You’re welcome. In general I am reluctant to be morally critical of "sexual deviancy" as it is defined. In its broadest sense the majority of people probably fit into this category, as in being outside the mainstream in some way, shape or form. However, as you said, when looking at the contrast between abuse and sexual deviancy with regards to child pornography the difference between the two is negligible when we are talking about children being victimized, and I do consider viewing images of children being sexually abused as a form of victimizing them all on its own. Lack of consent is central to how I feel out it, as in no one had a right to take such pictures so no one else should have the right to view them. Also, like with anything illicit, in theory reducing the demand reduces the supply, so treating possession of child pornography as a serious offence serves as an appropriate method of protecting children. From a forensic psych point of view I see where the author of the study is coming from but his findings should in no way be used to legitimize a market that sexually exploits children for other people’s pleasure, whether they are inclined to actually touch children or not.
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.