Human sexuality seems to frighten most people, with some exceptions among those more prone to creatively inquisitive discoveries. In the individuation of personal freedom and liberation, bio-sexual evolution to more profound levels of understanding provide the basis for a more uninhibited framework of transformation. For the bolder inquiry, on the trek of human sexual behavior research, as related to the scheme of anti-social behaviors, a different philosophical perspective diverts from mainstream beliefs. Here, the “philosophical perspective” infers that outside the realm of the “hard sciences”, most other viewpoints are exactly that, a matter of opinion based on philosophy.
From a particular “school of thought” or philosophical assumption, this sphere of conjecture includes criminology, sociology and psychology. Unlike hard sciences like chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, the “pseudosciences” as mentioned earlier, focus around philosophies of diverse perceptions. With respect to criminological applications, such is a matter of one opinion versus another, as the crime lab, or the forensic sciences apply scientific validation to credible evidence.
So called “schools of thought”, which may not be valid in an adversarial legal context, and fail to achieve courtroom admissibility as scientifically accepted, potentially bias or otherwise prejudice the investigative process. Nonetheless, with relevance to classical criminology, some take the view that violence, translated from a psychosexual personal basis, transcends individual liberation into a deadly free will expression of horrific inflictions. Within this psychodynamic collusion from multidimensional thought, the perpetrator willingly crosses societal boundaries where most draw defensive lines.
Psychosexual instigation, at the primal basis of human essence, as the proposition goes, in regard to counterproductive behaviors, are likely to be within the perceptual framework of every action a person commits on the planet. Where some are willing to experiment by crossing the civil social demarcation, many are not for a variety of self-serving reasons. Investigative perspectives about people killing people span a varied philosophical spectrum that encompasses diverse philosophies. Again, these opinions are based on theoretical points of view for scientific acceptance or validity require constant skeptical inquiry. Here, the generalization is that killing is part of sexuality.
Killing, whether a metaphorical expression or actual infliction, humans are very interested in killing someone or something. Self-destructive and deceptive, the human species can be very cunning when it comes to the harm of another human, or animals and the environment. Why not then, take a broader viewpoint of inflicting death or destruction? Make the concept apply to the full range of humankind’s malicious treatment of others, as well as all life forms on the planet.
As a symbolic exhibition, various types of “killings” happen every day. In actual portrayal, as in murder for instance, all manner of human destruction takes place throughout the world. Throw into this mix the perpetration of war, famine, disease, and pestilence. In this writing, the symbolic and real nature of killing takes on a wide variety of human actions. To use one’s imagination with an “open minded” perspective, a diverse range of activities can be applied to the scope and depth of murderous behavior.
From a narrower historic point of view, some could argue that a nation-state sanctions homicide as justifiable for any number of reasons. On an individual basis, a breach of the criminal laws occur when one person kills another, or many, for unlawful reasons. From those illicit degradations against fellow persons, there are many philosophical mitigations in the complexity of nature-nurture explanations. Of the several schools of thought that reflect more than a century of debate, the argumentation as to the cause-effect dynamics remains complex. Often ignored is the associated intricacy of human sexuality.
While some gambits of attempted explanation are quite adamant, opposing speculations are quite compelling. In an adversarial multisystem of jurisprudence, as the U.S., behavioral issues are constantly arguable, as competing perspectives can offer opposing view. Regardless of the perspective, compelling scientific validation remains elusive. Diverse and controversial, sometimes serious and frequently foolish, there are a number of “expert” opinions relative to the amative nature of causation.
For those in the pseudosciences, as criminology, sociology and psychology, egoistic intentions prevent serious analysis. From the simplistic to the complex, probable explanations regarding human species “sexualization” for murder range from the biblical to the medical. Yet nothing is exceptionally definitive or certain, as to any stretch of reasonable scientific substantiation. For over a hundred years to the present, the discussions rage on, and continue among a multifaceted diversity of viewpoints.
The inability of alleged “social scientists” to discover the one and only definitive causal connection between mental activity and criminal atrocity remains mysterious. At any rate, nothing suggested herein should be accepted without a healthy mature sense of rational skepticism. The existence of such widespread interpretations testifies to the fact that there is no simple answer. In terms of classical criminology, there is no trouble free easy to understand elucidation that adequately explains the salacious seduction toward murderous behaviors. Human thinking is very intricate. Yet, that has not prevented the self-promotion of one school of thought over another, as some claim a specious and often nebulous conjecture from the no so hallowed halls of academia.
Primarily, two major schools of thought present competing interpretations. These can be described as the classical and positivistic perspectives. Among the latter, there are many variations on the same theme. Some of these views are more intriguing than others are. As to the former, basic tenets ascribe the primacy of free will, individual culpability, rationality in cause-effect, actions based on self-interests, and premeditated choices. For the classicists, there are no excuses or mitigations, such as poverty, being poor, bad parenting, or other contrivances of socio-economic and political intrigue. Succinctly stated, people commit crimes, and particularly heinous crimes, to achieve gain over risk, with the goal of maximizing personal pleasure at the expense of others.
From other assorted schools of speculation, the contrived postures of academic orientation, absent real-world practitioner based experience, ought to be approached with a healthy sense of suspicion. Human killing and other aggressive violence prone actions should invite the necessity of critical inquiry. As such, hedonistic tendencies for pleasures derived from antisocial actions infer the adverse alteration of one’s sexuality. Translated into dangerous behavior, as in assaultive aggressiveness, violence can be said to mirror a perpetrator’s purposeful dysfunction concerning his or her sexual intricacy.
Everyone is free to believe whatever he or she so desires. That even reinforces the tenets of the classical, rational or choice models of criminality. By contrast, there will always be alternative views that would argue to the contrary. This writing could care less what someone else chooses to believe about human potential for violent behavior. The focus remains within the framework of thinking processes as related to the freedom of choice. Of which, that comes from 40 years of research and analysis.
Nonetheless, in this philosophical adventure, criminality, and by collusion human behavior in general, is the willful complicity within the thinking processes, devolves illicitly with purposeful aims toward the salacious gratification by perpetration of counterproductive acts. Sexuality, sensuality and satiation underscores the motivational impetus for action. From one investigation perspective at the federal level, some investigators within a behavioral analysis unit have concluded similarly in one particular aspect of criminality with regard to murders. That is, in the case of “lust murder”.
In this aspect of one viewpoint, that of “social psychology” as a theoretical construct, “lust murder” suggests what some consider an obviously apparent representation of sexual conflict, and indicates the aggressive action of strong sexual factors. A spin off from this standpoint, back in the 1980’s and 1990’s, is the “sexual homicide”. To narrow the definition to fit a select set of homicidal inflictions, researchers offered that such criminal behavior reflected a serious “sexual element” in the sequence of activities leading to the murder. Other investigators following a similar pursuit point to the concept of “erotophonophilia”, or achieving sexual pleasure by murdering another.
To bring the diversity of viewpoint down to a basic reference point, why restrict the definitional criteria to those incidents in which the victim suffered physical mutilation of genitalia, crime scene posing or other bodily cuttings? It would seem appropriate to extend a broader depth in the whole scheme of criminogenic factors. Seemingly, one might read into the narrower focus that human sexuality is such a powerful element that is remains scary, taboo and disturbing to many people, including researchers. This would be a reasonable concern in view of the fact that everyone brings biased self-interests, along with subjective validation, to every investigative endeavor.
By contrast offered here, the criminal event, in particular the homicidal actions, implies the extraordinary and diabolical nature of sexuality in varied devolving perpetrations. Maladaptive behavior reflects in the infliction of violent acts, perhaps what might be termed the “diabolis sexualis”, or sexuality weaponized. Yet, in the earlier view, a more restrictive framework narrowed the theoretical construct to suggest “lust murders” are limited by the indicators of “attacks on sex organs”. When that is observed, some would claim that the horrific commission reflects maladaptive sexuality. However, differing with that is a general sense that every murder is “maladaptive sexuality’.
The dysfunctional aspects of one’s bio-sexual nature transitions from fantasy to ideation, to contemplation and subsequently to intentional reality, is potency for horrific inflictions upon others. As such, murderous behaviors are committed from the simple to the complex and cover a range of bizarre expressions. For the perpetrator, as a matter of acting upon purposeful satiation, every possibility is probable. From cannibalism to necrophilia, there are no limits as to the variations a person can injure another person. All of which are extraordinarily rational, premeditated and purposeful on the part of the perpetrator. Self-gratification pursues diverse forms of behavior.
Nonetheless, the various assortment of theoretical formulations of one school of thought or another, pervade the societal landscape. From criminology to psychiatry, along with psychology, and throw in anthropology to sociology along the way, many have postulated a variety of so-called “expert” explanations. Of which, all boils down to an opinion, absent the sufficiency of scientific validation beyond any doubt. Which is to say, evidentiary authenticity demands more than an opinion based on alleged anecdotal conjecture. In the process, the depth of analysis typically remains within a superficial context of philosophical opinion. So far, going deeper in the exploration of cause-effect complexities devolves primarily to simplistic presumed answers.
However, undaunted the pseudosciences have been very successful in promulgating a variety of hasty generalizations, usually prefaced by fallacies of inference, which potentially influence public policy. Politicians and pundits are not the most reliable repositories of such conjecture. As a result, such alleged “insights” are not always positive in nature for the whole of society or the species in general. Unfortunately, pretending the presumption of wisdom and understanding is dangerous.
Regardless, many widely interpreted deterministic misconceptions about criminal behavior have become so ingrained in modern society, turning back a hundred years of socio-political influence by the pseudosciences is impossible. Mainstream society believes what it wants to believe regards of evidence. In several college criminal justice textbooks for instance, chapters on murder and rape, as well as others acts of violence, including war, genocide, etc., at best present historical references of limited subjective commentary. Any hint of anything closely connected to the possibility of a “seduction to crime”, or “malevolent sexuality”, is scarcely mentioned.
Moreover, in most research concerning the criminality of violence, subjectivity of the researchers tends to favor “typologies”, or “labeling” certain behaviors with a delineation toward a narrower specificity of particular behaviors. Influential of course, are previous works that support primarily anecdotal recitations. In addition, there is frequently an effort to separate behaviors, or otherwise subdivide human activities into categories rather than pursue a broader perspective on the “sexuality of criminality”.
As a holistic sense, the integration of a totality of person, wherein the biological nature is not distinct from the psychic intricacies offers a universal conception of cause and effect. For instance, in a study conducted in 2003 and presented in a journal on human behavior, the authors sought to compartmentalize the issue of “sexual homicide” as part of a specific scheme of behavior within the context of a specific type of psychopathic offender. Rather than part of the whole, the act becomes separate.
Accordingly, in a more constricted or stricter pattern, whereby “lust and cruelty” become pleasurable extensions outside the criminal, the intention seems to take homicidal fantasies as some form of deterministic externality abnormal to the individual.
For a more inclusive conceptualization of human violence, it appears applicable that a generality could be constructed that includes all manner of criminality. In particular, the sexuality of homicide would be applicable to all forms of violence and express the primal reality of the individual. As to murder, to say that all killing is an expression of sexuality, or the pleasurable expression of willful thinking processes, would be a more feasible in the ongoing studies of human nature and associated criminality.
Much conjecture that permeates society with misleading claims about human criminality tend to fall within the framework of a sociological perspective, or a form of psychological determinism contrived by external motivating factors. Externalities of cause-effect typically deflect to the superficiality of simplistic notions arguing excuses for criminal behavior. A “single theory”, or “singular notion” of what caused the violent inclinations often manifest in hasty generalization. Sometimes cleverly disguised these include the usual “demonic possession” speculations in a modern context. As justifications and not proofs, things like bad parenting, broken homes, peer pressure, poor schooling, sexual abuse, lack of opportunities, etc., suggest convenient alibis for the perpetrator. Sexuality remains scary, confusing and mysterious for most people.
For all the pretenses and fakery of transparency, openness and alleged higher educational statuses, discussing the sexual nature of humans is a sensitive topic for most people. In a collegiate setting for example, were an expectation of open interaction and critical analysis might be anticipated, the most confusing, misunderstood and suppressed topic of inquiry usually comes up around matters of sensuality. Nonetheless, the necessity of scientific inquiry concerning illicit behaviors, particularly in instances of violence, necessitate the assessment of sexual motivations. Data is critical.
In the field of criminology, where real science crosses paths with “pseudoscience”, or the more comfortable term, “soft sciences”, philosophy attempts to assess the behavioral implications along with a scientific basis for forensic analysis. The latter of course refers to those incidents of criminality where physical evidence is needed to prove a case. Crime scene investigation requires scientific validity. As referenced here, real science is the chemistry, biology, physics, etc., found in the crime lab. By contrast, the philosophy is the particular school of thought of the criminal justice practitioner, such as the various fields of criminology, psychology and sociology to name a few.
Oftentimes, problems arise when “soft core philosophy”, say in a subset of psychology for example, tries to be “hardcore science” as in a real science. An opinion that cannot be proved by scientific validation, say by a blood test, or an x-ray, is basically someone’s opinion. In a courtroom, opinions are arguable. In addition, counter to the accepted mainstream philosophies pretending to be among the sciences, the key is in the foundational stages of the thinking processes. Such things of “mind” versus organic physiology remain elusive. Philosophical inquiry brings with it individual bias by way of subjective validation. Unfortunately, specious conjecture is easily accepted.
From fruition to infliction, choices are made because of individualized prurient initiation of desired self-gratification, for gainful purposes in a variety of personal interests. While the “sexuality of violence” is found in a number of criminal studies, the sexuality of ideation in general is not a prolific point of discourse. From fantasy to fruition, with purposed intention through determined attention, it is suggested herein that the sexuality within each person is the instigation in violence perpetration. For many, it is too scary to have an open discussion about any aspect of human sexuality. Due to the Immaturity that reigns significant in society, in-depth discussion is challenging.