>>719227590
>Sex and sexual content, on the other hand, have no role in problem solving or conflict resolution
I don't think you've read or seen romantic stories or drama at all. Or talked with a person in a relationship in general.
It's not impossible to think that many women have been weaponizing their sexuality since that was often their only means of control over powerful men.
In fact, marrige and children between houses in the same time period was one of the most effective methods of resolving conflict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage
Not to mention that sex is literally necessary to prolong the existence of our entire race, and even if it becomes unnecessary in the far future through biolabs or whatever, it's still true for most of human history so making offspring is a very important step in any other time period.

So I don't know what the actual fuck you're talking about and I hazard a guess that you don't know either.

>>715948320
Can you show me an example for ANY amusement park ticket which said
>IT WON'T LAST TWO DAYS
instead of
>valid for the day
What the absolute fuck are you talking about?

>>713786147
What the fuck are you talking about?
Companies are willing to completely fuck over anyone just for the bottom line to go up by .1%
They are willing to completely sabotage the quality and integrity of their games simply because some advisor told them that diversity topics may increase the line by some arbitrary value.
You think they would care about a minor or ANY inconvenience to the devs when that means losing atleast 10% of that bottom line?

>>713725149
>fire should be banned because some people will 100% become arsonists