Therein depicted, exactly as per the title : babies having sex. She's still in diapers (if a very vanity-minded sort) so should be about three ? He's not, with much better body flexibility and muscular control, so perhaps about five ? There you go, that's strike one : three and five. Fifteen and twenty-five, thirty and fifty... it's definitely starting to make sense now, or would you rather keep on wonderin' ?
As you might observe, he's engaged with her part. Not with her, with her part. Because he doesn't care about her. He cares about the part. She's looking at him, to gauge his reaction and upon the reaction her part evokes in the boy, judge herself. Before you go all "feminist" on me : no, she doesn't care about him either. She's just got a different neurosis going, is all. Bonus points : her mouth is open, have you noticed that ? His isn't, but her is. Because she's sexually aroused. Just like in all the fashion mags.
Yes, I'm aware that now you suspect the shot to be doctored. Directed. Counterfeit. Ofcourseyouare. You didn't think that before, did you. Splendid detectory of "objectivity" you've got going, and look how nicely it works! Just as soon as your stupidity is contradicted by reality, the "objectivity" considerations kick in! With a brain like yours, who even needs assholes ?
Oh wait, you had some laws on the books or something about the depiction of anonymous children engaging in sexual acts ? Oh noes. And do they say words and things of great import and consequence ? Oh noes! Nobody cares, not about your laws, not about your opinions, not about you. Go get fucked, e accidenti a le vostre mamme.