I can sense the lust in your heart.

To be clear on what I mean by "nobody is arguing that" I mean very literally the current conversation is not about whether it is morally ok or not.

You already are allowed to do that, the difference is posting on platforms, which is what this conversation is about.

Very literally, this conversation has nothing to do with the morality of depicting non-con in art, and everything to do with how undefined "non-con" even is under the new rules.

Oh dear

I'm not doing a thought experiment with you bud, become more aware if your political climate.

Then you'd be arguing objectively wrong.

Like bud... they can't even distinguish between "artistic nudity" and "porn" what makes you think you can trust that they'll be able to tell the difference between non-con and people who just like it rough?

Like nobody is arguing thag depicting non-con is a good thing, what is being argued is that the changes are so vague as to what they actually believe a depiction of "non-con" could be that there is real risk it's anything not straight or vanilla enough.

Until you use your brain and realise that you as the artist don't actually get to determine if what you post is a "depiction of consent", it's the moderation who determines if it "looks" consensual enough, which depending on who makes that determination could mean whatever.

Baffling.