[Manuel_D]

In the case of revenge porn, there's an image of a real person. By contrast, fictional content doesn't affect actually show a real person, so any attempt to prohibit fictional revenge porn must target images that merely look similar to a person. What degree of similarity is required to qualify? That dimension isn't a factor in real revenge porn.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Perhaps you're missing the context? In the incidents which led to this proposal, no judgment of similarity was necessary, the sexualized images were posted in the replies to non-sexualized images of the same person.

This isn't really a novel dimension in the first place, I don't think. It's just rarely an issue in practice, because most people who post these images do so to shame and embarrass the depicted person. No doubt there will be edge cases where a sexualized image of consenting person A gets taken down because they look similar to non-consenting person B - but is that really a big problem?

[Manuel_D]

The law doesn't stipulate that the offending images have to be posted with the intent to shame or embarrass, nor that the images have to be sent directly to the person that's supposed to be depicted in the image. If that's the justification, then the legislators ought to have put wording to that effect into the law.