Deviant sexual urges and their satisfaction

[biddee]

As an offshoot of this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=601929) thread I was wondering whether deviant sexual urges can be satisfied by just watching pornography and self pleasuring.

In other words, one of the posters mentioned that we currently have the CGI capability of producing very life-like child pornography. Do you think pedophiles would be satisfied with that and not act on their urges (ie harm a child). And in that case wouldn't that be the route to go? alphaboi867 mentioned that this kind of pornography is still illegal even though no children have been used in the making of it.

Does anyone know the statistics of how many pedophiles actually act on their desires rather than just fantasizing about them (using pornography obviously helps). Most of them know what they are doing is wrong...right?

[MrTuffPaws]

The idea that any but a few persons that fantasize about deviant sexual behavior will act upon their fantasies is pretty short sighted, being that most people have desires that we fantasize about but never act upon them.

[ITR champion]

In other words, one of the posters mentioned that we currently have the CGI capability of producing very life-like child pornography. Do you think pedophiles would be satisfied with that and not act on their urges (ie harm a child).
I'm not sure the logic wouldn't actually flow the other way. I don't see why satisfaction of an urge would stop the urge. Instead, once a person has gotten a small amount of satisfcation of an urge, they generally want greater and greater amounts of the same. Hence crack addicts keep needing more and more just to return to the same levels of pleasure, and so do porn addicts.

[Steve MB]

I'm not sure the logic wouldn't actually flow the other way. I don't see why satisfaction of an urge would stop the urge. Instead, once a person has gotten a small amount of satisfcation of an urge, they generally want greater and greater amounts of the same. Hence crack addicts keep needing more and more just to return to the same levels of pleasure, and so do porn addicts.

Oh, puh-leeze. If you don't understand the distinction between a chemical addiction and a behavior pattern, you are not qualified to form an informed opinion on the matter.

[biddee]

The idea that any but a few persons that fantasize about deviant sexual behavior will act upon their fantasies is pretty short sighted, being that most people have desires that we fantasize about but never act upon them.

This answer confused me. Are you saying that most people 'will' act on their urges or not?

[ITR champion]

Okay, explain the difference to me.

[biddee]

I'm not sure the logic wouldn't actually flow the other way. I don't see why satisfaction of an urge would stop the urge. Instead, once a person has gotten a small amount of satisfcation of an urge, they generally want greater and greater amounts of the same. Hence crack addicts keep needing more and more just to return to the same levels of pleasure, and so do porn addicts.

Are porn addicts more likely to watch more porn or actually go out and have sex?

[Der Trihs]

This answer confused me. Are you saying that most people 'will' act on their urges or not?I'm not MrTuffPaws but no; most people don't act on all (or even most) of their fantasies and urges. Sexual or otherwise. Ever wanted to punch someone and not done so? Almost certainly.

Given that sex with children is both highly disapproved of and dangerous thanks to that disapproval, it would be very, very surprising if there weren't far more people with urges towards underage children than there are those who actually have sex with those children. The vast majority I expect either simply ignore those desires (come on, have you no sexual desires that you have no intention of trying to indulge?) or they simply find a way to sublimate it. Play the Catholic Schoolgirl and the Wicked Priest with their girlfriend, something like that.

[athelas]

Before we answer that, let's unravel the question a bit. If we legitimize ways for deviants to satisfy their urges, then that would be a utilitarian win - more people move a bit higher on their utility functions. At the same time, it would raise the status of said deviants, by raising the profile of their preferences and declaring it socially acceptable for such people to exist.

So, for the utilitarians in the crowd, does your utilitarianism outweigh your desire for, say, pedophilia to be low status? If so, at what margin? Would satisfying the desires of a single pedophile be worth making pedophilia as acceptable as homosexuality? If not, you're placing a pretty high priority on keeping pedophiles in a low status position.

For non-utilitarians, how do your additional values change the picture, and why are they anything more than your personal preference?

[Der Trihs]

In my view, what matters is keeping children unmolested; status is irrelevant.

[athelas]

Exaggerated concern about adverse behavior is a covert way to lower status, just as concern over the debauchery of deviant homosexuals (rather than attacking homosexuality itself) was a polite-company way to be anti-gay a few decades ago. Not saying that anyone in particular is engaging in that, but it pays to be aware that this is one way in which the debate can be muddied.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

No, the people who have deviant sexual urges should restrain themselves and realize such thoughts are evil not encourage it in any way.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Internet Rule #34: If it exists there is porn of it.

There is evidence (http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/) that easier access to porn resulted in a decrease in rape in this country.

While most people do not act on their urges and control themselves some do indulge those urges. It seems that having an outlet for those urges keeps some from acting on them.

To be clear...I am NOT advocating child porn.

[clairobscur]

The idea that any but a few persons that fantasize about deviant sexual behavior will act upon their fantasies is pretty short sighted, being that most people have desires that we fantasize about but never act upon them.

If we're talking about true pedophiles whose fantasies will always involve kids, the issue is different. You can have any sort of fantasies that you won't ever even be able to act upon (not able to find a willing partner, absurdly complicated, even actually impossible to realize, whatever...) but (excluding the relatively uncommon case of people who can *only* be aroused for instance by a specific fetish), you'll be able to get sexual gratification from a partner of your preferred gender.

That wouldn't be the case of a true pedophile. Doesn't matter if he has also a little boy harem fantasy, or a little girl's foot fantasy, in any case he won't be able to act on his basic sexual desire (at least not without becoming a criminal).

So what you said about us acting or not upon our fantasies doesn't really apply to pedophiles who are acting or not on their basic sexual urges.



Regarding the OP, I don't think CGI child porn should be banned. No harm, no foul. (let alone sex-oriented Simpson family cartoons as it's apparently the case in Australia)

[Der Trihs]

That wouldn't be the case of a true pedophile. Doesn't matter if he has also a little boy harem fantasy, or a little girl's foot fantasy, in any case he won't be able to act on his basic sexual desire (at least not without becoming a criminal).

So what you said about us acting or not upon our fantasies doesn't really apply to pedophiles who are acting or not on their basic sexual urges.It does apply; for example, there's no non-criminal (or moral, for that matter) way for me to act on my caveman urge to kill all sorts of people I dislike. So...I just don't kill anyone. Murderous thoughts are common; murderers are relatively rare. By the same token, I expect that there are far more people with pedophiliac urges than there are actual pedophiles.

[clairobscur]

No, the people who have deviant sexual urges should restrain themselves and realize such thoughts are evil not encourage it in any way.

Assuming you're 13 or older, how do you refrain from having sexual thoughts, exactly?

I'm sure there are some hindu hermits out there who manage to do exactly that but most of us mere mortals can't.

[clairobscur]

It does apply; for example, there's no non-criminal (or moral, for that matter) way for me to act on my caveman urge to kill all sorts of people I dislike. So...I just don't kill anyone. Murderous thoughts are common; murderers are relatively rare. By the same token, I expect that there are far more people with pedophiliac urges than there are actual pedophiles.


I'm convinced you're right regarding the last point, but I still don't think that a mere fantasy (to kill your boss or to rape women, to stay in the criminal fantasy range) can be compared to a sexual orientation (which I believe true pedophilia is). The urge has to be much stronger.

[Markxxx]

Actually you can get a good analogy simply by removing the word "deviant" from the question.

For instance, suppose a man likes oral sex, but his wife doesn't want to perform it.

She gives him all the sex he wants but not oral sex. But let's say this man really likes receiving oral sex.

Is it likely that watching porn of a woman performing oral sex on a man is going to be enough for him? I don't know, I'm just posing the question. Which leads to the follow up question will viewing said pornography mean that he's more apt to go and cheat on his wife? Or will it satisfy him and make him less likely?

Are urges we consider deviant any stronger? I guess some people would even consider oral sex deviant behaviour.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Actually you can get a good analogy simply by removing the word "deviant" from the question.

For instance, suppose a man likes oral sex, but his wife doesn't want to perform it.

She gives him all the sex he wants but not oral sex. But let's say this man really likes receiving oral sex.

Is it likely that watching porn of a woman performing oral sex on a man is going to be enough for him? I don't know, I'm just posing the question. Which leads to the follow up question will viewing said pornography mean that he's more apt to go and cheat on his wife? Or will it satisfy him and make him less likely?

Are urges we consider deviant any stronger? I guess some people would even consider oral sex deviant behaviour.

See post #13.

Not sure it answers your question but I think a clue is there (or datapoint at least).

[Mosier]

Assuming you're 13 or older, how do you refrain from having sexual thoughts, exactly?

I'm sure there are some hindu hermits out there who manage to do exactly that but most of us mere mortals can't.

He didn't say a person should refrain from having sexual thoughts. He said people need to show restraint, and realize those thoughts are evil, and not encourage them.

[Der Trihs]

He didn't say a person should refrain from having sexual thoughts. He said people need to show restraint, and realize those thoughts are evil, and not encourage them.In reality though that just makes things worse. Trying not to think about something ensures that you'll think about it constantly.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Assuming you're 13 or older, how do you refrain from having sexual thoughts, exactly?

I'm sure there are some hindu hermits out there who manage to do exactly that but most of us mere mortals can't.

I also have violent thoughts, but I do not dwell on them or elaborate on them. Same thing here.

[Patty O'Furniture]

No, the people who have deviant sexual urges should restrain themselves and realize such thoughts are evil not encourage it in any way.

Homer : Marge, I want you to admit that you have a gambling problem.
Marge : You know, you're right Homer. May be I should get some professional help.
Homer : No, no - that's too expensive. Just don't do it any more.

[code_grey]

Does anyone know the statistics of how many pedophiles actually act on their desires rather than just fantasizing about them (using pornography obviously helps). Most of them know what they are doing is wrong...right?

when you are done with that, how about finding some statistics on men who are unable to act on their desires for regular hetero sex and limit themselves to just fantasizing about such activities? There are quite a few such ticking bomb individuals out there, I would imagine. Gives you chills, huh?

Unlike the above-mentioned scenario, presumably for a pedophile to fulfill his fantasies is a lot harder than for a guy who isn't good at "with the girls be handy" part. He is also risking a whole lot more if he even tries to do it.

[JKellyMap]

when you are done with that, how about finding some statistics on men who are unable to act on their desires for regular hetero sex and limit themselves to just fantasizing about such activities? There are quite a few such ticking bomb individuals out there, I would imagine. Gives you chills, huh?


The University of Chicago student body would make an excellent sample set for this.

But seriously...I think most experts agree (no cites, sorry) that a real-world sexual interaction of just about any kind will tend to provide a certain extra level of satisfaction not possible through the virtual sort, but that the virtual sort provides so many other advantages (no wasting time with the dating game, none of the screw-ups which so often occur during RW sex, multiple "partners" much easier to deal with, etc.), that it often takes precedence in an individual's efforts. This would hold true for deviant and/or illegal sex as well, and that's why SOMETIMES access to virtual materials can be a factor in reducing the prevalence of the RW variety.

[clairobscur]

I also have violent thoughts, but I do not dwell on them or elaborate on them. Same thing here.

In fact I never had any of those frequently mentioned fantasies of killing your boss/coworker or even violent thoughts for that matter (excepted for a number of dictators, torturers or such people) . The closest I come are fantasies of people being thoroughly humiliated, losing their status, etc... .But anyway, I don't think those, violent or not, are similar to sexual fantasies or urges.


I *do* have "evil"(*) sexual fantasies (either morally or even legally wrong if they were acted upon). Frankly, I don't mind indulging in them, and don't try to repress them. And I however don't believe there's the slightest chance I'm going to act upon them.

But again it's different from pedophilia. First, I have other fantasies which aren't wrong (at least by my moral standards, a faithful Christian might disagree), some of them totally unrealistic, others pretty common, others more uncommon but that I could potentially concretize or even have already concretized. And, more importantly, even if it were impossible to me to live any of my fantasies, I still could have regular sex with a partner of my preferred (or least preferred if it came to it) gender without it being an issue.


On the other hand, a pedophile can't. And I believe that telling him that besides he should also not fantasize is quite a bit over the top. Basically, you're saying that a pedophile, besides not having sex, shouldn't even masturbate. Do you think it's a reasonable demand for a regular individual? Do you think you, personally, would be able to live up to this standard (repressing sexual thoughts, not masturbating, etc..), if whoever/whatever you usually have sex with or fantasize about was suddenly forbidden to you?





(*) In fact, I've difficulties with the concept of "evil thoughts". It reminds me of psychological questionnaire I got during a medical preventive check-up. One of the questions was "I have evil thoughts yes/no" and I was puzzled as to the meaning of the question.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I *do* have "evil"(*) sexual fantasies (either morally or even legally wrong if they were acted upon). Frankly, I don't mind indulging in them, and don't try to repress them. And I however don't believe there's the slightest chance I'm going to act upon them.

But again it's different from pedophilia. First, I have other fantasies which aren't wrong (at least by my moral standards, a faithful Christian might disagree), some of them totally unrealistic, others pretty common, others more uncommon but that I could potentially concretize or even have already concretized. And, more importantly, even if it were impossible to me to live any of my fantasies, I still could have regular sex with a partner of my preferred (or least preferred if it came to it) gender without it being an issue.


On the other hand, a pedophile can't. And I believe that telling him that besides he should also not fantasize is quite a bit over the top. Basically, you're saying that a pedophile, besides not having sex, shouldn't even masturbate. Do you think it's a reasonable demand for a regular individual? Do you think you, personally, would be able to live up to this standard (repressing sexual thoughts, not masturbating, etc..), if whoever/whatever you usually have sex with or fantasize about was suddenly forbidden to you?





(*) In fact, I've difficulties with the concept of "evil thoughts". It reminds me of psychological questionnaire I got during a medical preventive check-up. One of the questions was "I have evil thoughts yes/no" and I was puzzled as to the meaning of the question.

A pedophile doesn't have to solely be a pedophile. He or she may still be attracted to people above the legal minimum. And as I have prefer not to masturbate and engage in sexual fantasy, I am already trying to do what you have mentioned.

[clairobscur]

A pedophile doesn't have to solely be a pedophile. He or she may still be attracted to people above the legal minimum. And as I have prefer not to masturbate and engage in sexual fantasy, I am already trying to do what you have mentioned.

I know about pedophiles. That's why I wrote "true pedophiles" in previous posts, although indeed not in this one.

Well...If you're trying to do what you say others should do, I can't accuse you of being an hypocrite. However, you could probably admit that it's a lot to ask from most other people.

[Evil Captor]

The University of Chicago student body would make an excellent sample set for this.

But seriously...I think most experts agree (no cites, sorry) that a real-world sexual interaction of just about any kind will tend to provide a certain extra level of satisfaction not possible through the virtual sort, but that the virtual sort provides so many other advantages (no wasting time with the dating game, none of the screw-ups which so often occur during RW sex, multiple "partners" much easier to deal with, etc.), that it often takes precedence in an individual's efforts. This would hold true for deviant and/or illegal sex as well, and that's why SOMETIMES access to virtual materials can be a factor in reducing the prevalence of the RW variety.

Or to paraphrase much more simply and elegantly:

"Women!"

[surrounded by literalists]

I see it as a series of levels of attention and action

First level: People have sexual desires. What these desires are, homosexuality, pediphelia, necrophilia)not really something a person can control. However, the average person can decide to continue to entertain these desires or deliberately try to focus their attention elsewhere.

Second Level: would be to entertain these desires, in the privacy of your own brain, yet not act on them or share them with anyone.

Third Level: Trying to find an acceptable outlet for these desires like finding a consenting partner, viewing porn, or whatever

Fourth Level: This is the one that causes the problems. Its the compulsion to act on these desires. Their orgasm is more important than what is right or wrong. I think the problem is compulsion. Compulsive behavior. Some pedophiliacs have said that they don't want to hurt children, but the compulsion is too strong to overcome. A rare few have asked for chemical or physical castration or to be left in prison as an effort to protect others from their compulsion. I think that pornography might hold some of the compulsiveness at bay, but it seems more like its treating a symptom rather than the disease.

I may be oversimplifing the issue...

[Der Trihs]

I think that pornography might hold some of the compulsiveness at bay, but it seems more like its treating a symptom rather than the disease.Possibly; but if you can't cure the disease and it's the symptoms that are causing the real harm, then treating the symptoms is still a good idea.

[surrounded by literalists]

Possibly; but if you can't cure the disease and it's the symptoms that are causing the real harm, then treating the symptoms is still a good idea.

Thats what SSRI's, and Tricyclics are for. Treating the symptoms is always a good idea. Most good treatments are multi-modal.

I am not a fan of porn. The objectification of a person for sexual gratification has always set my teeth on edge. The idea of illustrated porn has me reexamining my feelings about it. It will take some thought. Although I have to say, that the very idea of sexual gratification with the images of children is not one I will ever be able to accept