I've never met a Mongolian who's a weirdo however never will allow them to form large military powers then no one is safe from being raped
Met one who was an effeminate homosexual.
Personally, I think Catholicism has the most accurate description of human sexuality and the tendency towards deviancy. There is a desire which needs to be restrained. Freud (Jewish) did the West a massive disservice by tricking people into thinking that the very act of resisting an urge is what fuels it. In my experience of life, indulging sexual urges is what has always fuelled them; while avoiding sexual thoughts has quelled them.
Explain the Catholic view to me.
My surface level understanding is that Catholicism, at least traditionally, demonizes sexuality in general as sinful except for the purpose of breeding; sexual pleasure is perverse and the whole business is almost seen as a necessary evil. Some of this impression is from literature, so very exaggerated. I find it an interesting (and unfavorable) comparison to Mormonism, which has a similarly draconian view of sex - absolutely none outside of heterosexual marriage - but has no association of it with sin or notion that it has a specific function (the sex act is made for romantic intimacy in marriage as much as for reproduction, God has sex with his wives which makes souls, there will be sex in Heaven, etc.). Protestantism has always come across as a sort of middle ground where sex is neither villified nor glorified.
CS Lewis, Anglican as I recall, wrote favorably about sex and suggested that people actually treat it (within marriage) with too much gravity.
I agree about Freud. People have what we might call an "appetite" for behaviors and it grows, like a muscle being exercised, with its use. Or, I suppose you could say their "stomach" for it gets exercised. Either way, it will shrink down through neglect, it will grow through being exercised, and in extreme, pathological cases (like Ted Bund) it could lead to a situation where the desire can't be sublimated any more.
I've thought this about rageaholics and social companionship. Some people will claim that punching bags/shouting/other "letting off steam" calms them down, but modern psychology holds and my own impression is that it instead acts like training to do it more. Psych themselves up for the next rage session. It's one reason why I never did get a punching bag, despite thinking about it, and sure enough I have gotten by perfectly fine through internal change. With social companionship, I've seen in my life that the appetite for other people can grow or decline; at one point in my adult life I got used to going from hanging out once a week or fortnight to hanging out almost every day, and then that declined down to maybe once a month, and my expectations just adjusted (slowly) with it.