rdor said:
Legato said:
I think it would be you needing help.
Us that can watch these things, take interest in the minds & motives of serial killers are a lot more strong minded than those who can't watch it.
We don't act on it, we don't think it's fun, it doesn't turn us on, it's just interesting.
So you have some juvenile fascination with serial killers....clappy clappy. Desensitized isn't strong btw.
There’s nothing interesting about impotent losers who gain what sense of power and control they can get by degrading others. Like the adult equivalent of little boys torturing pets. Their motivation is their inability to function normally. And there's probably some kind of damage to the frontal lobes.
Actually, its not just about the killers themselves. When you read about a serial killer you are reading about an individual that is incredibly ****** up, but you're often actually just reading about a creature that is simply the pinnacle of the society in which they live. Serial killers are interesting to me as they are the "true" product of their inhabited society. When you take a human being with no boundaries, and they learn and grow within a certain time and place, they become the ultimate representation of that culture and time.
Yes its warped and twisted, but if anything, that just tells us how warped and twisted that society actually is.
Would Jack the Ripper have killed who and how he did if he wasn't a product of a time where medical experimentation and "quackery" were rife, aristocracy and titles were untouchable and the poor (especially women) were so unprovided for that alcoholic prostitutes in seedy slums were ten-a-penny, viewed as subhuman and completely unprotected?
Would H.H.Holmes have been able to kill so many women (many his wives) if he was not a product of a time where a woman was nothing if unmarried by a certain age, where all of her possessions and her very being became her husbands property at the moment he married her? So many quick marriages under so many aliases and in so many locations to otherwise smart women who had inherited money shows just how vital a husband was to have any social status and how easily a man could "take" a woman in this manner and dispatch of her soon after just to take her possessions. Add this to a rapidly expanding USA and a public ideal of the American Dream to "get rich quick" and a man appearing from nowhere with money isn't questioned but celebrated, marrying a local girl with a bit of money where the law then gave him everything as his own and whisking her away never to be seen again and not an eyelid batted.
Would Harold Shipman have been able to kill over 260 of his patients if he was not a product of a society where a doctors word was trusted and largely unquestionable, and where an increasingly elderly population requiring constant care are viewed as a burden and where families leave the care of them to medical and care professionals alone and take a back seat. Where nobody seeks to question the death of an lonely older person until finally he started forging wills and something that DID actually matter to people -money- became involved?
I will agree that there is an interest for me about what makes a serial killer tick - its a curiosity of psychology and biology about how a human being can become so unhinged and detached from "morality".
But its also a sociological curiosity. It isn't just about what the crimes of a serial killer says about them, its what they also say about US and our attitudes at the time that enable serial killers to actually kill the type of people and the number of people that they eventually do.
So actually, its incredibly interesting.