|
Post by madeline on Mar 19, 2018 21:25:37 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know if any of the ladies ever were put off by someone who outwardly looked fine and who you may even know and you can’t put your finger on the problem. I’m talking about something you can’t say wasn’t totally innocent, not a guy with a cast who says he need help. Sometimes though the more innocent it looks..... Of course women are put off by some men and they don't know why. It's just a feeling that something isn't right. I can't explain it, but I've had those feelings. It's like a 6th sense, the kind of feeling you have when you decide not to go on a trip with friends and then they get into a terrible car crash.
|
|
|
Post by madeline on Mar 19, 2018 21:28:49 GMT -5
The girl, Diane Edwards, was from California. They dated in college, but because he had no set goals in life, she eventually broke off their relationship. Because of the breakup, he dropped out of college, but after he returned and graduated with a degree in psychology and had decided he wanted to become a lawyer, they got together again, and this time, he broke up with her. I don't think that what happened with Diane caused him to turn into a serial killer. It's natural to want to get back at people who've caused you pain.
|
|
|
Post by jane on Mar 20, 2018 7:31:32 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know if any of the ladies ever were put off by someone who outwardly looked fine and who you may even know and you can’t put your finger on the problem. I’m talking about something you can’t say wasn’t totally innocent, not a guy with a cast who says he need help. Sometimes though the more innocent it looks..... It's one of those things you recognize when it happens but is impossible to explain. It's extrasensory perception, something that some people experience and others don't. Some men have a look in their eyes that some women perceive as dangerous or untrustworthy, while others don't see anything wrong. Why are some people so easily taken in by con artists but others aren't? It goes back to some being more perceptive than others and I have always found women to be much more perceptive than men, which I explained in another post. In describing how I feel when I see something in someone's eyes that I find off-putting, I would say it's like the feeling you get when someone is looking at you; it's unnerving. Scientists have never been able to explain how we can feel someone staring at us, but they have suggested that it's a hangover from thousands of years ago when it was necessary for our ancestors to feel the human gaze in order to stay alive.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Mar 20, 2018 15:39:15 GMT -5
A man’s Evil Eye is definitely related to his Third Eye. Some people think it’s the same thing but there’s no way. I should let the women speak for them. But there’s a lot of things going on to circumvent or distract a victim’s perception of a man “coveting” unto death. Did the ones that refuse actually refuse only because they thought he was a predator? Or just generally off putting? If a man has an Evil Eye, wouldn't he have it all the time rather than just some of the time? The reason I ask is because Ted Bundy wasn't a danger except when he was actively hunting a woman to kill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 18:50:18 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know if any of the ladies ever were put off by someone who outwardly looked fine and who you may even know and you can’t put your finger on the problem. I’m talking about something you can’t say wasn’t totally innocent, not a guy with a cast who says he need help. Sometimes though the more innocent it looks..... Of course women are put off by some men and they don't know why. It's just a feeling that something isn't right. I can't explain it, but I've had those feelings. It's like a 6th sense, the kind of feeling you have when you decide not to go on a trip with friends and then they get into a terrible car crash.I know it could also just be a case of knowing when a guy's been "hard done by" already and may have a "low tolerance" and be obsessive at the same time. "The next one gets it" kind of thing. I'm just giving out another possibility. I don't want to just give out ones that blame women. Obviously too, without alternatives, a guy is going to think it's a personal judgement thing. I can understand some get too much attention and just do automatic brush off but I'm not talking about just that. Because again I'm not looking for something that blames the women.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Mar 21, 2018 21:33:58 GMT -5
I know it could also just be a case of knowing when a guy's been "hard done by" already and may have a "low tolerance" and be obsessive at the same time. "The next one gets it" kind of thing. I'm just giving out another possibility. I don't want to just give out ones that blame women. Obviously too, without alternatives, a guy is going to think it's a personal judgement thing. I can understand some get too much attention and just do automatic brush off but I'm not talking about just that. Because again I'm not looking for something that blames the women. By blaming the women, do you mean like a lot of us blamed Janice Ott for going with Ted Bundy because she was a bleeding heart social worker?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 14:18:47 GMT -5
No, not at all. But I guess blame is blame
|
|
|
Post by jason on Mar 25, 2018 15:13:40 GMT -5
I know it could also just be a case of knowing when a guy's been "hard done by" already and may have a "low tolerance" and be obsessive at the same time. "The next one gets it" kind of thing. I'm just giving out another possibility. I don't want to just give out ones that blame women. Obviously too, without alternatives, a guy is going to think it's a personal judgement thing. I can understand some get too much attention and just do automatic brush off but I'm not talking about just that. Because again I'm not looking for something that blames the women. I'm just now understanding what you're saying when you talk about blaming women. You mean blaming a woman for what she allegedly did to turn a man into a serial killer, not our blaming the clueless women who have no better sense than to walk off with serial killers. You have a roundabout way of explaining things and it takes a while to decipher. Serial killers, like everyone else, are solely responsible for their actions. Getting dumped by women, having women laugh at their junk, abusive childhoods, etc., etc., aren't reasons, they're excuses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 16:36:43 GMT -5
Your question about the Third Eye and Bundy at the Lake might have sent things on a tangent.
The Third Eye and the Evil Eye are two different things. The Evil Eye is Envy and it features in Serial Killer movies as Coveting in Silence if the Lambs and Envy in SE7EN.
I understand the concepts from Xtreme Psychology and consider it evidence of First Principle to which all indicators point. Envy doesn’t make you blame women unless you can blame someone for being enviable.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Mar 25, 2018 19:34:28 GMT -5
Your question about the Third Eye and Bundy at the Lake might have sent things on a tangent. The Third Eye and the Evil Eye are two different things. The Evil Eye is Envy and it features in Serial Killer movies as Coveting in Silence if the Lambs and Envy in SE7EN. I understand the concepts from Xtreme Psychology and consider it evidence of First Principle to which all indicators point. Envy doesn’t make you blame women unless you can blame someone for being enviable.
I'm even more confused now. You said that Bundy was envious of wealth and Diana's father told him not to see his daughter again because he wasn't rich. But since some shrink just made up that story, it couldn't be what drove him over the edge. Bundy wanted to be rich and he was a social climber. But doesn't just about everyone who goes into business or becomes a doctor, lawyer, or whatever, want to be rich?
I've never considered Buffalo Bill in "The Silence of the Lambs" a serial killer because he killed for a reason, not simply for the pleasure of taking a life. He wanted the women's skin, which falls in the same category as killing for personal gain like those who kill for money. The FBI definition of serial killer is someone who kills for abnormal psychological gratification. Hannibal Lecter, on the other hand, was definitely a serial killer because he was crazy as a bedbug.
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Mar 27, 2018 22:36:07 GMT -5
I'm even more confused now. You said that Bundy was envious of wealth and Diana's father told him not to see his daughter again because he wasn't rich. But since some shrink just made up that story, it couldn't be what drove him over the edge. Bundy wanted to be rich and he was a social climber. But doesn't just about everyone who goes into business or becomes a doctor, lawyer, or whatever, want to be rich? I've never considered Buffalo Bill in "The Silence of the Lamb" a serial killer because he killed for a reason, not simply for the pleasure of taking a life. He wanted the women's skin, which falls in the same category as killing for personal gain like those who kill for money. The FBI definition of serial killer is someone who kills for abnormal psychological gratification. Hannibal Lector, on the other hand, was definitely a serial killer because he was crazy as a bedbug. You're right. By the official definition of serial killer, Buffalo Bill wasn't a serial killer. I guess that means that Ed Geine, the one that "The Silence of the Lambs" was based on, wasn't a serial killer either. He also wanted to make a suit out of women's skin. I don't remember how many women that he killed, but he also dug up women from the cemetery and he made things like lamp shades from their skin.
Was Hannibal Lector crazy? I saw the movie, but I couldn't decide if he was really mentally ill, or if he knew exactly what he was doing and just liked killing people. I guess you could say that anyone who kills unless it's in self defense, is mentally ill, but Lector knew right from wrong and that's what makes the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Isbeau on May 11, 2018 19:00:56 GMT -5
Spree killer, serial killer, revenge killer, sex killer, domestic killer, mass murderer....The point is they're killer's isn't it. The Homicidal Triad determines if someone is homicidal. They just used serial killers in one of the studys but the first one was just killers.I think the skeptics don't want anyone to know that some people are just plain homicidal. It doesn't mean they are going to kill someone or that they have.
But I don't think someone being homicidal is an issue. The issue is what are the indicators. I think there are a lot of them. From when you're a child to when you're an adult. Michael Arntfield gave a list of top serial killer professions from skilled to unskilled. In the end, the top Professional Indicator would be anything in the "Comforts and Esthetics" category. That would include some of the ones that came up in his survey - shoe repair, upholsterer, and landscaper, and some not on the list like bodybuilders and bakers.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on May 12, 2018 11:12:13 GMT -5
Spree killer, serial killer, revenge killer, sex killer, domestic killer, mass murderer.... The point is they're killer's isn't it. The Homicidal Triad determines if someone is homicidal. They just used serial killers in one of the study's but the first one was just killers. I think the skeptics don't want anyone to know that some people are just plain homicidal. It doesn't mean they are going to kill someone or that they have. But I don't think someone being homicidal is an issue. The issue is what are the indicators. I think there are a lot of them. From when you're a child to when you're an adult. I know when someone is homicidal. Just talking to them gives it away. I only met a couple of people who actually committed murder, one served time, one killed in another country. They're different than say someone in the army who killed an enemy. Everyone's homicidal under the right conditions. The difference is that some enjoy killing and others don't
|
|
|
Post by jason on May 12, 2018 17:21:27 GMT -5
Everyone's homicidal under the right conditions. The difference is that some enjoy killing and others don't Just because a person is homicidal doesn't mean he or she enjoys killing. People who poison relatives or friends for money, or whatever, probably don't enjoy killing, they kill for personal gain. It's really no different than working for personal gain. Few people enjoy working.
|
|
|
Post by Isbeau on May 23, 2018 18:08:32 GMT -5
Murderers don't usually go giving excuses for their crimes. I know Bundy blamed porn. But that was for a interview with a pastor. Serial killers don't go giving excuses unless they're trying for an insanity defense and then it’s to a psychologist. They usually know the excuses won't work although the psychologist might use their past as a reason for some mental incapacity. The psychologist isn't really looking for an "excuse" really but are asked to get a lighter charge or sentence. They usually blame everything on childhood so are looking to shift the blame or make someone else share it, rightly or wrongly. Indicators are indications of homicidal tendencies. The abusive childhood doesn't determine the possible killer. No indicators might be present as the person might have a normal upbringing. It doesn't mean he wasn't the homicidal type. His nature is basically the same, only the lifetime "stressors" were different and maybe they didn't come in early life. I believe in taking sole responsibility but that doesn't mean you are solely responsible. Nobody exists in a vacuum. I wish some others would take sole responsibility and go away for life too, even if they aren't solely responsible.
|
|