I’m the person who originally posted that I was shocked by Mac’s answer. Thank you for publishing my question even though it must have been a great deal of trouble for the club.

Thank you for your question. Our representative, Kida, will answer. The other day, I met a female member at an event who excitedly told me: “I’m a huge fan of the Q&A box. I always read it. I was looking at it just before, too.” I then shattered her illusion by telling her, “Mr. Maezawa sometimes writes some really wonderful things, but he’s incredibly difficult to work with,” and left the scene. I wonder if she’s still a fan of the Q&A box. Or maybe she hates it now. That suddenly crossed my mind. As for your question: Should male members who try to proceed without protection without verbally confirming it, or finish inside without the other person’s consent, be forcibly expelled or otherwise disciplined by the club? The answer is: it depends on the case. It’s about as case-by-case as deciding whether to pick up a 1,000-yen bill with poop on it. The reason words like “gentlemanly” come up so often in the dating-club industry is that it’s an industry where “things can get really bad if you don’t act like a gentleman,” and “if you leave people alone, they’ll head in the opposite direction.” Right? Rugby is also called a gentleman’s sport, but the players are incredibly intimidating. Don’t you ever wonder, “Are they really gentlemen?” Anyway, everyone dates out of sexual urges or passion—what other reason is there?—so I don’t understand why people who are especially passionate about sex have to be condemned. You should enjoy life. That’s what being human is about. Of course, it involves another person, and you have to be especially considerate when that person is a young woman. But surely Mr. Mac is being more considerate than most, isn’t he? Someone asked about going on a date with a virgin through a dating club, so you explained with specific examples based on what you know and have experienced, didn’t you? So, unless a woman reports something or files a complaint, we do not investigate. If you’re worried, please enjoy a safe and secure sex life at another club where condoms are mandatory. Come to think of it, I once read somewhere that 100-yen coins are dirtier than toilet bowls. Is that really true? If so, I’m starting to think it wouldn’t be strange for a 1,000-yen bill to have poop on it either.

I’m Joe, a column writer. Mac and I have been writing our columns in relay format, so I felt it was my responsibility to offer some kind of comment, and I’m responding accordingly. First of all, the person who posted this question clearly laid out the points at issue. Before addressing them, I should mention that Representative Kida has already commented on this matter. I’ll leave the details to that response, but to summarize, he fully supports Mac. He even praised Mac’s answer as something that would “go down in Japanese history” (laughs). If we get hung up on that wording, we may lose sight of the main issue, so as the basis for his view that Mac’s series of actions were not a problem, the representative cited past cases such as: “I was given some weird drugs!” “I was secretly filmed!” “I almost died because someone drove drunk!” “I was thrown out of the room completely naked!” Compared with incidents like these, he concluded that Mac’s actions were “not a problem.” The representative hopes this discussion will go deeper, and I expect he will probably respond to the two points raised by the questioner as well. I’ve written at length, but I’d now like to share my personal view. **1. Trying to proceed without a condom without verbally confirming it first** Even putting it mildly, that’s a breach of etiquette. That said, I think there are quite a few men—including Joe—who have behaved this way. Of course, it’s not something to praise. If there are a large number of male members behaving like this, it should interfere with Universe Club’s operations, so the club shouldn’t be able to overlook it. However, at this point, without a complaint from the woman, I suspect it would be difficult to expel someone. There also seem to be various legal issues involved in issuing warnings or imposing penalties. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing anyone can do. The questioner may not find this satisfactory, but I believe the awareness of the male members themselves is the most important thing. They need to understand that proceeding without confirmation is not only ungentlemanly—it is sexual violence. I realize this is a pretty low-level thing to say, but at least that’s the kind of male member Joe is. I really have no right to answer in such a self-important way. **2. Finishing inside her without her consent** That’s an even more serious issue. Even if the woman is taking birth control pills, there’s still a possibility of pregnancy, and the risk of sexually transmitted infections also increases considerably. This may seem abrupt, but I have never met Mac in person; we only know each other through our columns. Mac is quite sexually aggressive, perhaps, and there have been times when Joe couldn’t keep up. However, what I find intimidating—if that’s the right word—about Mac is that he has earned a great deal of trust from many of the women he has dated. That’s why I was disappointed by the fact that, according to Mac’s answer, when the woman protested after he finished inside her, he resolved the matter with money. I’m not trying to ridicule Mac; it’s an entirely ordinary way of handling things. The questioner will probably find it extremely unpleasant, but I think Joe would have done the same. The reason I found it disappointing is that I believed there was something more than money behind Mac’s ability to earn women’s trust. In this particular case, however, it seemed to Joe that it was simply the power of money. Through our columns, the biggest thing I’ve learned from Mac is the perspective that “women are exposed to sexual violence from men.” Physical violence is obviously out of the question, but even the way a man stares at a woman walking down the street while thinking, “I’d love to sleep with her,” or the way he stares at the screen while indulging in inappropriate fantasies about women registered with Universe Club—that would be Joe—could also be considered violence. You may say that this is harmless on its own, but those kinds of looks probably seep out in various real-life situations. So at least I can’t casually promise that I’ll “do better from now on.” At the same time, I can’t shrug it off by saying, “That’s just how men are.” My answer at this point is that, thanks to the questioner’s courageous post, I’ve become aware of various aspects of my own capacity for violence and have been forced to think about them. This may be completely inadequate for the questioner, and perhaps it doesn’t even answer the question, but I wanted to share my thoughts. Sorry for the long response. P.S. The Mac I know through his columns seems to Joe to be more sensitive than most to “men’s capacity for violence.” He is also a very honest person. I’d like to add that I believe the fact that so many issues have come to light is largely thanks to Mac’s honesty.

Since “anyone” was included in the request for answers, I’ll respond as Maezawa from the Corporate Planning Office. First of all, a question box isn’t a place for the company to provide official answers. So if you want an official response, you should formally send the company a written inquiry. Also, by its very nature, even if the president answers a question, it may reflect only the president’s personal opinion and could differ from company policy. What I thought this time—as has happened on other occasions as well—is that it’s a little inappropriate for third parties who weren’t involved to act as though they know everything and say things like, “Maybe she couldn’t say that,” or for people who don’t really know what happened that day to speculate about the situation. If we could also hear the woman’s side and properly understand what happened that day, then we could discuss how to proceed. But hearing only one side and making all kinds of comments doesn’t seem reasonable. It reminds me of something politicians often say: “I can’t answer hypothetical questions.” That seems to fit this situation. That said, if we were to entertain this hypothetical scenario: If the two people themselves aren’t having a dispute, then all we can say is that there’s no problem. For example, even under the former rape law, it was a crime subject to complaint, meaning it only became a case once the woman reported it. If she hasn’t reported it, people around her can say, “That was definitely rape,” but she may not see it that way. That’s how different the perspective of outsiders can be from that of the people directly involved. “She couldn’t say anything…” Of course, that’s possible. “She wasn’t really okay with it…” That’s possible too. But if we’re talking about possibilities, it’s also possible that she was okay with it and therefore had no reason to say anything. Only the two people involved know the truth. In this case, the man has also said that he’ll take responsibility no matter what happens. Being able to say that is remarkable. If the man takes responsibility and the woman is satisfied, it isn’t something for other people to interfere with. For example, if the woman had said that day that she wouldn’t accept the situation unless he paid her 20 million yen, then the man would properly pay her 20 million yen. Is 20 million yen a lot? From the woman’s perspective, considering the emotional shock, it may not be too much. There was even a time when men would buy apartments for their mistresses, so it’s still less than having an apartment bought for her. If a man is in that position, I think the woman should negotiate an amount she feels is fair. If he says he can’t pay, then she should file a complaint for non-consensual sexual intercourse. Naturally, that would mean the two of them are in dispute, and in that case, the man would likely be subject to expulsion from the service.