So you would be OK with a game where the player controls a pedophile and rapes children?
This is a serious question.
Being okay with something doesn't mean we want it, like it, or will play it. I think such a game would be foul and disgusting. But it's pixels. A game, like you're talking about, would be [rightfully] banned by any storefront. It would be rightfully reviled, and scorned, just like plenty of other foul games out there. But that doesn't mean we somehow can prevent it from existing.
Creators create. They will create things you find foul and don't want to read/watch/play. That doesn't mean we stop them from creating. Because other people will take that some conceptual idea [be it murder, rape, or whatever] and make something admirable out of it. Violence can be used in a war movie, for example, to make it a statement against violence and war.
Forget torture, murder, and the rest. Let's talk rape. What about Irreversible? Or The Accused, with a graphic gang rape of Jodie Foster?
I mean, should someone be able to write a book about a "adult male who lusts after and ultimately rapes a twelve year old"? And if the answer is 'no', then how do you reconcile it? You're not talking about just banning books, you're banning books before they even exist. Because that's the basic plot of Lolita, a respected work of literature. Should it be banned? Kubrick made a movie out of it. Should that be banned? Should it not exist in the first place? How exactly do you prevent someone from writing Lolita?
What about a book about a man who kidnaps, rapes, and murders children? Because that's the plot of the hit book The Lovely Bones, also a movie.
Or do we realize words are words, and fiction is fiction? And we allow fiction to go places we do not allow the 'real world' to go. We always have, and for good reason. And yes, this lets utterly foul crap through too. But thankfully it's just fiction, and thankfully, we don't need to consume fiction we find foul. We don't need to support it. We can ignore it.