[benj111]

Is art necessarily about enjoyment? Should we not try to understand, if only to try an prevent it in the future?

I think theres a debate to be had over whether they should profit from those actions though.

Also keep in mind that Homosexuality was put in the same box as paedophilia and rape ( probably worse than rape). Social mores change, and are different from country to country. The girl involved was 17 as I understand it, which would be over the age of consent in my country.

[seanmcdirmid]

Sex trafficking was involved, so the age of consent is legally higher.

[benj111]

Again in my country (UK) the age of consent doesn't vary, sex trafficking is illegal in its own right. So this still wouldn't be paedophilia, rather it would be rape.

My point is I could have consensual sex with a 17 year old, paint a picture and the GP would be happy to view it(?). You could have sex with a 17 year old, get arrested for paedophilia, paint a picture, and the GP would not be happy viewing it. Theres a legal line and a moral line both can change so its weird getting absolutist about it.

To be clear I wasn't aware of the sex trafficking element, I thought this was a question of statutory rape, which would seem to yield very different legal answers based on location.

Edit: 'Interestingly' I seemed to have circled around to making the same point RMS made. Except I'm not denying the rape, and I'm not a representative for another organisation.

[seanmcdirmid]

The same is true in the USA, sex trafficking is always illegal, but the additional charge of rape will be added if the provider is under 18. Think of it as an add-on that makes the crime worse.

This whole thread has gotten side tracked on statutory rape, when in reality the criminal charges hinge on sex trafficking with age only as a modifier.