I was thinking about a post by a man lamenting the decline of mistress culture—isn’t that incredibly self-serving?
This content is machine-translated.
I think the understanding of what a “mistress” is differs wildly among Representative Kida, the staff including Mr. Maezawa, and the male members.
http://universeclub.doorblog.jp/archives/50414331.html
If this really is Universe’s policy, shouldn’t they only admit men wealthy enough to support a woman for the rest of her life, and women prepared to devote their lives to such a man?
“I’m not getting any offers!” “I accepted her thinking she’d get at least one offer, so what’s the problem?”
“She’s meeting men other than me too—how infuriating!” “Papa-katsu normally involves multiple men and multiple women, not an exclusive one-on-one arrangement.”
“That’s all I’m getting?” “It’s difficult for a man to pay ¥100,000 too, so please try to understand.”
“I need to save several million yen, so I want a monthly arrangement.” “No, no. If a better woman than you comes along, I’ll drop you immediately, so I can’t make that kind of promise. I can look at and choose from as many women as I want online.”
And yet, after admitting huge numbers of men and women who were never suited to being mistresses or patrons in the first place, they say things like:
“The old mistress culture was better.” “You’re not prepared enough to become a mistress.” “She’s a mistress, yet she won’t allow unprotected sex…”
Isn’t that incredibly convenient?
In a relationship where she’s paid a few tens of thousands of yen per meeting and never knows when she’ll be dropped, there’s absolutely no benefit for a woman to become a “mistress” and “allow him to finish inside,” is there?
Representative Kida, the staff, and the members need to agree on a single definition of “mistress.” And from the outset, they should only accept men and women who are actually suited to that kind of relationship.
Letting anyone join, encouraging them to dream as much as possible, and then changing the rules afterward by saying, “Being a mistress isn’t as easy as you think,” is a betrayal of both the men and the women, isn’t it?
Maezawa from the Corporate Planning Office here as well.
Recently, there have been a lot of posts that amount to personal attacks or are simply people saying whatever they want, rather than asking a question.
As a result, the site’s rules will be changing soon, and posts unrelated to questions will be deleted.
Posts where someone writes whatever they want and then tacks on something that vaguely resembles a question at the end will likely be deleted too. Unlike hidden posts, deleted posts can no longer be viewed by answerers either.
It’s unfortunate that the content of the Q&A box has to be restricted because of a few inconsiderate people, especially since some of them may have shared useful information.
Still, I suppose it can’t be helped as long as there are people who refuse to follow basic etiquette.
This post will remain visible because it has an answerer assigned to it, but going forward, posts of this nature will be deleted.
(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 BB7, a male member.
As you say, if membership were limited to “men wealthy enough to support a woman for the rest of her life, and women prepared to devote their lives to such a man,” I doubt Universe would have even 100 members.
If you’re looking to build an old-fashioned mistress-type relationship, I think you’d be better off joining another club—assuming one like that exists—or finding such a woman on your own.
Since Universe has a large membership, I think it’s a good club for both men and women to find someone who matches their needs, based on the kind of person they want to date and the kind of relationship they’re looking for. There’s also a good chance you’ll find someone suitable.
Having all kinds of people can be both the club’s strength and its weakness. Differences in understanding and the variety of opinions are only natural in a world where there’s no single right answer.
Those looking for an old-fashioned mistress-type relationship should look for someone who wants the same, while those who prefer something casual should seek out someone with similar expectations.
I’m sure there are plenty of cases where matching doesn’t go well or the other person isn’t what you imagined, but I don’t think complaining will change much.
Still, I think it’s okay to make allowances for people venting here once in a while, don’t you?
(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 Saito, a column writer ♪
Sometimes I feel that Universe probably isn’t saying things quite like that—it may just be outside sources or scouts making overly sweet promises.
Even if people simply aren’t saying it here, arrangements like those from the old days of dating clubs still exist plenty in modern times. In fact, more young men are now able to afford them.
From my perspective, there has been a significant increase in high-paying patron men.
That said, as you point out, there are also more casual people of both genders, and they outnumber the former group.
This may be one of Universe’s strengths and weaknesses, but I think it’s best to adapt flexibly to these changes as part of a new era.
However, from the perspective of men who pay ¥300,000 or ¥500,000 per meeting, they generally have little reason to offer a few万円 to women, regardless of the intimate terms or whether she’s reasonably attractive.
Actually, they probably won’t cross paths in the first place. And even if they do, it almost certainly won’t continue.
(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.
