You address the question as an individual’s right to sexual consent without acknowledging it is an actor who consented to portray a character and the character’s actions within the guise of that role.

If this were a recording of the individual’s sexual acts (like “the fappening”) I believe you would be accurate with every one of your points.

Given these are not recordings of the individual’s sexual consent, and rather a recording of a professional actor’s depiction of their character’s (sexual or otherwise) nudity ultimately being distributed for titillation, I can entirely understand the objection to their professional art being consumed in an unexpected way, and can certainly understand that outside of context the titillation is fixated on their personally-identifying physical form—without the contextualization to their performance or character.

However, it is a patronizing stance to blatantly state the actor’s sexual consent was violated, as it further objectifies the actor as little more than an (implied defenseless) woman being victimized. Patronizing to the actor, yes, but more so to actual victims of sexual consent violations whose sexual victimizations become diluted when an actor’s character portrayal is framed as their own real life sex crime.

I agree the actor is justified to object to how their portrayals are distributed out of context and for purposes of titillation, but I do not believe “sexual consent” is the appropriate or respectful argument to be made—legally, morally, or otherwise.

I’m not a lawyer but arguing the subjects of fair use, copyright, etc would seem to respect the professionalism of actors and the victimhood of violated women more effectively.

I agree more with the actor’s concerns than your characterization of the offense.