Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Nah, this is just pure economics like all the abusive shit in the video game industry, or the so-called "pink tax."
If gamers really cared about microtransactions, season passes, gambling mechanics, things like that, they'd stop playing games from studios that do that shit and only play games that don't or none at all. But gamers love that shit more than rock & roll sex drugs. Gamers will pay extra to experience the abuse before it's even ready. A lot of the indie gaming sphere especially on PC is largely free of that shit, but the so-called AAA industry is only thinking of new ways to twist the teeth out of their customers. I think they're going to start charging console customers for controller support next year. Make sure to stock up on verification cans.
Women want shampoo that smells like mango and pants that fit tighter than her own skin more than they want money in the bank or a roof that doesn't leak. A few might bitch about it on Twitter and then proceed to do absolutely nothing about it. The store brand unscented bar soap that cost $6 for 9 bars is right there. The "Compare active ingredient to Head & Shoulders" shampoo for $2.49 a quart is 4 feet away. She'd rather eat her hand than wash with those.
There is no business model for women's pants with pockets, because pockets just don't work well in skin-tight clothing especially on a curvy figure. Even if you made the pockets have plenty of room the outer cloth wouldn't permit any room, and if you do cram anything in there it'll print hideously. As much as you hear about "We want pants with pockets!" there hasn't been and won't be a cottage industry for this because pants that are loose and straight enough for functional pockets are already mass manufactured and sold in the men's section. Women can and occasionally do buy men's pants to have working pockets. By far most of them buy women's skin tight jeans, I presume to prevent blacking out during high G maneuvers. There's also enough women in the world who will willingly pay $1500 for a purse to keep Gucci Vuitton in business.