration—especially the “A at registration → B later” switch, which can look like an attempt to attract offers. I think that was an excellent assist for male members who had been repeatedly disappointed by women’s intentions. At the very least, it has become considerably easier to avoid women who seem unlikely to lead anywhere. Thank you (sobbing).