In the last adventure in the pseudosciences, the exploration of human behavior considered the sexual impetus to act out in certain ways. Sometimes, the behaviors become illicit forms of anti-communal deviations, and other times, unlawful actions result in harmful inflictions. Deviance can be described as that which violates duly constituted codes, regulations and statutory provisions as instituted by lawful governmental constituted authority. Otherwise, if a particular act is not defined by statute or code, then who defines what is deviant?

As a side note in the exploration of Gonzo Theory and subset topics referred to as “cryptocriminology”, it is offered for either mindless or meaningful discussion, that “pseudoscience” applies to the murky and mysterious realms of criminology, sociology and psychology. Organic, material, or biological substantiation by laboratory specificity remain elusive in these academic areas. Yet, social media, movies, news reporting, politics, etc., continue to perpetrate associated mythologies and metaphorical misunderstandings.

As diehard adherents run screaming, ranting, and gnashing their teeth into the court of political correctness, filing one complaint after another, inquisitors must beckon the inquiry as to scientific validation. If one challenges the “sacred doctrines” of hollowed sanctuaries of academia, there are dire consequences of sure and swift ostracizing. What physiological substantial hard science proof is there for any theoretical claim, no matter how much anecdotal references one cites? For every assertion of mental affliction, what is the biological test for this or that?

Gonzo Theory asserts a standpoint of skepticism with a healthy dose of cynicism. An investigative process should insist upon doubt, disbelief and suspicion regarding any claim of certainty when it comes to human behavior. It is a presupposition from this posture that behavioral analysis follows a path of idiosyncratic appraisal. Likewise, “cryptocriminology” strives to overturn long held theoretical notions that can be attacked for their lack of substantive evidentiary sufficiency. And, within the field of criminology issues remain controversial.

“Cryptocriminology” is a reference to that which remains mysterious, unknown, hidden or secret, and mostly speculation. This applies as in the multidimensional complexity of human thinking. By contrast, when a question arises as to what is “normal behavior” a variety of responses can be heard echoing all manner of belief system. Regardless of ideological viewpoint, or philosophical doctrine, neither dogma nor doctrine can dictate normalcy.

Communal constraints as accepted by social conventionality are choices to be made on an individual basis. There are always exceptions and consequences to choices one or more people decide upon. In an unevolving society, which faces probable extinction, authenticity and openness about serious contemplations regarding human sexuality is frequently discouraged.

Previously it was stated that the amazing nature of human sexuality seems to frighten, intimidate and embarrass most people. At least that’s the public expression, or what might be portrayed in a collegiate classroom setting. There are exceptions of course to every issue. For a few, among those more prone to mature, wiser and more creatively inquisitive discoveries, the vast array of imaginative sexuality is an exceptional quest for self-evolution.

Not only does one study after another extoll the extraordinary health benefits of sexual activity, but the subsequent healthy effects on the brain are exceptionally positive. In the individuation of personal freedom and liberation, psycho-bio-sexual differentiation is a life-long transformation to productive self-discovery. Independent individuality is a deeper search for more profound levels of understanding and intuitive insight, and sexual vitality is critical to the process.

However, one study suggests younger generations are experiencing less sexual activity than an older generation. A growing sense of naiveté, gullibility and misinformation appears more prevalent than ever. Whatever the multidimensional factors, most will shun a personal exploration of sexual discovery, and avoid keeping an open mind as to the vast range of human proclivities. As a result, serious investigative analysis will be stifled. As one older generation flows into the next younger generation, fearful notions about sexuality become evident. In spite of vast information resources, ignorance and immaturity flourish.

Human existence is an amazing expression of sexuality. Likewise, narcissistic infantilism and grotesque expressions of selfishness suggest a regressive and devolving species. This extends analysis into to what one author calls the “diabolis sexualis”, or when sexuality is used in dysfunctional and maladaptive ways. Primarily this regards the darker side of humanity when people do harm to others. The infliction of pain and suffering on another is a product of choice, malice aforethought, premeditated and intentional this perception stems from the criminological school of thought sometimes called the Classical School in criminology.

People purposefully make rational choices to perpetrate illicit and unlawful afflictions from others, of which, sexuality is the primary drive and force behind their behaviors. One can select options to be productive and creative, or prefer the opposite, and cause destruction.

From the healthy sense of the sexual nature, one can 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 so called anti-social behaviors, a different philosophical standpoint diverts from mainstream canonistic or dogmatic ideological belief systems. Whether one agrees or disagrees, is arguable to a particular point of view as regards manifestations of human behavior. Here, the “philosophical viewpoint” infers that outside the realm of the “hard sciences”, the pseudosciences are matters of opinion based on belief system.

Even among those who claim “expert opinion” status, in a court of law, everything is debatable. To that point, who is an “expert” when it comes to a non-science school of thought, particularly in the trinity of pseudosciences, criminology, sociology and psychology? Two critical aspects surface. One, by what experience, or investigative process does an expert claims expertise? And two, is the level of competence measured purely from the “classroom” setting by recitation of anecdotal or observation analysis? This would be an exercise in an appeal to one’s “authority” by way of limited interactions of interpersonal engagement.

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. By contrast, as in the crime lab, the forensic sciences apply scientific validation to authenticate the viability of credible evidence. Beyond any doubt and to the exclusion of all other possibilities, by rigorous technical analysis, and experiential competency, authenticity reaches a higher certainty. Yet, on the contrary and in opposition to molecular frameworks of the physical world, the realms of conscious to unconscious thinking processes continue to define absolute degrees of certainty.

Nonetheless, social, political and institutional contrivances remain entrenched in the dogma of one ideological viewpoint vying with another, to ascribe a scientific basis to a philosophical school of thought. In that regard, such debate presupposes one theoretical foundation is more scientific than another. Some viewpoints have become “cult—like” and territorial in academic turf wars. In many institutions of so-called higher learning, subdivisions within academia are designed with titles such as the “school of social and behavioral sciences”. Other educational institutions changed those identifiers to the “college of arts and letters”. Minor points, but relevant. As opinions vary in regard to the nature of criminality, relevancy is important in terms of distinguishing what can be proved or disproved by way of the essentiality of evidentiary criteria.

Even though one may claim the application of scientific methodology in researching an issue, looking under a microscope is more critical than conducting a survey, or doing an observation in a controlled setting. This raises issues of preconceived notions as to observer’s influence upon an observation. To control bias, and otherwise control subjective validation, absent defensiveness and negative retribution, a mature investigative inquiry requires significant fortitude.

Most people are not capable of insisting upon the discipline of their emotions, feelings and personal beliefs, particularly ideologies of a supernatural perspective. For instance, an analysis of human sexuality, and specifically the relationship to intentional violence, invites fearful resistance due to prejudicial inclinations on the part of the investigator. The inquiry is predisposed to subjective inclination given a particular belief system. Naturally, there are always exceptions, but unfortunately, that is an exceptionally eccentric group who strive to self-evolve and transform in a well-differentiated mind-set. For the few who aspire to be different, such effort is demanding. Frequently, however, the mere suggestion of libidinous motivational factors conjures a wide range of self-focused misdirection in relation to the necessity of an open-minded analysis.

In addition, an important query is to ask what the evidence shows, and would any claim or assertion with stand the rigorous serious scientific validation. As to human behavior, that is to say thinking processes, there are no certainties, absolutes or anything else pretending to be indisputable. Seemingly, as time goes by, and generations come and go, it is likely openness in public discourse becomes more challenging. To circumvent the possibilities of offending, “victimizing” or otherwise “violating” political correctness, much discussion overly simplistic. In avoiding the presumed trespass upon subjects deemed taboo, bizarre or deviant, relevant debate, analysis and insight are often reduced to a mundane sophomoric level.

Nonetheless, matters of human sexuality are extremely important aspects in the totality of human behavioral intricacy. Not only that, but what most researchers and investigators choose to overlook is the extraordinary relevance to the variety of illicit human actions. In a framework of pretentious “normality”, human sexuality is at the core of being human. As the most important compelling force in human action choices, there is every reason to believe the criticality of such in illegal motivations. Particularly in terms of violent behaviors is the significance of sexual proclivities as essential is analyzing the incentive and subsequent consequences. Unfortunately, due to self-interests of one aspect or another, there is an effort to downplay the issue of amative instigations. Sometimes it’s political correctness and sometimes its intellectual fear.

On other occasion such is a matter of ignorance and avoidance of more in-depth analytical application. Frequently, for one prejudicial notion or another, as well as mythical beliefs, as in religion, seem to carry out regressive oppressions toward a free exploration of the individual sexual considerations in a particular act of violence. Conventional status quo regurgitation of the same old worn out doctrines and dogmas stifle greater leaps of understanding. Avoiding the general significance of amative and salacious instigating thought processes, other than for criminality, is not fundamentally a simple course of investigative inquiry.

Whereas the popularity of the so-called “serial killer” excites many theorists, academics and practitioners alike, fostering many theories, speculation as to this excitation on the part of investigators is fascinating. Could it be the sensuality of the investigator at work in the darker aspects of one’s personality?

Of course, we are affected by our thinking processes, the inspirational factors stimulate from deeper psychosexual components that are intricately of “mind” and body interactivity. Unfortunately, this depth of psychic dimensions is beyond our current capacity to completely define precise distinctions. However, within the pseudosciences, criminology, psychology and sociology, rational and productive speculations are a beginning point. With diverse and varied schools of thought, discussion should foster open and candid considerations of the motivational factors leading to illicit commissions of “anti-social” behaviors. Sometimes, immaturity does not allow openness.

Immaturity can be viewed here as referring to “egos too big” for in-depth discussions, as reflected in “academia”, arrogance at to exclusivity of one’s field of study, and stupidity as to scope of topical areas. Similarly, fear that a particular school of thought might be exposed as “pseudoscience”, is frightening to sacred belief systems. As such, investigative inquiry cannot overlook the trend in deliberate ignorance across the vast reaches of mainstream social interactions. Emotional defensiveness is dangerous. According to several surveys and research efforts recently, a growing inclination tends to devolve toward an increasing “anti-intellectual” atmosphere in American society. In reaction to scientific validity, supported by evidence, as found in real sciences, such as physics, chemistry and biology, intentional stupidity is often preferred.

In a devolving culture, wiser levels of maturity wane, as emotional reactivity relishes in the condescending interactivity of purposeful ignorance. From the classical view, or rational choice perspective, willful selectivity of particular course of action are purposeful and premeditated. For some practitioners, this motivation is extraordinarily sexual in content and format within individual ideation. Yet, a consistent worldview remains challenging in that each investigator brings his or her bias to the investigative and reasoning processes. As maturity in self-evolution toward more enlightened spheres of thinking interact across a diverse spectrum, theoretical applications vary.

As ascendency toward a civilization filled with an enlightened species grows dimmer with each generation, the likelihood of interpersonal violence increases. Nonetheless, from the classic assessment of behavior, other schools of thought might bring to bear a range of fallacies of inference. Spurred by specious conjecture, skewed by ideological doctrine (e.g. religious beliefs, supernatural and metaphysical inclinations), based on questionable theories and nonscientific validation, are often given wider influence in mainstream society. Often for the sake of subjective validation encouraged by “magical thinking” in simplistic solutions, errors are overlooked.

The mention of homicide here refers primarily to the diversity of human killing contrary to matters of law. In particular, the attendant bias suggested is that humans have a special affinity for killing, as a result of subjective validation for the sake of self-assurance within the scheme of personal thinking processes. This in turn is offered as a critical and elemental aspect of one’s personal sexuality, in addition to the perception therein, from fantasy to reality. It might be referred to in the sense that killing reflects a dysfunctional sexual framework of a highly personal nature.

Nonetheless, the complexity is multidimensional as no single factor or specific component explains definitively the nature of human destructiveness within his or her species. Illicit and perverse ideations translate into murderous behaviors, but no solitary theory can suffice every potentiality. As thinking skills diminish, tainted by cognitive bias, the selfishness of human arrogance portends seemingly limitless possibilities. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of a killing, the media, politicians and a host of others, typically espouse a socio-political agenda.

In doing so, the real issues as to the unfathomable depths of human thinking, in the darkest reaches of the psychic abyss, will never be understood. Social psychobabble for the satiation of a diversity of special interests will overshadow and otherwise stifle efforts to expose the reality. Collusive efforts work to ensure simplistic notions that fit the mainstream agenda of a particular narrative. For which, many succumb to the most naive explanation palatable.

Easy acceptance of a trouble free superficial claim strives for the safeguarding of status quo consensus. To ponder the problematic reaches of unlabored conjecture challenges the imagination, providing a process of imaginative thinking is actually practiced. Take for instance a particular ideology or belief system, from which absurdities might unfold. Is it constructed on the superficiality of faith or the authenticity of fact? Do claims meet the rigorous pressures of intense investigative analysis? Or, is the inquiry merely driven by opinionated speculation?

Most often however, if it sounds good, feels good, pampers the bias of subjective validation, and supports consumerism, political agenda, etc., then it must be okay, right? Entire careers, cottage industries, sales and marketing, dissertations, grant funding, and so on depend on the acceptability of the consumer. Consumption in a bloated and bigoted consumer society can mean many different things to different people. Belief in a product, or ideology, which might be a “school of thought”, as in one of the many fields of psychology, sociology and criminology, belief is critical to the pretentions toward alleged behavioral solvability.

Yet, not so fast. Imperfect humans, with deceptive and self-oriented intentions, misuse data and ignore evidence. The pretense of solvability, such as pseudoscientific claims, is essential to a theory that suggests or pretends to suggest the reasons why a serial killer killed the people he or she killed. Essentiality relates to the “salesmanship” of the so-called “expertise” of the “expert”. Where humans are concerned, not much changes over time. The same old arguments, claims, and allegations, based on interviews, surveys, statistics, group observations, prison cell interviews, and so on, regurgitate the never ending recycling of the same old story tales.

Younger generations come and go, and the same questions asked beg for want to new answers. Meanwhile, every effort is generated to pacify the public, politicians, and pundits, so that the social consensus of the status quo feels better about having an answer. If for example “criminal profiling” is accepted in the mainstream, due to the mysticism and mythic framework of a particular organization, then a unique fabrication can become the folklore of “legendary insight”.

If many people, without serious inquiry buy into the conjecture, then absent serious scientific validation, the theoretical construct becomes believable. Additionally, if based on a particular psychological school of thought, then lots of books, articles, movies, medications, and consultations can promote a range of consumptive processes. As a result, the mainstream realm of communal consumption is filled with illusions contending to be “solvability factors” easily accepted at face value. At the same time, the mention of sexuality scares people.

Since most people find it comforting to believe in the supernatural (80% according to several studies), along with associated myths, magical fascinations, dogma, ritual, fallacies of inference, hasty generalizations, or other worldly illusions, unsubstantiated conjure is easier to accept instead of scientifically validated evidence. Such over-simplification and exaggeration should not come as a surprise. Yet, looking back about 200,000 years, it would be nice if the human race had actually advanced much more than it has. Unfortunately, it has not.

For the seasoned and experienced investigator, academia is not very convincing either. After all, alleged “expertise” from the hallowed halls of ivory towers does not necessarily infer greater perspectives of “knowledge and wisdom”. Primarily, that is partly because viewpoints stem from belief systems. As such, ideology reflects philosophical views connected to, or otherwise influenced by, metaphysical points of reference. Bias influences conclusions, observer additionally influences observations, and research design often affects the outcome of the research.

On an intellectual level, this might suggest that preconception already plays into the shortcomings of any conjecture. Following that, an inference could be implied that subjective validation has already predetermined the outcome of particular theoretical construct. Additionally, preconceived notions of behavior could be erroneous. Not only that, add to the conjectural prejudice the feeling and emotions linked to any serious discussion about sexuality. Any mention of sex causing many to suffer a range of anxious reactivity. Scared, fearful and embarrassed about self-doubt, inhibitions, beliefs and so forth, and the issue becomes taboo.

Unless of course, the subject matter can be fit neatly into an inoffensive template, such as say for instance “lust murder”. Once categorized as such, the ideations surrounding a human psychobiological function can be held at an intellectual distance. Aside from that possibility, other troublesome data suggest the woeful ignorance of the American population regarding “sex ed” in general. Not only that, from one generation to the next, studies show a severe deficit in terms of critical analytic ability. If so, then simple and uncomplicated is easier to accept.

Added to that is the unreality of non-practitioner inferred reliability as to the formulation of a simplistic generalization. By “non-practitioner”, reference is made about someone claimed to be an “expert” who has little or no experience in the real world of criminal behavior. To the theoretician, belief system of a dogmatic inclination further complicates matters. Typically, this is the academician who has gone from classroom to faculty office with a narrow perspective. More often than not, they appear on news shows to offer their alleged “expertise”.

As such, given mythical belief systems, non-science “validity” based on opinion, regurgitation of philosophical points of view by anecdotal citation, and bias of personal agenda for subjective validation, with pretense to causation is questionable. As to criminogenic factors, preconceived notions based on specious conjecture is skewed toward the viewpoint making the claims. Likewise, added to this complexity is the influence of degenerative interpretation of cause and effect. Assertions based on devolving intellectual capacity ought to be viewed as suspicious.

That is to suggest that subsequent generations demonstrating sometimes display an inability to ensure rigorous investigative processes reinforced by scientific sufficiency. Following the typical status quo accepted consensus, erroneous fallacies of inference manufacture misleading and misguided generalizations. This reflects across society as symptomatic of human interactivity that is devolving. In this regard, the primal descent to rudimentary frames of reference, in terms of social interaction, become increasingly regressive. Social discourse becomes degenerative. Likewise, in this schematic of human interaction, the fear of sexuality is commonplace and reflects a complicated mix of conjecture, opinion, misinformation and immaturity.

Important among this is immaturity. Some investigators might delight in the prospect of having a seriously mature conversation about sexuality, and particular deviant sexuality, without the usual defensive juvenile reactions. Fundamentally, when it comes to malice aforethought, premeditation, and intentional infliction, the generalization here is that all violence reflect primordial sexual desires. As state laws tend to define destructive aggressions of a “sexual nature”, with terms as sexual assault, sexual battery, forced sexual intercourse, rape or forced penetration, etc., the classical view here is that “sexual violations” are of a broader context. To take this further, the inference is that all behaviors have a profound driving sexuality behind them. It can be argued that the sexuality of an individual can be “weaponized” to harm others.

Immediately, some will react defensively. However, in the pseudosciences, like criminology, sociology and psychology, toss in theology as well, very little science is at work. Instead, anecdotal conjecture is very prominent, as opposed to hardcore scientific sufficiency. Within these competing fields of philosophical inquiry, opinions are diverse with regard to malicious premeditated intentions of the criminal. Similarly, depending on the belief system of the claimant, as well as level of expertise, a variety of mitigations, sometimes called excuses, are claimed for the perpetrator. From an investigative standpoint, aside of the legalities of a lawful criminal investigation, the bias of a belief system influences the conclusion of an inquiry.

In a recent online publication describing paraphilic labels designated by the psychological industry, researchers listed various sexual paraphilia. Of these, erotophonophilia for instance depicted the deriving of pleasure from murdering another person. An expression of sexual arousal in murdering or imagining the killing of a human being, within the academic community, is called “lust murder”. That phrase generally relates to what some describe as a linkage between “lust” and “desire” to bring about the death of another person. In the sexuality of human behavior, and by connection to homicidal actions, it is appropriate to have a general descriptor.

Typically, as with all the pseudosciences, the challenges remains in the broad realm of speculation for better or for worse. Terms like lust, desire, sadistic, and sexual are difficult to quantify with compelling specificity. While such words may describe a certain range of behaviors, they fall short in delineating exact description of human thinking processes. Of these themes, as noted by other inquiries, there are numerous variations regarding a general designation described as a “sexual killing”. However, in attempting to identify cerebral activity that results in the killing of another, diverse schools of thought used terms like “lust murder” or “sex murder”.

One word or phrase should suffice in the expression of violent behaviors perpetrated against another person. Perhaps the term erotophonophilia could be utilized in the broadest manner possible. Unfortunately, the word depicts a narrow connotation and applies primarily to the perception of a yearning to kill for the pleasure of achieving a sexual arousal. Yet, such a delineation remains insufficient in the totality of defining in particular all forms of murderous behaviors. From assassination for instance, to sexual battery and subsequently killing another human, ought to have a word of phrase that is applicable in every situation.

In short, violence in general is a manifestation of maladaptive sexuality. And, in spite of techno advances in society, by invention of the few, criminal activity remained an ageless matter of choice. The selection of violence as a means of problem solving, by way of assessment of personal gain, emanating from the nature of individual sexuality, permeates all societies across the planet. Regardless of the pretentious conjecture of arrogant propositions, human beings continue to imagine, fantasize, premeditate and otherwise inflict horrendous acts.

Whether actual physical harm, or more covert contrivances of bullying instigation, people will harm others in diverse and sinister ways. Cowardly acts of political intrigue, to manipulation of financial resources, to straggling a partner to death, stem from an intimate connectivity of diabolical sexuality. Times pass, but doing harm to others is a weaponization of carnality.

Regardless of the label, or the attempts to downplay the motivation, the salacious impetus to harm another falls within a humanistic framework. Some may narrowly adjust the focus to something range of behavior called “lust murder”, while others assert a frame of reference referred to as “sex murder”. Typically, this is the perspective often found in most criminal justice related college textbooks. A scan of the contents in the standard reference source generally concerns topical areas as “sexual abuse of children”, or “sexual assault”, meaning rape, or something called “sexually based murders”, etc. Terminology tends to be definitively narrow.

A more encompassing approach toward the long arduous journey of attempting to understand human behavior ought to allow for the realization that sexuality is of primary importance. That is to say, instead of continuing to infer restrictive definitions to fit particular situations, a broader perception is essential. To that realm, and more specifically, sexuality of violence could considered in a much wide-ranging spectrum of human thinking processes. Mindfulness imagines the behavior that is to follow. Making choices in response to the surrounding environment depends upon the imaginative capacity of the individual. Much complexity comes into play.

On an individualized basis, the extent to which a person, and in particular, a criminal, desires to deal with the confrontations of life, evolves or devolves in a range of expressions toward others. Regardless, the contention here is that the very essence of human activity, no matter what form that takes, emanates from a very personalized nature of bio-sexuality. Taken in the totality of the person, the translation from ideation to fruition is intricate, diverse, and multidimensional. No single explanation can perfectly depict or describe the complexity of the manifestation.

To some, the satiation of sensual gratification or in the context of sexual pacification, the balance between pain and pleasure explores a variety of options. Aggressive behaviors become the means by which immediate personal gratification can be achieved. Such is a complex of means to an amative end to ensure inner validation for the desire necessity. In the view of some researchers, the motivational factors conclude, or at least culminate, in an “existential rage”. As to personal proclivity, “sexual frustration” translates into aggression based on sexual motivation.

Other investigators cite ongoing studies into the neurological implications associated with sexually aggressive actions and human deviations from normal behaviors. In furthering the study of the sexuality of violence, along with other human predations, tentative assessments point to a metaphorical balance between pain and pleasure. Pain is the violence from the essential hunt to gratify the pleasures often oppressed or otherwise inhibited by the mainstream society.