The arguably greatest prose work in the English language, Lolita, fits exactly that description and for decades puritans have thrown it out of libraries. Yes you ought to be because, and this is also a major point of the book, the apporpriate context to talk about art is an aesthetic, not a moralizing one.

I think it's critically important to consider by which method such material was created.

By the putting of pencil to paper, entirely from the imagination of some feeble mind ? Whatever, it's not for me, and I'd maybe piss on it for a lot of reasons, but not from a point of some moral superiority.

Something created from actual abuse of real, living beings, or using such material as a reference, that's beyond the question of morality, that's beyond criticism of art, that's ethically wrong and should not enter into a discussion of art, and the police be informed.

Isn't this conflating the work with the methods used to produce it?