After each date, I always honestly fill out the survey, including what the date was like, how much allowance I received, and how the second date went.

I’m Meg, one of the female members. > Continuing to send in mostly negative feedback I think that’s simply because you haven’t met a man who meets your expectations yet. > If he unilaterally reduced the allowance on the second date That absolutely sounds like something that should be reported. I’d really encourage you to do so, if only to help prevent the next person from having the same experience. Unilaterally changing the terms isn’t okay. Since the male members help keep the club running, I imagine there are times when the staff can’t be too harsh with them. Still, as in your case, I think it’s smart to keep submitting feedback regularly, so there’s a record if a complaint ever needs to be made. Although I’m sure there are times when it becomes a matter of, “So whose side of the story is correct?” (^_^;) The staff must always find themselves caught in the middle like that… I really sympathize with them. I hope you have some wonderful encounters in the future♪

I’m Basil, a male member. It’s probably best to include objective facts in detail, such as the allowance changing from X to Y. However, when it comes to subjective matters like the other person’s mannerisms, it’s better not to keep writing about them in a negative way. You seem to realize this yourself, but the date didn’t go well, and I don’t think the other person came away with a good impression of you either. In that case, they may leave negative feedback—or, if it’s still within their tolerance, simply do nothing. If this continues, you may end up receiving harsh evaluations: that you lack commitment, approach others negatively, aren’t suited to dating, or are a minor complainer. Bad-mouthing others comes back to you. Rather than dwelling on minor things and keeping them bottled up, why not look for the other person’s good qualities and reflect on your own shortcomings in your feedback? That could help you become more tolerant, improve yourself, and have a positive effect on your papa-katsu (compensated dating in Japan) activities. Instead of making excuses about what you’ll do if the other person complains, focus on the future and accomplish your goal of finding someone who’s a good match for you.

Maezawa from the Corporate Planning Office here as well. > Could staff who tend to side with the men end up viewing the woman less favorably, seeing her as part of the problem, and therefore be less likely to recommend her as a woman to other members? If you’re sticking strictly to the facts, that shouldn’t happen. For example, there’s no problem with saying: “I was troubled by something a man did to me.” However, if you write: “I was troubled by something a man did to me. Why is someone like this a member? Isn’t he going to be forcibly removed?” then, on the surface, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with it—it can simply look like you’re asking questions. But if a staff member thinks, “There’s no way this man would do something like that,” they may react to the latter part by thinking, “There’s no way we can force him to leave,” and conclude that the woman is a complainer. That’s why it’s best to write only the facts about what happened to you. > I make a point of giving feedback based only on the facts! If you’re providing only factual information, then it’s useful feedback, and your evaluation won’t vary depending on which staff member reads it. I’m sure they appreciate it.

I’m Hikoki, a male member. I think negative reviews should be written in as much detail as possible. Especially when it seems that both people came away with a bad impression, I believe it’s important to provide as many specifics as possible. In wider society, when it comes to disputes between men and women, people tend to believe the woman’s side over 90% of the time, and that generally carries weight. But in a dating club, the opposite can happen—and this tendency becomes even more pronounced when there’s little detailed feedback from the woman. So if the woman doesn’t accurately report the facts, there’s a risk that staff may lower the man’s rating based solely on his version of events. Papuwa-san’s example makes this easy to understand. In that case, if only the man claimed that the amount she threw at him was ten times higher and that she had taken it, even though that was a lie, the staff might hear it and lower the woman’s rating. She could even end up being unfairly branded as someone who deceives people about her relationship type.