Maezawa from the President’s Office here as well.
First of all, personal attacks are subject to being hidden. If you want to ask a question, you should write about what you’re struggling with rather than addressing an individual.
Since this one is directed at me, I’ll leave it visible, but please understand that personal attacks against other respondents may be hidden.
Regarding points ① and ②, this applies when there is a foreseeable risk of women being harmed—for example, being deceived by men.
You’re speaking rather arrogantly, but before saying things like that, why don’t you first pay compensation for the women who were harmed because a man didn’t pay them, or paid less than the amount he promised?
If you tell the staff, “I made the payment because Maezawa told me to,” the money will be distributed among women who have been harmed in the past—though only those who reported their cases—and any remainder will be returned to you as points.
Alternatively, if you’re talking about preventing harm in the future rather than addressing past cases, then please clearly provide an alternative proposal explaining how such harm could be prevented.
Simply criticizing something without offering an alternative makes me feel like you’re just barking from a distance.
> Shouldn’t the allowance simply be whatever the parties agree on?
That’s what I meant. As for point ③, the woman herself is dissatisfied enough to have posted the question, so although it may appear that she agreed, she actually didn’t.
Since she didn’t truly agree, considering the circumstances, it’s possible that 5 was too low—and that other women may feel the same way.
That said, I believe I also wrote that if the man is attractive, she may not object to 5, and that women might even be satisfied with a lower allowance.
Is it really that amusing to nitpick one small part of what I said?
It’s not simply a matter of “5 is fine.” You have to think about various strategies. You may think a woman is satisfied, when in fact she feels the amount is far too low.
> When I joined, I was told that Universe’s role was only to arrange meetings between male and female members.
That doesn’t mean it’s acceptable for a man not to pay the allowance after going to a hotel.
If someone doesn’t want any involvement beyond that point, perhaps it’s because they’re doing—or planning to do—something they feel guilty about.
If you’re confident in what you’re doing, then no matter what amount I mention here, you should be able to continue your activities without it affecting you at all.
Also, the question box is a place for individuals to express their own opinions. I don’t see why I should be lectured about the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution by an anonymous questioner who won’t even give their name and takes no responsibility for what they casually write.
If you really believe you’re right, why not identify yourself by stating which branch you’re from and who you are?
And please set aside the point that the Constitution isn’t meant to regulate individuals. I only referred to the Constitution because listing the relevant laws and saying, “This doesn’t violate any of them, does it?” would be a hassle.
> You weren’t recording the tape, were you?
As expected… That’s funny.
I feel like it was fairly recent, but it already feels nostalgic now.（笑）
I’m Kazu, a male member.
First of all, this question seems to be mainly expressing an opinion. So there’s a very high chance it will be deleted, but I’ll try answering it anyway.
①②
“Trusting relationship” is a beautiful phrase. However, in reality, I often hear about cases where men take advantage of women’s difficulty in asking for an allowance and deliberately don’t pay it upfront, leading to questions like the one in ①. Those cases are actually on the better end of the spectrum. Apparently, there are also many cases where men try to initiate intimacy without even agreeing on the allowance, or refuse to pay by making some sort of unreasonable excuse.
I’ve heard stories like this from many women. Even as a member of less than a year, I’ve heard more cases than I can count on both hands, so I’m sure the staff have heard far more. My understanding is that Maezawa-san’s answer came from being fed up with the reality that women’s complaints like these don’t lead to any action against the men simply because there’s no evidence, which is why he ended up mentioning some rather forceful means of self-protection.
Also, although it may not be the most peaceful approach, I can’t think of any evidence-gathering method that comes closer to being reasonable than secretly recording someone without their consent. I’m sure Maezawa-san mentioned recording because he couldn’t think of anything better either, so if you can come up with a superior method, please let him know.
On a first date, there’s no established trust between the two people; everything starts from zero. That’s why I pay transportation costs and the allowance in advance, in order to build trust with the woman. If every man agreed on the allowance beforehand and paid it in advance, there would be no need to discuss collecting evidence.
③
I believe the allowance is fine as long as the two parties agree on it. I don’t think Maezawa-san has said anything denying that either. On various occasions, he has written that “there is no such simple thing as a going rate.”
Example: https://universe-club.jp/help/questions/view/5559
As far as I understand, Universe’s role basically ends once it has arranged a meeting between the male and female members. However, if you take that statement literally, wouldn’t feedback, disciplinary action against men who violate the rules, and dealing with someone who doesn’t show up without contacting the other person all become outside the scope of its services? More broadly, even the staff writing blog posts would be outside that scope.
Maezawa-san is a valuable respondent who can answer from an objective perspective that male and female members themselves can’t have. He isn’t writing things like “member number such-and-such pays this much,” so I don’t see his comments as referring to specific amounts.
You say, “You have no right to tell Maezawa-san to record things or that an allowance is high or low,” but Maezawa-san wasn’t saying that to the person who asked the question. Members aren’t obligated to read the anonymous question box, and insisting that people not write about things you dislike seems rather narrow-minded.
