Deviant sexual urges and their satisfaction

As an offshoot of this 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?

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.

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.

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

Okay, explain the difference to me.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

There is evidence 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.

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)

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.

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’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.

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).

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.