TheActualDevil

That's literally all work in capitalism. You use your time and body to do things for other people in exchange for money. We're all prostitutes, only a few of us have sex for it.

And some people don't view sex that way. And sex work isn't just about having an orgasm. That's what masturbation is for. My understanding is that people who frequent sex workers do it for the human connection. That doesn't mean an emotional connection, but human touch and physical intimacy are important for all human's mental health. I've heard stories from sex workers where the customer doesn't even end up wanting sex but to talk a bit and have someone hold them for a bit. Usually they prefer the respectful ones who just want sex with a human and leave though.

Is it typical to give a whole run-down of your sexual history when dating? Like, I've mentioned previous encounters or exes when it comes up, but rarely near the beginning of the dating process. In my experience people tend to not have those discussions. Not because it's bad but because it doesn't matter. When I meet a new woman and start seeing them, I don't need to hear about or care about their past relationships unless it's something they feel they want to share for whatever reason.

It sounds like you don't think sex work is immoral, so I wouldn't bring it up unless it's something that would actually affect your current relationship. If sex is casual enough to commodify then it's not something that would be brought up when getting to know someone. Do you also give them a run-down of every meal you've ever bought at restaurants?

I think it fucks up the marriage (divorce) racket for women due to the fact it’s simply cheaper and a lot less hassle.

If people are getting married just to have sex, they probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place. And I can't imagine that the marriage for that woman would be great.

Gonna be honest though, your phrasing kind of gives off "sees women as pieces of meat to fuck" energy. And while we're here, plying women with alcohol doesn't sound super consensual to me. If she doesn't want to fuck you sober, don't do it.

But if it's illegal there wouldn't be legal brothels around?

And I haven't followed through but I've looked into prostitution in my area through various means. There do seem to be fairly moral options in my opinion. People who work independent and interact directly with the customer and they keep all the money. They have their own space to meet and they have the option of refusal at any time.

I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally, or that what you're saying is harmful, but I do worry. It feels like you're demonizing an entire industry and adding to the idea that it's immoral unless done through brothels. Sex work is work, and while often people end up there out of necessity, that's not much different than any other job people work these days. I would say that people who knowingly pay for sex work where the worker doesn't have their full autonomy is, at best, selfish and shortsighted.

Or are you saying that because it's a crime, by paying for it they're contributing to the sex worker also doing something illegal and that's bad?

Hold up. I'm not super experienced in reading studies, but I can read.

1. At best this is correlation. HRV increasing for these men doesn't mean a high HRV is required to be good at chess.

2. Sample size of 16... And only male.

HRV was reduced in participants who achieved worse results. This could indicate the possibility of HRV predicting cognitive performance

If reduced HRV means lower cognitive performance and women have, on average, lower HRV, you're saying women are less smart. At least in chess. I think that's bullshit and this study isn't incorporating enough/the correct data to show anything you're stating.

But here is one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763411002077 that links HRV with stress response

And another: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419310292 That shows women's HRV responds less severely to stress.

Both meta-analysis, not a single data point.

So maybe men are just shit at dealing with stress and that's why their brains go haywire during competition. But it's so gracious of you being so kind to women and giving them a space where they can play among equals on a "MORE level playing field."

By your logic, they should just be testing people's HRV and ranking them that way so they all are on even ground. Give those dummy men a MORE level playing field.

I mean, the real answer is that chess is full of toxic people who've made it to the top to run the organization. The fact that this behavior wasn't curtailed already shows that. Its just an accepted part of it. If the ones who would make the decision to ban those players don't already see an issue they're not going to start now to make the space better for women.

Sure, that's the concept, and it's a problem. But that's not what the name "Human Resources" means. That's like saying the office of Veteran Affairs is implying that veterans are themselves affairs. The title is obviously meant to imply resources for humans. It's a lie, but that's what those words are supposed to mean. It's not called "Humans are Resources."

You're allowed not to pay your taxes to fund socialist programs. There is a consequence of jail, but you have that choice. How is it different?

I'm sure that's a major part of it, but I also wouldn't want to live in a world where we could only get aspirin from willow bark. We either wouldn't have enough aspirin or we wouldn't have any more willow trees. Medicines derived from the actual source aren't possible on a global scale in most cases.

Capitalism is a blight on society and has lead to countless deaths. But in a utopia where money doesn't exist and people create medicine for the world only to help people with no profit they still need to synthesize it.

Have you ever watched a movie? Were you blown away by all the execs they added in the credits and assumed they must have had thousands of others under them not mentioned? Or do you not typically assume every other industry follows the same standard as yours?

What you said is akin to me saying "Why are they expecting their name on things? The restaurant I work at doesn't put my name on the menu when I'm cooking that night."

It's a different industry and I would be foolish to assume the standards in mine definitely should translate to others, and then confidently comment publicly about it.

"It's a very true dichotomy!"

Proceeds to make up an imagined scenario with a ridiculous fake name to prove it's reality.