RE: Whats in a killing?

RE: Whats in a killing? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/29/2006 3:58:38 PM)
I'd guess the primary difference is that as you pointed out females generally kill family, partners, basicly people they are in a relationship with. It's just easy to slip poison in some food, as generally women handle that aspect of the household, and it's not going to be questioned when you serve dinner to your family or partner, that it might be poisoned. It seems women kill in this method because the people they kill would seem to trust them in that capacity. Males generally kill in situations where poisoning and the like is probably not as easy. Strangers, ex's, or those that have rejected them. I could only imagine a man bringing a prostitute, ex, or rejecting partner he planned on killing a laced pie. No expert here on the subject, but that would be my guess.

juliaoceania -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/29/2006 7:36:48 PM)
I have heard on one of those true crime documentaries that women use poison very often because for one they are more premeditated in their crimes, women also like the distance from actual violence that poisoning gives them. In other words knives can be taken away from you and used against you, poison is silent and lethal and gives women very little risk

Lashra -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/29/2006 9:20:58 PM)
Serial killers are a morbid fascination of mine. I have read countless books, seen just about every show there is about them. Why does there appear to be no female serial killer who has used a knife? Some females do not want to be overpowered. Some find the physical act of stabbing or hacking as “animalistic and brutal” and most would rather poison their victims. As that is viewed as much more humane and oddly enough, ladylike. However, there is a case: Holly Harvey and Sandra Ketchum, a pair of teenaged lovers who did stab her grandparents to death. Why do male serial killers appear to favor strangulation and females poisoning? Males like the physical contact and brutalness of the act. Many like to watch the life drain from their victims’ eyes as they die at their hands. Females tend to like to watch from afar it is a bigger psychological thrill then something as quick and brutal as strangulation. Why do male serial killers appear to mainly kill for lust and females for gain? Males are driven more by lust then females are in most cases. Women have had to fight for gain since they were not always allowed to work or own property. So it is more engrained in females to fight for that gain that is a reason they would resort to murder. Why women favor victims they know? Inheritance money, insurance money, it’s easier to kill someone you know because you can know their habits and can get closer to them without suspicion. Why do men not kill in jealousy? Oh they do, though most are not serial killers. Usually they are one time killers. Husbands who have found their wives with other men for example kill out of jealousy and the heat of the moment. However there are also cases of men who have killed out of jealousy over the accomplishments of other men. There is the case of Andrew Cunanan who went on a killing spree out of jealousy. That you may want to check out. ~Lashra

thrall2Freyja -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 1:39:12 AM)
Not nuff said? The knife is a penis. The whole ritual of the male serial killer is a confusion of frustrated lust and the eventual outburst of angry violence. These people are calm, collected, rational and unemotional up to the point of the act, which provides an orgasmic release for them. Generally their victims will be representatives (ie not known to them necessarily) of those for whom they feel frustrated lust and consequent resentment and anger. Generally they are unable or have been dis-abled by experience or dysfunction, of making normal human relationships, and have lost any ability to sympathy or empathy if they had it in the first place, although are able to function within society as loners. If they work, they choose jobs where little contact with others is likely or required. This is why contact with the victim is so important to them, and why they take time to catch - because they have few social contacts who would know them and their movements well enough to know where they had been, and few if any people who would be there to see evidence of their crime. Nuff said now?

NorthernGent -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 5:11:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Probably loads of other things as well but just curious what you all think? miss, You haven't mentioned the notoriety/celebrity aspect to serial killing. There have been numerous studies conducted that make for interesting reading. Basically, the studies point to serial killing being an avenue for anonymous people to gain easy fame. Their minds go, they become obsessed with celebrity status and consequently become unable to cope with anonymity in a world where celebrity status is given such importance (most of us know more about Angelina Jolie than this year's nobel peace prize winner). They crave fame and, whereas being Bill Gates is unachievable for most of us, Jeffrey Dahmer status is immediately available (for those that way inclined). In essence, many serial killers chase infamy and they generally achieve this. Everyone knows Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe and even serial killers in other countries like the Boston Strangler. They receive more letters and offers of marriage than they can answer and there are more books on these people than you can read in a lifetime.

missturbation -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 8:45:42 AM)
Why does there appear to be no female serial killer who has used a knife? Holly Harvey and Sandra Ketchum, a pair of teenaged lovers who did stab her grandparents to death. I found no serial killers female who had used knives but plenty of one off killers who were female who used knives. Mostly in crimes of passion. Seems a weapon of choice on impulse for women but not for serial killings which women mainly plan meticulously. Why do men not kill in jealousy? Oh they do, though most are not serial killers. Usually they are one time killers. My question should maybe have been a little clearer - i was referring to serial killers not one off killings. There is the case of Andrew Cunanan who went on a killing spree out of jealousy. That you may want to check out. I sure will. Interestingly my theory on not finding one serial killer whos motive appeared to be jealousy that was male was that men do not tend to be jealous to the extent females do.

missturbation -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 8:55:25 AM)
The knife is a penis. Never heard that theory before - care to elaborate? The whole ritual of the male serial killer is a confusion of frustrated lust and the eventual outburst of angry violence. I beg to differ. Whilst 35% of males kill for lust there is 65% who kill for different reasons. Did you read the facts and figures stated above? These people are calm, collected, rational and unemotional up to the point of the act, which provides an orgasmic release for them. A sweeping statement!! Not all are and not all get an orgasmic release from their killings. This is why contact with the victim is so important to them, and why they take time to catch - because they have few social contacts who would know them and their movements well enough to know where they had been, and few if any people who would be there to see evidence of their crime. Hmm on average it takes 4 years to catch a male serial killer and eight to catch a female. 54% of female serial killers know their victims and it still takes 8 years on average to catch them. Now surely by your theory only 12% of men knowing their victims would make them harder to catch than their female counter parts? Nuff said now? Nope.

missturbation -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 8:59:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation Probably loads of other things as well but just curious what you all think? miss, You haven't mentioned the notoriety/celebrity aspect to serial killing. There have been numerous studies conducted that make for interesting reading. Basically, the studies point to serial killing being an avenue for anonymous people to gain easy fame. Their minds go, they become obsessed with celebrity status and consequently become unable to cope with anonymity in a world where celebrity status is given such importance (most of us know more about Angelina Jolie than this year's nobel peace prize winner). They crave fame and, whereas being Bill Gates is unachievable for most of us, Jeffrey Dahmer status is immediately available (for those that way inclined). In essence, many serial killers chase infamy and they generally achieve this. Everyone knows Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe and even serial killers in other countries like the Boston Strangler. They receive more letters and offers of marriage than they can answer and there are more books on these people than you can read in a lifetime. Studies may well point to this but in no case i found was being famous for their crimes mentioned as a motive. Maybe it accounts for some of the no apparent reason crimes but even then it would only total 14% of male and 19% of female serial killings. To play devils advocate IF there are only seven motives for murder which one does fame fit into? I suppose it could be gain but to a certain extent?

philosophy -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 9:16:54 AM)
"The knife is a penis. Never heard that theory before - care to elaborate?" ......it's straight up and down Freud....or should that be in and out? Mind you, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.......

missturbation -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 9:21:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy "The knife is a penis. Never heard that theory before - care to elaborate?" ......it's straight up and down Freud....or should that be in and out? Mind you, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....... I should have thought freudian as soon as i saw it - doh me. Im of the opinion a knife is just a knife though as most lust killers actually use strangulation as their method of killing. Knives are sometimes used for mutilation after so i guess maybe the penis theory might fit there but if u've raped a victim why the need for the use of a knife as a penis?

mnottertail -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 9:25:32 AM)
In truth, it has been bandied about by authorities that most rapists are somewhat unable to do the duty beforehand. Ron

missturbation -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 9:28:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail In truth, it has been bandied about by authorities that most rapists are somewhat unable to do the duty beforehand. Ron So the knife would then be a substitute for lack of penis action - hmm interesting theory. However i didnt come across a lust killer that was quoted as unable to have sex with the victim. Sure there are some out there though.

mnottertail -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 9:31:52 AM)
now, hold up.....the premise being that the knife is the member before the total control of the victim......once they have carved you up they are no longer unable to squirt the jizz.......... that's along the lines of what I read, Mary................. Jack the Ripper (gi' us a wee kidney would, you?)

missturbation -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 9:34:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail now, hold up.....the premise being that the knife is the member before the total control of the victim......once they have carved you up they are no longer unable to squirt the jizz.......... that's along the lines of what I read, Mary................. Jack the Ripper (gi' us a wee kidney would, you?) Again interesting theory but killers such as Ted bundy (just one example in many) would move their victim to where they had originally picked them up and then jizz over them or have sex with their corpses.

mnottertail -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 9:48:22 AM)
Thus making them normal..........thats what they wanted to do the first time...........they need the control to get off, alot like some of the other stuff here, except us kinda folk are gonna let you live, cause we wanna do it again... Think of returning to the origin, or even keeping them somewhere for reuse, as........ See, you fuckin' bitch, we woulda done this the first time. Returning to the scene of the crime to jizz on 'em--- the foreplay is reliving the absolute control of the victim. Jackie

missturbation -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 9:52:41 AM)
Thus making them normal..........thats what they wanted to do the first time...........they need the control to get off, alot like some of the other stuff here, except us kinda folk are gonna let you live, cause we wanna do it again... Oh mr otter i do love you [:D]

TrueCalling -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 10:03:27 AM)
Missy...i don't expect you to understand a lot of this that you've posted pertaining to statistics and the like... Professionals who have studied these things for years still do not. As for your earlier question to me , my reply is this - because you havent found it in print, statistics-wise , does NOT mean it hasn't happened. Read the book.

missturbation -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 10:12:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TrueCalling Missy...i don't expect you to understand a lot of this that you've posted pertaining to statistics and the like... Professionals who have studied these things for years still do not. As for your earlier question to me , my reply is this - because you havent found it in print, statistics-wise , does NOT mean it hasn't happened. Read the book. Aside from the patronisation in your post i never actually said it hasnt happened and have stated several times in this thread that just because i found none or few of anything does not mean they arent out there. I merely asked you if the female sexual killer u report killed after consensual sex or raping their victims. Also just because i may never understand something it doesnt mean i cant try.

missturbation -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 10:22:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TrueCalling Fatal is a book by Harold Schechter about a turn of the century female sexual killer...I never did get very far in the reading of it but you may want to check it out. fatal by harold schechter is about jane toppan an angel of death killer not a sexual killer.

Najakcharmer -> RE: Whats in a killing? (10/30/2006 10:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TrueCalling No female serial killer that has used a knife and eventually gotten caught! I think for a female it is a little too messy and gory. I call bullshit on that. It is fun to hunt and kill an animal with a blade, though it is much less humane than a rifle so it's not something I do any more. I prefer to pick prey that I could reliably overpower if I was going to go hand to hand. If I was hunting humans, the consequences of my prey escaping or overpowering me would be a much worse risk, and probably not one I'd be willing to take if I wanted to be able to continue my enjoyable hunting activities. I might be (heck, I have been) willing to risk my life against a wild boar with boarspear and knife, but I wouldn't be willing to risk the consequences of a human getting away or grabbing the knife. There are things worse than the risk of death or injury. From the point of view of a bloodthirsty hunter (who doesn't hunt humans; they're no good to eat), that's why a female hunter of humans probably wouldn't use a knife. Prey too big, risk too great. Pick a weapon suited to the prey. If you're on the small end of the human range and you are hunting other humans, a knife is simply not the right weapon. "Blood is thicker than water - and a lot tastier."

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875