Comments on: Mailbag: Looks Can Kill

By: Kristen

Kristen — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 07:52:00 +0000

“BDSM and Voyeurism are paraphilias, mental disorders involving attraction to things that sane invididuals don’t.”

I’d say that’s a bit extreme, Peter. Not that these things can’t be mental disorders, but, just as in the DSM, I think they would only qualify as disorders if they get to the point where they interfere with the person’s life and/or cause marked distress.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:52:11 +0000

Ok Halene, we’ll call voyeurism a preference. While we’re at it, we’ll also call serial murder, child abuse, public oral sodomy, and ripping breasts off of women a preference, and thereby, cathartically dispel any idea that their ‘behaviour’ is odd or wrong. Everything is good, normal and ok, because it’s a preference.

Uh huh, fucking sure mate.

By: Halene Pabamog

Halene Pabamog — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:38:55 +0000

Preferences take all different kinds of vorms. Some prefer having heterosexual sex, others prefer to be tied to a bed, or watch people be tied up. Also, I believe it goes much too far to fescribe the people who prefer these acts as insane for the reason I already mentioned; you wouldn’t call a person insane for prefering the colour caput mortuum, because ’sane people are not attracted to it’.
“I never said Voyeurism is extra deviant. I believe itâ€™s a bit more deviant than most people give it credit for, because the public seem to think itâ€™s this harmless activity.”

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:42:44 +0000

BDSM and Voyeurism is not a preference.

A preference determines whether you like men, women, both, or none.

BDSM and Voyeurism are paraphilias, mental disorders involving attraction to things that sane invididuals don’t.

You can’t have sex with Voyeurism, you can’t catch touch voyeurism, ask it out for a date, or marry it, therefore it’s not a preference but a behvaiour.

I never said Voyeurism is extra deviant. I believe it’s a bit more deviant than most people give it credit for, because the public seem to think it’s this harmless activity. In vulnerable minds, voyeurism can be the beginning of a descent into dangerous behaviour.

By: Halene Pabamog

Halene Pabamog — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:04:52 +0000

Disorder is a bit harsh, Peter. Voyeurism is a preference just like homosexuality, heterosexuality, BDSM etc. You wouldn’t condemn a man for loving Brussels sprouts while detesting carrots, would you?

Secondly, if I’m not mistaken, you’re trying to reason with us why Voyeurism is extra deviant by putting a link between Voyeurism and serial killers. For this to say anything about Voyeurism, there should be a symmetrical link; most serial killers are male, but that doesn’t mean every single man should be considered a potential serial killer.

A little while ago Pervscan mentioned that almost all paedophiles are Trekkies. This probably fits into their personality or something, but to establish a link between it? In the future there will be aliens on earth, so I can sodomise the kid next door today.

By: Anonimous

Anonimous — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:17:08 +0000

Perhaps I did miss the point. Being a serial killer is not being a voyeur, but it feeds off of it. One behavior feuls another, maybe that’s what you are saying. These voyeurs or peeping toms were just that when they started, but that behavior feuled another behavior connected to that, so they became more than just peeping toms. Isn’t that what you’re saying? When you say there no claimed symmetrical link, you mean that voyeurs CAN become serial killers, as there is a connection from one behavior to another, but they don’t neccessarily have to?

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:32:20 +0000

Anonimous, I think you’re missing the point a bit.

I am not saying that every peeping tom will become a serial killer, or that every serial killer is a peeping tom.

I was demonstrating that people who originally start of as, and intend to remain as just mere ‘peeping tom’s’, can experience an escalation in behaviour that was unexpected.

I’m pretty sure that the 4 serial killers I mentioned never thought, when they started watching women through bedroom windows, that they would end up a serial killer featured on national tv and crime shows, do you?

And if you believe psychopathic behaviour is a ‘choice’, then you’re clearly living in a world of your own.

No, the acts are not seperate. In order to understand serial murder, the entire persons life must be viewed as a continuous stream. One act feeds another, which feeds another. Escalation, de-humanization, objectification and rationalization.

There are in reality, very few serial murderers who just start suddenly killing people. Almost all have an escalation of crimes, and many start with voyeuristic behaviours. Others start with burglaries and thefts.

Secondly, I never claimed a ‘’symmetrical link’.

Voyeurisim is not a sexual preference. Voyeurism isn’t something you can love with emotion or make love to. Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bi-Sexual, Voyeursexual??? I don’t think so.

Voyeurism is a deviant human disorder, a paraphilia. The evidence is quite clear.

By: Anonimous

Anonimous — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:08:50 +0000

I agree. After reading what Halene said. As I was reading this article, I was thinking “Oh boy, I didn’t think that voyeurism could be that dangerous”, or more likely “I didn’t think of it like that.” But I believe now that the reason why the behavior of the voyeur escalates into something far more dangerous than just voyeurism is due to the nature of the person. The person is brazen, and chooses to engage in a more explosive behavior such as rape or murder, at the end. These are separate acts, derived from the brazen nature of the offender, not an escalation of voyeurism.

By: Halene Pabamog

Halene Pabamog — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:57:09 +0000

I agree that this is no proof of a symmetrical link; but furthermore, it is no reason to rank voyeurism higher. Voyeurism, in essence, is the sexual preference to watch and not to engage. If they get bored doing so, or want more, then they are simply not Voyeurists.