Thanks for your comment. You are right, that is a thing, unfortunately. However, there are certain instances in which a person cannot give consent. For example, if someone gives consent because of coercion (blackmail, external pressure...) it is not a valid consent. Legally, if a person is not conscious cannot give consent either (for example, when sleeping or drunk), even to a spouse. Besides, even BDSM has its legal limitations: nobody can't consent to get seriously injured. Here is an interesting article about that. How many sex games actually depict affirmative ongoing consent? Most of them don't, showing some kind of coercion, threat, abuse of power... to get the victim's "consent".

why not list it under CNC instead then? 

Thanks, I have already reported a game possibly containing child pornography, based on the comments and images. I look forward to hearing from the staff about the course of the investigation. Hopefully, we can make this platform a safer place. 

You make a good point, Eldwood. If a particular activity is deemed illegal (whether it is sexual assault, or murder or drug trafficking...) then anything that glorifies it / promotes it should be considered at least morally questionable. 

And you are right. There is indeed a fine line between the legal artistic representation of an activity (like violence in movies, comics...) and the illegal incitement (instigation to violence, Incitement to genocide or hate speech, which are considered crimes). Many videogames take advantage of the grey areas in the law. Fine. But from a moral point of view, there isn't a grey area: if a game promotes an activity that in real life is illegal, then that's plainly wrong. 

Perhaps many believe that what they see on TV, or the games they play don't affect them at all. But is it maybe possible that there are people (even older than 18) more impressionable that can be shaped in their way of thinking by the violence / abuse that they consume on a regular basis? If that is the case, could it be that some of them would act on those acquired thoughts? To deny that would be like denying the power of advertising.

I believe the question to consider should be: what do we gain vs what do we risk? By assessing the risk we would answer the question: is it worth allowing media to glorify illegal activities? At what cost? What are the potential risks? And how do we benefit from it... what do we get in exchange? Is it really worth it? Well, that's open for debate.

Hi Rafster, you are right, there is a url exclusion feature which was added 4 years ago, and is not useful when trying to combine tags. Hopefully exclusion filters will be added in the near future.

However, I don't completely agree that this is the main problem. Granted that excluding certain adult tags would help... but this approach alone would be similar to burying one's head in the sand, or sweeping dirt under the rug so that you don't see it. The problem is still there, is not going anywhere.

I believe the solution is not hiding potentially abusive adult content from some viewers, but examining scrupulously such games and actually enforcing the rules whenever illegal / questionable content is found. Not closing your eyes, but opening them wide. It's not a blindfold what we need, it's a magnifying glass  ;)