zbovka I think there are anti-hormonal drugs you could employ.
That is among the most catastrophic suggestions I have read here. Messing with hormones has tons of side effects and I would argue that even the strictest belt with accessories is better for your health than messing with hormones, even more so when you have apparently no clue what you are actually doing to the body.
curious True, but at the same time there are over-the-counter hormonal drugs that anyone with money can purchase. Also the younger you are, the more stable your hormone system is, unless you already have a disorder of some kind.
I personally have a hormone inbalance which started showing symptoms at puberty, but after erm, "self experimentation" - I found the leading cause of episodic relapses is one of the ingredients found in diet-option softdrinks and sweets, likely the artificial sweetner. Does this mean that artificial sweetners should be banned? Absolutely not, because it clearly works fine for the majority of consumers.
zbovka Does this mean that artificial sweetners should be banned?
I you ask me, absolutely yes.
What most people not know: artificial sugar replacements actually increase hunger and therefore obesity.
These substances are used with great success in animal fattening, only the food and beverages giants want you to believe that sweet with zero calories is something good.
zbovka Don't readily give up your basic human rights just because someone else said you don't deserve it. Giving up control leaves room for bad actors to exploit.
i never intend to do that, i only made the direct comparison. that is, the comparison of having the belt "forced" on me by my father or that a judge orders it because there are legal grounds for it.
curious I you ask me, absolutely yes.
if you ask me absolutely no!
i agree with you on all health aspects, but i think education is the right solution. i don't believe in banning adults from any food or anything like that.
Angelina i don't believe in banning adults from any food or anything like that.
I do not consider it food.
Food has to adhere to certain quality criteria, or would you argue that selling food that contains lead or some other poison should be allowed just because it is up to the buyer to decide he he wants to buy food with poison included or not? Many people just don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision and precisely for that reason professionals assess the safety of food for consumption.
Now I would argue that artificial sweeteners do not belong in food - period. The same goes for many of the highly processed "food" products which have a nutritional value of near zero but the list of artificial ingredients is lengthy.
curious Made to measure medical braces etc can easily cost hundreds if not thousands of Euros.
So can chastity belts! Braces are not too expensive in the scheme of things. Prosthetics definitely are, because they often require articulating joints, which means motors, micro processors and a lot of proprietory tech.
Angelina
The problem here is, that the food industry is trying to come up with all sorts of artificial stuff that replaces real food because it is cheaper and they can earn more money. That stuff is insufficiently labelled on the packaging or misleading terms are used. E. g. Matrose extract sounds a lot like malt and people often think it is healthy. In truth it is used because it contains glutamate, a substance to boost the taste experience so that smaller amounts of the actual natural product that creates the taste in the first place can be used with the rest replaced by cheap substitute filling substances of low nutritional value.
Of course people should be able to make their own decisions, but in this field, not even I as a physician can decipher and fully understand all the ingredients used in many products and how they work together. You cannot expect ordinary people to get a science degree in order to eat good food, so some Form of regulation is clearly necessary. Especially because the food industry tries everything they legally can to improve their margin at the cost of quality.
For that reason, I would completely ban substances, Ike food colouring, artificial sweeteners, etc.
If your food has poor quality due to reduced content of good stuff, you should not be able to cover that up by adding colour for example.
The problem with free markets is, that the philosophy only works if there is a power balance between dealer and customer. In the times of a John Locke (I am sure you are familiar with his name and his ideas), that was a given.
But since that time a lot has changed. Businesses are no longer small and in the hand of a single person or family but multi billion dollar corporations. This has created a major shift of the power towards these corporations and the individual person as a customer is disadvantaged.
Not only can big corporations afford expensive law suites that no individual customer could finance, they also have lawyers and marketeing specialists to create all sorts of misleading marketing material which however is still right on the border of the legal side of things.
Add to that the increased complexity of today`s products and as a customer you have absolutely no chance if the government is not stepping in to re-establish the power balance. That created warranty regulations for example.
The issue is even worse when you look at how different legal systems operate.
In Europe we have a system where manufacturers must for example proof the safety of a product before it can be sold.
In the US, you can bring to market even unsafe products, but unlike Europe, the US have so called punitive damages.
Meaning in Europe you only get reimbursed for the actual damage your product has caused. If for example someone is injured by a bad or defective product for which the manufacturer is responsible, the manufacturer only has to pay for that person`s damages.
In the US, a jury will usually add a significant amount of money on top of that, the so called "punitive damage" to deter businesses from doing this again. European legal systems do not have that element.
That is one of the reasons why the TTIP treaty was so dangerous. US companies could have supplied all sorts of really bad products that cause harm to Europe without having to first undergo the safety checks and regulations. And if something happened to a customer, they would not have been under the threat of high punitive damage claims. The population of Europe would in fact have become the involuntary beta testers for all sorts of US products which the companies would not dare to bring to market in the US.
As you see from above examples, free market is a nice theory, but in todays compex and globalised world, regulations are absolutely necessary. The constitution in Germany for example guarantees all sorts of rights to the individual and the state is under obligation to protect its citizens. But no such rule exists for protecting business corporations.
you give examples that don't mean the free market i mean. there are laws and regulations everywhere, partly positive for consumers and partly positive for companies. in my opinion all that has to go, we have to get to a situation where customers and companies determine the market and not the state.
Angelina
But such a market is completely in the hands of big companies and they can cheat and trick individual customers pretty much whenever and however they want because as individual you simply cannot stand up against a billion dollar corporation.
If the state does not regulate anything, what would you do if you find out the car you bought is unsafe, brakes do not work properly for example. You could try to file a lawsuit but the company can take that trivial lawsuit all the way to the highest court, because 10,000 or even 20,000 dollars in legal fees are irrelevant. They can delay settlement for years by drawing out the process. They offer you 2,000 and because you need a car to get to your work, you are forced to take their offer in order to buy a crappy used car, because you cannot afford to wait a few years until you maybe win the lawsuit. As individual customer you are not fighting on even terms, you have no way to win - ever.
Sin Yeah you can. You just have to know where to go. ;-)
I’m so happy to hear that. 
Raquel In my family one of them makes every modification and enhancement of our belts.
I’m so happy to hear that.
Actually I did make contact with such a firm, back in 1993. I told them that I had a budget of $3000, but couldn’t really go much higher than that. They initially said they would build it, and I remember having one face-to-face meeting, but when I recontacted them a month or so later, they had apparently gotten cold feet and said that they wouldn’t do it without a prescription. At least that’s the way I remember it.
Angelina
And often companies do not care. Want a real life example?
Volkswagen and the diesel issues.
In the US, customers have the tool of class actions against a company and because punitive damages can be extremely high and jury outcomes are unpredictable, VW decided to offer to take back all affected cars or provide high compensation payments to Us customers to set off the reduced value of the cars.
In Germany, customers who were in the exact same situation of facing large devaluations of pretty new cars only got a fraction of what customers in the US got. Simply because the company did not fear separate legal claims, knowing only too well that not many people would be able to drive these cases all the way through the legal system.
Media attention is nice, but it still does not create a level field between big corporations and individual customers. And it is not unheard-of, that media outlets did not report on a story because a big company was actually a good client buying a lot of advertising space.
curious And it is not unheard-of, that media outlets did not report on a story because a big company was actually a good client buying a lot of advertising space.
but you can also see it the other way around. which media group would like to work with companies that are viewed badly by the public? this would also ruin the media group's reputation. In addition, everyone can still sue, there are contracts that both sides have to abide by. If one side doesn't do that, the other side can always assert claims in court, that's what courts are for
Angelina
Did you actually ever look at how much it costs to sue someone? There are a lot of legal tricks you can use.
For example: If I am dissatisfied with a product and publicly say, it is crap, the company can sue me for hurting their business. Yes, I do have a right to free speech, but in Germany for example it is well known that if such a case is brought at the Amtsgericht Hamburg, the judges there are very much leaning towards protecting companies. So you have so first take the loss in a lower court and the legal fees of several thousand Euros. Only then you can take the case to the next level, which - as is well known, you can even google this - again is leaning towards protecting the company. So you need to pay another round of legal fees and only then you can take this case to the BGH where finally you get your right of free speech and win against the company. But unless you are able to fund ten to twenty thousand Euros upfront in the hope of getting everything back when you finally do win, you better do not start that fight.
For big corporations of course, a few tenthousand Euros in legal fees is nothing and actually dirt cheap to counter public negative speech.
In the US such cases are called slap suites, I don't know if there is actually a term in German for this.
But that example should make it clear, that having a legal right and actually getting that right in reality are two very different things and if the playing ground is not level, the big corporations usually win.
Angelina
Not true unfortunately and it is 7nderstandable, because you simply cannot have the experience how things work out in real life at your age.
You can apply for what is called 'Prozesskostenhilfe'. But with every legal case there is a risk you don't win that case, and be it for whatever technicality. You only get the financial support if your income is under a certain limit. The problem is, that even if you earn well above the average paying 10 or 20 thousand in legal fees is a huge amount you risk and in case you earn enough or have savings, you do not receive that support.
Let's say you buy a car for 40k and there is the company that cheated with diesel emissions. Now due to that cheating, the car has lost 20k in value and you want to sue the company for your loss.
So you risk maybe 5 to 10k in order to hopefully get your 20k back. But there is no certainty you win.
So you think twice if you really want to invest the 10k in the hope of winning. But when 10k is a quarter of your annual income (average annual income in Germany is 40 something thousand), maybe putting a quarter of that at risk is too dangerous, so you cut your losses, and grudgingly accept that it is better not to sue.
For big corporations on the other hand, legal fees are not an issue, because they anyhow have a legal department with in house lawyers and the fees are absolutely neglectable to those companies.
Angelina no company can sue you for defamation of character or the like
Of course they can. That is how the game is played. As a big company you know you will most likely not win in the end. But still they can (and often do) sue just to wear the other side out, both financially and emotionally.
For you a lot depends on the outcome, because you have to invest a lot of money to fight off that case and constantly find time to consult with your lawyer etc. For the big company, the legal department handles things and the money that is at risk if they loose is negligible. That's exactly why they do it and why many ordinary people give up eventually and do not go all the way through the court levels.
