https://universe-club.jp/help/questions/view/2323
Perhaps this wording was “convenient” for each of the three parties involved—the industry, women, and men—in its own way.
I suspect that, at first, it was an excuse used by the businesses: “This isn’t the arrangement of ××.” Later, women repurposed the same idea after the fact: “That’s why I’m not a ×× woman.”
Meanwhile, men interpreted it as a sign that they could obtain something more than the pleasure of buying intimacy with money.
As “a way around the law” was passed along to “self-deception” and then to “vanity,” it became a mirror in which each of the three parties could see their own self-serving interpretation.
What it reflects is nothing more than the faces of people distorted by desire.
If we clear away this fog and think about it, the meaning for women is, plainly, “money.”
That is their objective, after all.
More earnings,
from more generous men,
through work that is less painful.
That is what “this isn’t sex work” means to women.
Men, on the other hand, read whatever they want into it:
“full service,”
“beautiful women,”
“amateurs,”
“romance.”
That is because these things aren’t necessarily guaranteed through sex work.
※ This isn’t a question, so you can certainly ignore it, but I’d appreciate it if female respondents could offer corrections or criticism from their perspective.
This is Mac, the column writer.
I’m not a female member, but I enjoy thinking about abstract topics like this—things that aren’t necessarily very useful in real life—so I’d like to join in (and this is probably why my business never got very big… orz).
I asked a girl about it yesterday. She said, “If a girl isn’t good at conversation, she can just work in the adult-entertainment industry, and if she wants to date, she can date, right?” She wasn’t interested in the topic at all (^^;).
On the other hand, she seems to divide men into three categories: “boyfriend,” “friend with benefits,” and “papa.” The difference between a boyfriend and a friend with benefits is extremely formal—whether or not he has officially asked her to date him. A papa is simply a man who gives her money.
I get the feeling women place just as much importance on this categorization as men do on whether a woman comes from the adult-entertainment industry or a dating club.
From a woman’s perspective, maybe where she met a man doesn’t matter at all. What matters is which of those three categories he currently belongs to.
To put the difference between the adult-entertainment industry and dating clubs from a woman’s point of view: the men who go to the former are “customers,” which might be below the level of a papa. Still, I suppose some “customers” do end up becoming friends with benefits or even boyfriends.
(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’m だて◎ゆめ, a male member.
I’d like to share a few thoughts on the basic concept.
> At first, this was probably just an excuse from the agencies that “this isn’t brokering ××.” But afterward, women repurposed the same idea to say, “So I’m not a ×× worker.” Meanwhile, men interpreted it as a sign that they could gain something beyond the pleasure of simply buying sex.
I feel that this perspective is slightly different from how I view dating clubs.
There are people in the world who need financial support for various reasons. In particular, financial support for women has existed since long ago in the form of “concubines.” Since Japan is now monogamous, there are basically no official concubines, but there are still people in relationships similar to those of concubines—relationships referred to as “mistress” arrangements. (Not all mistresses necessarily need financial support.)
I don’t think relationships with a concubine or mistress are generally referred to as adult entertainment.
My understanding of Universe Entertainment Club (a dating club) is that it introduces men to women who need financial support, and that each individual is free to decide what kind of relationship they have after that.
As an aside, not every mistress necessarily needs financial support. Even in anonymous Q&A boxes, people talk about “free sex.” I think that can be perfectly fine too. But from the woman’s perspective, it probably becomes an issue when she realizes, “Wait, I actually wanted financial support…” (laughs)
Also, certain mistress relationships—such as common-law marriages—are legally recognized, which makes things quite complicated. My understanding is that dating-club relationships essentially say, “Let’s resolve that complicated aspect financially.”
(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.
