[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

Many people say that viewing it is victimless as long as the "looker" isn't distributing or paying for it in any way. But I think without the consumer there can't be a supplier, so in my opinion that makes that argument fall apart. Plus, just looking at the stuff must have a high risk of escalating to physical contact with a child to keep up with their desires.

[alancalverd]

It is often said that we have inconsistent attitudes to pornography and the depiction of violence, but on closer inspection you can draw some clear boundaries.

"War films" are obviously all about violence but are equally obviously acted by well-paid volunteers. We sometimes get graphic images of real victims but it is rare to see the violent act broadcast as news: a few clips from Vietnam really upset the public who were paying for it.

If you like war films, video games, boxing, or cop flicks, it is difficult to object rationally to consensual pornography, but there's the distinction: child porn cannot be consensual, any more than being burned by napalm, and worse, cannot be excused as an essential act of war.

"Escalation" is difficult to prove, but the advertising industry certainly believes that behavior can be influenced by exposure, and puts a lot of money behind that assertion.

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

It is often said that we have inconsistent attitudes to pornography and the depiction of violence, but on closer inspection you can draw some clear boundaries.

"War films" are obviously all about violence but are equally obviously acted by well-paid volunteers. We sometimes get graphic images of real victims but it is rare to see the violent act broadcast as news: a few clips from Vietnam really upset the public who were paying for it.

If you like war films, video games, boxing, or cop flicks, it is difficult to object rationally to consensual pornography, but there's the distinction: child porn cannot be consensual, any more than being burned by napalm, and worse, cannot be excused as an essential act of war.

"Escalation" is difficult to prove, but the advertising industry certainly believes that behavior can be influenced by exposure, and puts a lot of money behind that assertion.

Yes, but the movies you refer to are obviously not real. Actors, directors, writers, ect.
Child pornography is sourced from non-consensual sodomy and so on, involving minors who usually don't understand its peccability until it's too late.

[alancalverd]

Yes, but the movies you refer to are obviously not real. Actors, directors, writers, ect.

As are television advertisements. So on the one hand there is an enormous industry that thinks people's behavior can be modified by play-acting,  and on the other there is a general dismissal of the social effects of cop and war films.

I think "minors not understanding peccability" is slightly off-target.  It is wholly and only the nonconsensual nature of child porn that is wrong, not whether the victim understands it.