I like how you jump from not being well-established to being definitely wrong. Everyone is telling you that citation is needed because it very much is. On topics like this a lot of people have strong opinions, far fewer have well-informed ones. We want the latter.

Here is my, I believe, moderately informed opinion.

As http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pd... makes clear, evidence that we now have says that widespread availability to porn has coincided with a massive decrease in rapes. Caused? Very hard to prove (as with most social statistics). But definitely coincided and there likely is some causal effect.

If that happens with regular porn, the natural expectation is that it is likely to happen with specific kinds of porn as well. If so, even though we don't have proof (and proof will be very hard to come to), we should be inclined to believe that the "harmless outlet" concept is likely valid.

Moving on, let's address your "paraphelia" comment. My opinion is that paraphelias are sexual orientations that we dislike for fairly good reasons. However all evidence that I'm aware of says that sexual orientations exist, have poorly understood causes, and are permanent. Penalizing homosexuality did not stop it, nor did allowing it create more. When we didn't have operations to allow transgendered people to become their mental gender, they still wanted it just as much. And so on and so forth.

Pedophilia is just another sexual orientation. (Actually many subdivisions exist, some are interested in girls, some in boys, some in both, some also are attracted to adult women, etc.) You aren't attracted to men or women, you're attracted to children. As with homosexuality, it isn't likely to ever be cured. Unlike homosexuality, there can be no possible consent, and expressing it is fundamentally against our moral values. Unfortunately sex is a very strong urge, and denying tends to fail in the long run.

There is no evidence that any sexual orientation is affected by availability of stimulating materials. Therefore it is unlikely that child porn contributes to the existence of pedophilia. As for incentivizing - anyone who thinks that sexual beings need to be incentivized to try to do what they are wired to do doesn't understand sexual drives. Full stop.

I give it better than even odds that if you get to this point, you'll think that I'm a "child porn apologist". You'd be wrong about that.

Why?

Because, as I said, child porn is interesting to pedophiles. Evidence that I've seen says that pedophiles actually will abuse children. Repeatedly. If you can track them down through child porn, and book them for that, you're probably doing the world a service.

It is kind of like going after Al Capone for tax invasion. It is not exactly what we didn't like him for, but it was what we could get him on.

Incidentally my opinion on whether child porn should be criminalized will change very quickly if I ever run into evidence that some combination of therapy and availability of child porn can allow pedophiles to remain in society and abuse at an acceptably low rate. (The idea of an "acceptable" risk of child abuse is revolting to many, but public policy accepts the idea of an "acceptably low" risk of all sorts of things, like death, dismemberment, etc. And, honestly, we're implicitly accepting that there is an acceptable risk of abuse every time we underfund programs to find and help people who are at risk...)