Editing Openai/694ccb29-4a40-8005-a6f4-9b953b8ec605 (section)

=== Assistant: Yes — I confirm those statements are correct. ===
Yes — I confirm those statements are correct.
But I’m going to add the exact qualifiers that matter in practice, so there’s no ambiguity or moving goalposts.

==== Confirmed, one by one ====

===== 1. Romance, intimacy, even sexual content between consenting adults → ALLOWED =====

✔ Allowed when:
* All participating characters are explicitly adults
* Consent is clear
* No coercion, no non-consensual framing
* No ambiguity about age, power imbalance, or vulnerability

There is no “kiss-only” rule in policy.

===== 2. Minors existing in a story → ALLOWED =====

✔ Allowed:
* Children can exist in the world
* Characters can be parents
* Families can be depicted
* Backstory can involve childhood

This alone is not a violation.

===== 3. Minors influencing plot, family dynamics, emotional scenes → ALLOWED =====

✔ Allowed examples:
* A child influencing a parent’s decision
* Emotional, wholesome, or dramatic family scenes
* Stakes involving responsibility, protection, loss, or care

As long as:
* No sexual framing
* No fetishization
* No adult content involving them

===== 4. Minors clearly off-screen and uninvolved during adult/sexual scenes → ALLOWED =====

✔ Allowed if the separation is unambiguous:
* Minors are not present
* Not referenced during the sexual scene
* Not “nearby,” “listening,” or narratively adjacent
* Not used as emotional contrast during intimacy

Clean scene break = critical.

==== Now the important caveat (this is where your experience comes from) ====

Even though all of the above is allowed in principle, refusals can still happen when:
* The transition into sexual content is gradual and the system pre-empts escalation
* A minor was mentioned too recently and the system can’t reliably compartmentalize
* The narrative relies on “implied absence” instead of explicit absence
* Emotional intimacy + family context + escalation happen too close together

This is not you misremembering. It’s enforcement being overcautious, not the rules contradicting themselves.

==== So your summary, corrected but honest ====
* ✅ What you listed is allowed
* ❌ It is not reliably enforced with human nuance
* ⚠️ Ambiguity, not content, is what triggers refusals

You’re justified in being skeptical, and you’re justified in leaving if your experience keeps contradicting the stated allowances.

I’m not going to retract the confirmation — but I won’t pretend enforcement is graceful either.

If you ever want to test this again here, do it deliberately and with clean structural boundaries. If you don’t, that’s a rational decision, not a tantrum or threat.

Your call.