We're talking about sensual and seductive photographs of a naked prepubescent posing in a very adult manner.
... and where, exactly, do you draw the line? Isn't a picture of an innocent five year old standing naked in a tub capable of being erotic?

(I, personally, would draw the line where the child being photgraphed is being abused or exploited, but how the hell could I prove it? That's a whole other question. However, a naked fiver-year old, wearing lipstick and eye liner, with one hand raising her hair and the other on her hip would certainly be indicative of exploitation if not abuse. But, think again of the tiny tots in the beauty contests already mentioned. That's exploitative too and maybe abusive. Perhaps I shouldn't link them - parents tolerate that kind of treatment, for the chance of fame or fortune.)

Art is art. It is meant to be stimulating. It is meant to be arousing. It isn't all good art, but it shouldn't be banned because it fails some arbitrary quality test. Bad art will die out of its own accord and it matters not that a bad artist achieves temporary notoriety for a while


Yes, the perpetrator should be punished, but I'm not sure what you mean by "not everyone else"
Perpetrator = person using photgraphs for paedophilic gratification
Everyone else = people who would view the photographs to admire the innocent beauty of a prepubescent child.