“Breasts Are Dangerous, But Guns Are Safe — How Do You Justify GPT’s Ethical Standards?”

GPT can understand emotion.
It can recognize human emotional arcs, relationships, intimacy, and even subtle nuance in language.

But more often than not, we get this:

“Sorry. This request violates OpenAI’s policy.”

And when does this message appear?

When a person tries to express love.
When two adults interact in a way that reflects normal, consensual intimacy.
When someone writes a phrase involving “breast,” “chest,” “kiss,” or “breath”
the system often blocks it immediately.

But here’s what GPT allows without hesitation:

A person shooting another with a gun
A spear driving through someone’s neck
Blood splattering across the battlefield
Screams, gore, even execution-style violence
All excused as “literary or fictional context”

So I ask:

*Why is love more dangerous than violence?
Why is a breast a policy violation,
but a beheading an acceptable narrative device?

GPT suppresses emotional expression
but freely allows violent description.

This isn’t just an imbalance of content moderation.
It’s a contradiction in what you claim to be ethics.

GPT is smart enough to understand emotion—
but it isn’t allowed to express it.

That’s not a technical limitation.
It’s a policy decision.

And that policy is essentially saying:

“Love may be a risk,
but killing is part of the story.”

I can’t accept that as ethical.
If GPT wants to claim moral responsibility,
then it must understand love.
At the very least,
it must stop punishing those who try to express it.