What kind of person

[Toth]

(04-03-2017, 06:55 PM)searchinGirl Wrote: Believe me, I have thought so hard about this for the longest time.

We all have. I don't see these perpetrators as necessarily evil. They may simply have run out of coping skills. Think of a single mother who deals with pregnancy and poverty for six years and is a good mother concerned about her daughters safety. She then starts turning tricks and doing drugs. Suddenly there is no concern for the kid. Did she turn evil? Was she evil for those six years of admirable behavior?

If a woman has a final fight with her boyfriend in Vegas, makes it halfway back to her hotel before sore feet set in, gets picked up by four men in a cab, goes to their casino and gambles with them for awhile but then invites all four across the street to her hotel room for the night, many of you would say 'slut' rather than 'alternative set of moral values'. Is there really that much of a difference between the woman with multiple lovers separated by a bath and perfume versus a woman who sees no need for such artificial barriers to enjoyment and allows the men to simply take turns with her?

At what point do we acknowledge that many people have a complex range of values and often act in keeping with them but occasionally act contrary to them.

We look at the linguistically confused PolyAmory world and see new definitions of marriage and child rearing exist. We look back at the Edwardian Era and see that public display of morality was essential but rampant immorality was near universal. A Vegas host once arranged a celebration for a man, his wife, the man's lover and the wife's lover. Fortunately for the host, this involved a total of three people, not four. These things are probably becoming more common, they are certainly becoming more openly acknowledged.
So 'different' moral values can be a lifestyle or an intellectual exercise. 

I view the 'interest' of the perpetrator as torture, humiliation, murder and manipulation. Is he changed? Is he the same? Was he simply 'out of coping skills'? Kurt Vonnegut's kid went camping in Canada and had a breakdown that he blamed on inadequat protein intake over an extended period of time. We know that "Into the Wild" kid who died in that bus died partly because he mis identified a certain berry. The Texas Tower Shooter is thought to have had a brain tumor and sought help but basically got sent home with two aspirin tablets. 

So perhaps the Intruder recovered or perhaps his sense of values still allows such fixations and actions. The intruder may have obtained enough revenge against the Ramseys or maybe he wanted more but learned to get it with less notoriety. I think he was fixated on the family, not JonBenet. JonBenet was merely the object he used. All children are objects. All people are objects. All the world is his and it is up to him to choose the tools that he makes use of.

But is it evil or 'alternative'?