I thought the idea of “Dating Type F: No Transportation Fee” in Representative Kida’s response was truly inspired. While respecting the reality that the world of dating clubs functions smoothly because transportation fees serve as a minimum guarantee, it is precisely that minimum guarantee that can also become food for “termites,” so I felt reassured as a member that this danger is being properly recognized.
This content is machine-translated.
(Leaf, thank you for your comment. Given your kind nature, I imagine it may be impossible for you to grasp just how slyly the younger women are exploiting Universe, or how widespread it has become. Thanks to the various measures Universe has been implementing since around last year to eliminate these “termites,” it has managed to avoid collapsing completely and is still barely holding together.)
“Dating Type F: No Transportation Fee” also feels close to becoming a viable option. Is it feasible to implement?
※Since it differs in nature from the other dating types, perhaps it would be best simply to display a flag saying something like, “I prioritize opportunities to meet and will waive the transportation fee.” Then women could choose it according to their own circumstances: those who receive no offers at all, regardless of the transportation fee; women confident that they can win a guy over once they meet him; and professionals who understand that expanding the pool is what matters most. I think this could also help female members envision how they want to approach their activities and experiment through trial and error.
Thank you for your question.
I’m Kida, the representative, and I’ll answer.
I’ve always believed that “the club’s policies shouldn’t reflect only the preferences of a small number of regular, highly specialized members. There needs to be a balance so that light users can accept them as well.”
You clearly seem to be an experienced and well-versed member, so I’m usually cautious about giving advice. However, I think your opinion and suggestion this time are very reasonable.
The current description of Relationship Type E is:
“Romance- and marriage-oriented. The relationship may develop into dating, including becoming lovers or getting married.”
However, the explanation on the women’s interview form says:
“【Type E】I’m not looking for support or money. I’m hoping for a relationship like having a wealthy boyfriend. (Transportation expenses are not guaranteed.)”
The reason we don’t tell men, “You don’t need to give her transportation money,” is that we want them to provide it voluntarily so that both parties can build a good relationship, rather than making it mandatory.
That said, with the current explanation, men may find it difficult to understand what Type E women are looking for, making them hesitant to send an offer. So I’ll discuss internally the possibility of redefining Type E as:
“Transportation expenses are not guaranteed. I’m not looking for transportation money; I’m looking to meet a good papa (a male supporter).”
Thank you for your valuable feedback!
Each woman could choose based on her own perspective: “a woman who receives no offers at all, regardless of transportation expenses,” “a woman confident that she can win a man over as long as they meet,” or “a professional who understands that maximizing the pool of potential supporters is the key.” I think this would also help female members envision their own approach and experiment with different strategies.
→ I was especially impressed by this part.
I think you would be very successful if you ran your own dating club.
(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.