Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) on Nostr: nprofile1q…4775a nprofile1q…r772x I really gotta make it more obvious when I'm ...

nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqjmae6q0wrv8l5rt8nu5qa489sjxee7h8pj4f8qyf4mhz7w3gg23s84775a (nprofile…775a) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqfmjs955yvcemg93l7hgvdat9q5a8v6fu5027vjxnwc2gyudhlrrs3r772x (nprofile…772x)

I really gotta make it more obvious when I'm shitposting over-the-top opinions I guess.

Leaving jokes aside: Yes, your ideas are very sound and I would support them.

Note I haven't mentioned banning people from offering sexual favours for money. I've only mentioned punishing those who accept it, because it means they're taking advantage of the person in need of money. (The actual form of punishment was another over the top joke, of course. A one-time fine would probably be appropriate. And if the "transaction" was completed, then the party that was paid should perhaps have a right to bring forth charges of "non-forceful rape," since the fact that they asked for money was a clear communication that they were not actually desiring to have sex.)

By the way, this is called the "Nordic model against prostitution" in case you want to read more about it. Originally "Swedish model" since they were the first to implement it.

As for porn, I'd focus on the fact that its creation generally involves "sex for payment" i.e. it's just prostitution that happens to also be filmed, so it would fall under those laws, maybe with an additional penalty for the fact that the crime was filmed and disseminated. The victim should accordingly be able to sue for damages (distress, loss of reputation, etc.) caused by the dissemination of such intimate graphics, once they become a bit wiser and realise they were taken advantage of.

People who film themselves having willing sex with no money involved could distribute that and it would not be legally categorised as "pornography" but rather just as a video that happens to show people having sex.

Virtual depictions are a tough one. I don't oppose laws that ban lolicon, but I can hardly find a justification for such a ban under my general principles. I suppose it could fall under the general category of "exemptions to free speech" which includes things that arguably incite an audience to commit crimes, and then it could be argued that lolicon is an incitement to commit child exploitation, but it seems like a slippery slope.

There's a place between "it should be illegal" and "it's morally benign." In other words, things that are immoral but legal for various reasons. I think various kinds of virtual porn fall in there. For some social problems, the legal system isn't the right tool to fix it; cultural change is.