Obviously we have rules against it, that's not my point, though I actually think this is accidentally an interesting window into the mindset because your statement taken as-is (so without the ahegao part) is not necessarily justified. It's entirely possible to have a sexually explicit situation that is not erotica, as well as sexually explicit erotica in which a woman participant is not sexualized, because that term doesn't just mean "looks sexually attractive" but in fact refers to sexual objectification, which is not a necessary component for a female character in either of the examples I just mentioned. My point in mentioning this is that whether or not something is sexual in real life is very different from how to analyze an artistic depiction of it.

But that's all a tangent. To be clear, what I was saying was not that the two situations are the same (or even particularly similar), but merely that "there are people who look roughly like this in real life" does not mean "this art isn't misogynist," giving the example of something that does exist in real life where we would in fact expect the artistic depiction to be misogynist. It's like if someone said "All amphibians have four legs" and I gave the counterexample of Caecilians (which have zero). It's not a representative example of what amphibians in general are like, but shows nonetheless that the inference is false. Sometimes a reasonable heuristic is not deductively valid.

Oh, I was also complaining about the liberal self-victimizing tact of derailing any conversation about what one "should" do into one of what someone "can" do, especially by imagining that I am somehow trying to "not allow" anything. But I'm basically just talking to myself at this point.