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.
3
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 classists, 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.
5
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.
9
http://whimsicalpublications.com/Randy_Gonzalez/Randy_Gonzalez.html
https://www.scribd.com/document/3929042/Excerpt-From-Psycho-Sleuth