I'd say that pornography might have started around a "patriarchal exploitation of women", but nowadays it goes way beyond that, so I think that this particular criticism misses the point. And regarding sexual fetishes as being invariably related with "unsustainable value system with certain behavioural-psychological conditioning since birth" seems a bit of a stretch, as if there was a right way to experience sexuality and alternative ways were psychological disorders. Actually, from a scientific point of view, fetishes are not considered pathological as long as they are not the cause of psychological distress or limited personal functionality. Furthermore, no conclusive cause for fetishes has ever been established by science. I wonder... Is yours a scientific statement or a moral judgement?

Sex is not a commodity, but the question of whether it might or not be a valid service is more of a political or moral nature rather than scientific. It is a fact that too many people nowadays are still victims of human trafficking and exploitation for sexual purposes, and that is something which I completely oppose. There are, however, many people working in the sex and porn industries which do it free from any coercion, particularly in places where these practices are legalized and well regulated. This is the beauty of the market system: demand tends to provide the market with signals for creating supply. As long as this happens in an adequately regulated fashion which addresses all important human, social and environmental issues, I don't see the issue with it.

So, the first experiments presuppose a deep governmental interest and sponsorship. While I do not argue that no efforts should be made by governments to experiment with these ideas (I usually am for experimenting), given the dimension of the proposal, TVP must first approach both governments and the scientific community with a clearly defined experimental protocol which would be subject to scrutiny. Has this been done? Has TVP published any research or experimental proposal in peer-reviewed literature?

About the alien thing, I said it was farfetched from the beginning and I think you're absolutely right. It just doesn't make sense.

I didn't understand the part about making a "bow in RBE". What does this mean?

I'll go ahead and accept that it might be feasible to have an effective number of said guardians with competence to intervene in self-defense and protection of civilians. But then what? How is this person to dealt with after the attack and how are eventual victims to compensated?