It is striking how perceptions and sensitivities about the use of underage themes (let alone underage talent) has changed in a few decades.
Even the Private corporation published stuff in the early 1980s that under current norms would be considered child porn, although I did not perceive it as such when I saw it in the early 1980s (in Private magazines).
There were stories featuring very young looking boys (looking 14 or 15). One of the stories was about the kid the boy being hit by a car and taken home by the female talent. He was small enough for her (a normally-sized woman in her late 20s or early 30s) to pick up the kid and carry him into her bedroom.
As I said, I wouldn’t have considered it child porn at the time; I might have fantasized about situations like that with an adult woman when I was 14 or 15. A pic from that story was on the front cover, and it was sold openly on newstands and in tobacco shops, and nobody protested or even remarked on it.
Private also used adult performers dressed up to look like children, combined with suggestive themes (such as ‘bedtime prayers’). Now, some 25 years later, the same stuff would probably lead to criminal prosecution and discussions in parliament.