China just banned OnlyFans as degenerate, as did Sweden. We should probably be _increasing_ enforcement of public morality through private systems.
“You can just start your own payment processor.”
“You can just start your own payment processor.”
What moral system do you advocate? Laissez-faire?
And what if, tomorrow, the payment processors capitulate with a new morality? They decide women politicians shouldn't be allowed to take donations, for instance?
Sex workers should be better supported and the markets cleansed via strict regulation of the labor and how it's treated, and strong unions.
Payment processors making a shady porn underground using backdoor finances, even more than it already is, will do nothing but make this problem worse.
Live sex work already involves existing payment processors.
Porn addicts are definitionally addicted to fantasy. I wish you luck with the rest of your comment.
Truly, the horror!
Is infantilizing women as incapable of making their own choices better? Should we also take away their credit cards because they just can't be trusted? Yes, reductio ad absurdum, but I hope you can see the point I'm making.
You rate limit loans to mitigate harm potential, you don't ban them outright.
Most manual labor takes a toll on the body, so we make OSHA and do our best to make sure employers are minimizing how bad it gets. You don't ban manual labor.
Sex, and porn, are normal affairs. Protect the people involved and elevate the working class. Don't drive them into an even shadier, less controlled market.
Unfortunately, I'm fully aware I can't convince you.
There is scientific consensus on this!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/2018...
You advocate for taking ownership over women’s bodies, because clearly you know best apparently?
The game theory of this social theory is badly flawed. People who adhere to it will always serve those who form groups and enforce in-out distinctions.
What moral standards do you think should be enforced? Do you think that "models" should have age verification?
Lead speaker: Ok, next is medical transition for youth and adults. I'll admit I just don't know much on this topic so I'm reaching out for someone else to take the lead and discuss it.
pause...
Second speaker: Well, I also don't know that much as it's not my field, but I've looked over the proposal and what I can't find are long term studies on the effects. I think because of that we simply don't know...
Third speaker: Hi this is <?> and while this is also not my field I'm an ally and I can tell you what's been presented to us (the AMA governing body) from the APA is what they ave determined as effaceable procedure.
pause...
Lead speaker: So...I suppose we can take a vote to accept the guidelines sent to us from the APA.
pause...
Then they voted to accept it with no more discussion. I'm shortended the exchange, but it is not much more than what I am presenting to you.
Stop and think about that. We use the terms "standards of care" and understand that to mean there is some authoritative, intelligent, well founded judgement from what you and I assume are experts over these topics. That's not what happened by this review board in the AMA. There was no medical discussion, no weighing of prescriptive protocols, no measure of caution, or even of any medical literature regarding the topic. The American Medical Association simply accepted whatever the American Psychological Association told them was the correct medical protocols. What an abject failure.
I also recently watched a clip, a complaint about how women should not be a special case in medicine. This had to do with menopause and the complaint was that women are (to use a colloquial term) gate-kept from hormonal treatments (in this video, testosterone specifically) where as men not only have an established diagnosis of hypogonadism but that through only a 6 month trial, testosterone was approved by the FDA for treatment, but only for men. The complaint was somewhat of a feminist one, an argument for equity. If men could so easily get testosterone for treatment then why can't women, in terms of ""equity". What surprised me was the approval was only based on a 6 month trial. What of the long term exposure? What are the risks? Why approve something with so little data and medical basis? While I empathize with the video's speaker, I saw what I think is a much more problematic issue. When it comes to medicine, there appears to be less scientific truth underlying these decisions.
So, back to your point:
> what other people do with their genitals
While you may perceive some personal or moral assertion, and I acknowledge that is often true, I submit it is also true that others genitals deserve a lot more medical scrutiny than "we don't know, but someone else said this was better". Because, other people's genitals could potentially be my children's genitals and as a parent, or a grandparent, or other family member, who cares more deeply, I expect there is a factual and provably medically necessary response. If that cannot be proven, then there is no rational basis to move forward with medical treatment. The only treatment that makes sense is psychological, given the other supporting data on this topic.