I disagree with the idea that providing resources for exploited people to leave the sex industry and making it not profitable would require a full blanket ban on public explicit material.

that's fine, we clearly disagree on this point and it doesn't seem like a resolution here is possible.

What this ban will do, however, is demonize people who want to express their sexuality publicly by telling them that their way of expression is incompatible with socialist ideals when it really isn’t. Such a ban will not stop at the few but inevitably seep its way into general culture, perpetuating ideas that sexuality is shameful.

i feel like you're really extrapolating a lot from very little, here. what gives you this impression? after all, this wouldn't be a ban on all public mentions of sex or sexuality at all, just explicit materials shared publicly. sex education would obviously be super important as well, in terms of teaching about consent, healthy relationships, etc. furthermore, i do in fact think that loveless sex is a product of capitalist patriarchy, rather than a product of proletarian ideology and ideals.

Furthermore, this line between “private” and “public” is completely arbitrary. What if someone DMed someone else and through that arranged a transaction involving explicit pictures? This is “private” but neither of us would support it being legal.

i don't think the line between private and public is arbitrary just because there are instances where it can be challenging to define one or the other, in fact i think claiming the line is arbitrary is strictly undialectical. i already made clear the high probability of a black market existing, and my reasoning despite that fact. in the hypothetical example you mentioned, if someone has a material interest in doing it once they have a material interest in doing it many times, and they have a material interest in broadcasting their intent to as many as possible. this makes it easier to notice and enforce, and it makes shutting down public explicit materials that much more effective.

the point here is that you cannot completely remove the material interest in producing and distributing explicit materials until the commodity form no longer exists. until then, we should be as strict as possible in trying to ensure that the fewest number of people have a material interest in selling their bodies. if i'm wrong, then people are essentially upset for being censured. if you're wrong, then more people than would otherwise be necessary would have sufficient material interest to commodify their bodies. i think my potential error is much more preferable.

If people are guaranteed living standards, them selling their bodies will naturally either away, no blanket bans requires.

but, is this going to happen day 1 post-revolution? or year 1? or year 100? how long will it take for capital and the bourgeoisie to wither away until communism, and are you okay with not stemming the tide of sexual exploitation as much as possible until, well, we reach communism?

i also fully accept that a blanket ban on day 1 post-revolution is also not feasible or possible, and so i would obviously take a gradual approach towards that blanket ban. however, in the gradual approach towards that blanket ban, if it so happens that no one has a material interest in commodifying their bodies despite the existence of the commodity form, i would be more than happy to settle with a partial ban. however, i do not see this as likely for the reasons i have already explained to you.