>>82867280
Some people base all of their moral standards on consent.
So anything that could be construed as not being 100% clear consent is forbidden to such people.
So to such people mind control in all it's forms is rape, sleep stuff is rape, hypno is rape, and anything that features rape even if it's fictional must be forbidden and banned. At least if it's made for the male gaze. Rarely is such subject matter banned when it's in female focused erotica books.
Whole complaint is built on a wall of faulty assumptions and bad reasoning. But anti-porn sex negative assholes don't need good arguments, they just need power to enforce their will on others. Which they have in abundance.
>why would credit card companies care about hypnotism
If CC companies had their way they wouldn't process payments for anything to do with sexuality at all.
Even the allowed stuff has to go through "high risk" middle men processors and pay significant extra fees to be able to accept cards. Personally knew a woman who ran a small online toy shop and CONSTANTLY had to deal with the CC company just making up excuses not to process payments.
Don't know what the fuck is their problem, but it's been a ongoing issue for a very long time.
They claim it's a "brand risk", and that anything to do with sex has a higher risk of charge backs due to people paying for things then changing their mind out of embarrassment. So it totally isn't them imposing morals or functionally censoring things, it's just risk management.
Meanwhile since it's such a massive bureaucracy it's impossible to pin down who exactly is calling the shots on the matter.
Makes me long for someone to enact the ending of Fight Club on them (the movie not the book).
