*So images viewed by a Spaniard will be judged differently by them to images viewed by a Californian who will likely be shocked at anything looking 16.

*Yeh, but here in kookyfornia we have nutcases whom are willing to molest even toddlers, so public has gotten hypervigilant.

About actual models, with Kate moss etc, there's solid proof that they are not underage, so if they look lollipop like or child-like, thhere's no question they are legal.

With CGI, there is no actual live model (unless it's a portrait of a specific live person), so the age a picture looks is most likely what it's going to lebeled to be. If it can be debated that a portion of population can reasonably see it as underge, then those wanting to err on the side of safety will vote to remove it's nudes.

Places like Rendo always need to worry about how their local police enforcement may see certain pictures. Last thing they need is cops knocing on their door telling them they are under investigation for promoting child pornography. Doesn't matter if they're actually guilty ot that it can be reasonably argued that a particular picture is not really underage. A prudent business practice is to not put yourself in a position to even be accused.

For those whom insist on appreciating beauty of barely legals are going to have to do it more privately. Insisting on flaunting one's sexuality or sexual preferences in public is really not necessary, whatever your preferences are, young, old, round, flat or prickly. 
Nor is it anyone's legally protecetd right. Art or not.

Hi, my namez: "NO, Bad Kitteh, NO!"  Whaz yurs?
BadKittehCo Store  BadKittehCo Freebies and product support