"Think of the children!" Goes the refrain every single time someone is about to say something emotional rather than rational. It isn't easy to question our assumptions when the overwhelming desire is to protect the next generation. The key word is protect, which is an emotional word, and we have to question whether we are actually protecting them. There are children that want to have sex, and with all of the modern sex toys, penetration is not mandatory. It's conceivable a partner could actually care for a kid while having sex. His life wouldn't be much different from that of another kid doing chores, or scratching an adult's back, except for the continued arbitrary and oppressive sex-shaming born of a Victorian/Puritan fear of sin and an absolute sense of morality. Maybe pedos would make better parents than sending kids to the money-mills that are orphanages or foster-homes.
We have some ancient precedents. There were homosexual teachers that paired with young boys in Greece, (Socrates was tempted), and in the Tale of Genji the main character raised a girl to be his future wife. I don't know enough about the time to say whether Socrate's students or that fictional wife were better off, but these kinds of examples absolutely must be considered to have an informed debate.
The labeling of those who experience sex as "victims" or "rapists" or "exploiters" in common language creates a double-think optics problem that precludes thinking about positive examples. We often heap too much attention on how Stockholm's Syndrome could happen, but sex might make parents more loyal to their kids while preparing the kids to have mature relationships when they receive useful real experience once they leave the nest and fall in love, or what have you. (Too much infantization and pampering weakens kids and sets them back in life, or turns them into sexually-repressed feminist cunts who wouldn't know how to get laid if they tried when they're 30.)
Nearly all children seem to enjoy video cameras, acting, exhibition, and modeling, much more so than adults, and they might enjoy the attention. By any case, it's a living anyone of them could do with a webcam, and frequently independently do, and yet they're often criminalized by the law if they send nude selfies to their boyfriends (who must register as sex offenders if a concerned monkey gets involved.) Younger people also don't see very ugly older people as particularly ugly, until they get older, and this includes people we call creepers. I see no reason not to allow modeling; if the state wanted to legalize it, they could relate it and create a trust fund to prevent exploitation and demand that for all profits go to the minor upon becoming an adult. Pedos would still like produce it for free, just as student artists hire models to paint from life.
Here is what I predict: Just as prohibition failed, and the war on drugs failed and marijuana legalization is spreading, sooner or later a generation is going to realize that not only does our criminalization cause more problems, but this vice isn't as harmful as we thought. Such is the precedent, and I'm open enough to argue the contrary point of view until people start considering all of the relevant opposing evidence, and then make rational arguments.
Instead we have pedophile Lynch mobs in the UK, US, and worldwide-Google them, pedos are the ones who are most denied the right to defend themselves legally, verbally, or rationally. If SJWS actually cared about justice they would switch sides (rather than flogging the dead horses that are the lgbt and "women," who have already obtained the power to defend themselves.)