Hm?

Maybe you got a point, but your description definately does not encompass all (or probably even a significant portion) of kp. I really doubt a lot of people in most of the media are being brought to the 'peak of pleasure' and for those who are, most are probably the adults rather than the kids, who are for the most part being abused, and not enjoying the experience at all.

Not all body stimulation's good. I really doubt most people who make this stuff are doing it for the purpose of bringing them pleasure. The fact that they're videotaping it shows that they do have other intentions. While this doesn't make it impossible that they're only additional intentions, it really does raise the possibility (from 0, when there are no recordings) that such things are being done for reasons like money or to affect other people or gain reputation or something.

While maybe some guys do it as an act or worship or celebration or charity, I can't shake the feeling that this is only a minority of the mindsets and that most are done for very bad reasons, few of which may benefit the girl in any way.

This is another reason why cp/kp should be legal to view/possess (though this would not affect the laws outlawing the acts taking place in the video so people in it could still be prosecuted for what they do on film, and the film can be evidence for conviction) is that it would remove a lot of these myths.

Currently, people are coming to conclusions about this stuff mostly on their own, as disregarding expert evidence often happens due to (often accurate) suspicions of bias. A lot of people are coming to think of CP/KP very positively, in line with your description, which I believe is mistaken.

Part of this is due to not seeing the media. I think if people could legally see how awful a lot of this stuff probably is (based upon what police officers say happens when they legally view it, it sounds pretty awful) then it would remove any cognitive distortions which characterize it as being universally or mostly positive. I really think the majority of it is not good stuff and appeals to a baser human nature.

Another part is due to not being able to discuss the media. When people do illegally view it, they for the most part are going to do this in isolation, and not discuss what they do with others. Even if they do, it is really likely they are not going to do so in detail. The problem with this aspect of the issue is that people do not get others' input.

Currently, other media is not viewed in isolation. People discuss it and benefit from the observations of others in forming opinions and gaining perspective on what is depicted. Thus, their response to it is not limited by their own imagination, and their personal conclusions are vulnerable to criticism by other viewers who are able to spot any potential holes in the assessment and point out unreasonable jumps in conclusions.

This is why I really have a problem with people jumping to defend (or attack) this since really, there is simply no input on it at all.

Even in the case of police officers who do legally view it and do have the opportunity to discuss the content, I don't think it is the best environment either because it will still tend to be sorta isolated (how many cops tend to watch this stuff at once really?) and it isn't ongoing (they're probably only going to watch it if they're investigating the specific case, or else briefly just to label it as CP for convicting someone for possessing it) and generally, their responses to it may not be entirely honest in all instances.

Free speech for officers in context of reviewing controversial media like this which is otherwise illegal is going to raise questions about that officer's morale and suitability to that aspect of work. I expect it is something where reviewers are rather tight-lipped and eager to please and not speak controversially.

Certainly, in such a professional and regulated type of work, people do not speech casually with slang in an opinionated fashion. They must maintain a serious attitude to the point of not sharing an opinion which might seem unrefined, and thus their assessment is censored and bias in context IMO.

So anyway yeah, this form of disagreement here is an example of how people can be for the same end but for entirely different reasons...