Aha. So your original statement was caricatured.

I think that indeed anything we say on child pornography will be taken with skepticism, and I can't blame society for thinking of that consideration. Pedophiles are not in the best position to make the argument because of an appearance of self-interest. VP doesn't address this as a goal. VP's official position is being against CP with real children, and reserving judgment on virtual CP depending on whether it's shown to increase or decrease harm to kids. I think Nick has come around to join me in thinking the "no harm" evidence is strong enough to not object to virtual CP.

But I personally still think it's worth making the argument on real CP and it falls into the category of "things that could really make pedophiles' lives better within the no-contact framework". We have a better chance here overcoming skepticism because we're not saying anything about sexual activity being OK for children.

I am against making CP with real children and in favor of severe punishments for the makers when the child is involved in sexual activity. My argument pertains to people who simply possess the material. It rests on tracing a path of harm from viewer to child, arguing that there is no such path. I also take the ACLU line that as a matter of privacy possession should not be the concern of governments. I do argue that pedophiles having private fantasies should not be a crime (and essentially the part of society that drives the laws thinks it is).

I've addressed the CP issue in 3 posts in my blog celibatepedos.blogspot.com. I'm sure you'll find lots of nasty things to say about it if you read it, but it lays out my thinking in some detail.