Quote - ... but if someone renders the immediate aftermath or prelude to a violent rape ...

I have no problem with "immediate aftermath", that's something in the picture.

Just about any picture with two people in it could be projected as a prelude to some sort of violent activity.
If a violent act isn't in the image, the possibility that one will take place can only be supplied by additional context from the artist or the thought processes of the viewer.
Nobody can actually say what happens next, because that's not what's in the image.

Quote - same applies to someone who cleverly obscures TOS violations with objects in the foreground, hands, clever cropping, etc., for example. IMO a render of two people having sex, with the genitals obscured by a cup on a coffee table in the foreground is no less a TOS violation than if the genitals were in plain view.

But at least in these cases your opinionating about what's actually in the picture.
Although the technique of interposing objects between people and the viewer is acceptable to film and television regulators.

I have no problem with catch all clauses that provide the right for any objectionable image to be removed, but the objection has to be about what's in the image, not some projection to an imaginary picture of a future event.