a) he has yet to post a link validating anything he has spouted here.

b) thats exactly what my arguement was in the first place, except we are talking people here so spiders dont count.

I know that women are far more devious than men. That gives them some points.

actually, i was refering to the killers... husband killers... human husband killers (can male black widows be considered human if spiders don't have marriage ceremonies?).

Fair enough.

not really... i was just using another example of something we'd already talked about.



honestly... what are we debating here... by what definitions are we running superiority on?

The vast majority of people are soft and weak and very easy to frighten or bully... Regardless of whether they are male or female...

Most people can be trained to be responsive to orders and are so easily led that with sufficient training they can be made to obey orders that go against their ethical imprints

I didnt post a link because he told me he wouldnt look at it.

But here is one for you. http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_k...lete_list.html HOw many females do you see on there? 1? 2? Noone is saying one gender is superior, saying a gender is superior because it is more dangerous is retarded. I am arguing simply that men are far more dangerous. Superiority would be left to intellect and IQ comparisons.

While I agree that statistically males make up the greater majority of identified serial killers, women tend to stay at it longer. Historically, male killing sprees last from several months up to four years, with some of them going a decade or so. Females, on average, manage to stay at it from six to eight years, and have gone undetected as long as three decades. IMO this difference is due to the methods each gender employs. Men tend to use physical means (shooting, stabbing, etc.), whereas women tend to use less obvious or detectable means (poisoning, staged accidents, etc.). Men generally kill strangers and move on, leaving what is obviously a crime scene behind. Women tend to kill intimates, and frequently remain close to the scene of a death that may or may not be immediately recognized as a crime. In any number of cases, female perpetrators have even manipulated the investigation away from themselves. Knowing this, leads me to wonder what the ratio of undetected male to female serialists is.


Absolutely, but my question wasn't intended to develop a discussion about gender superiority.

Possibly as a group, but on an individual basis, I'd say one is no more or less dangerous than the other.

...along with any number of other criteria taken together and as a whole.

In many ways this is all too true.

<<While I agree that statistically males make up the greater majority of identified serial killers, women tend to stay at it longer. Historically, male killing sprees last from several months up to four years, with some of them going a decade or so. Females, on average, manage to stay at it from six to eight years, and have gone undetected as long as three decades. IMO this difference is due to the methods each gender employs. Men tend to use physical means (shooting, stabbing, etc.), whereas women tend to use less obvious or detectable means (poisoning, staged accidents, etc.). Men generally kill strangers and move on, leaving what is obviously a crime scene behind. Women tend to kill intimates, and frequently remain close to the scene of a death that may or may not be immediately recognized as a crime. In any number of cases, female perpetrators have even manipulated the investigation away from themselves. Knowing this, leads me to wonder what the ratio of undetected male to female serialists is. >>

Except youre assuming illogically that all the men are being detected and females are not. If anything the numbers would remain the same, if not skew in the direction of having more male criminals if all crimes were known. Females do not kill, at leas tnot NEARLY as often as men do. And since there are SO FEW female serial killers its erroneous to assume that they stay at it longer, Aileen Woronos(sp?) killing spree only lasted for about a year. And she had no ritual, it was mostly for profit.


<<Absolutely, but my question wasn't intended to develop a discussion about gender superiority.

Possibly as a group, but on an individual basis, I'd say one is no more or less dangerous than the other.>>

Well we arent talking about individuals we are talking about 2 groups. men and women. And men have women beat hands down on being the most dangerous and violent.

<<...along with any number of other criteria taken together and as a whole.>>

There is room for more criteria, but the most important is Intelligence level, IQ, and accomplishments.

My original question wasn't meant to be construed as one of gender superiority.

Yes it IS true, but a man who is trained to be a killer is more dangerous than a woman who is trained to be a killer simply because he will also be more aggressive, stronger and violent because of his Genetic coding.

I'm not assuming anything. Any number of sources agree on this difference in length of time before detection. In fact, here is a quote from the very website you linked to in an earlier post.

"The longevity of a male's killing spree ranges from several months to, at the extremity, four years. Recorded lengths of like female activities are, on the average, from six to eight years. Some have gone undetected for three decades".

This link will take you to the entire article. http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal...2.html?sect=19

It looks like I may have posed my original question poorly. It was not intended to compare one gender to the other as a whole. But rather, which gender, taken one individual at a time, is potentially more dangerous than the other. My contention is each, in its own way, can be as deadly dangerous as the other.

In a face to face confrontation, this is probably correct in more instances than not. However, one thing about the females of our species is, they are extraordinarily well adept at operating in stealth mode. They don't confront you directly. They sneak up on you and strike without warning, use poison, or send some yutz (who thinks with his little head) to carry out their mission. They don't even need to come anywhere near their victim to be deadly dangerous.

How many people did those women who over 8 years were killed? The majority of poisoning cases are not cases of a woman who is a serial killer but someone who never killed out of impulse, but killed thier husband or child for gains of some sort. Thats not serial killing and the fact that a poisoning can take up to a fe wyears to finnally kill someone off is required to be factored in. Who is more dangerous? The woman who finds a man, marrys him take 3 years to poison him or the guy who kills 25 women in 1 year?

If you compared each gender indvidually youd find that men were more dangerous, they kill people more often, and not just thier spouses or children the way women typically do. you have more of a chance of being killed at random by some man who is angry or desperate than a woman who youve never met. This makes men more dangerous.

Again a woman who poisons her husband to get free of him or inheret his wealth is STILL less dangerous than the violent male who stalks the streets looking to kill people for fun or by random to kill someone then rob or rape them.

ANd its funny that you think women are good at stealth. They HAVE to be, its the only way they can really kill anyone. Men are good at stealth too, we just dont have to be to kill people which is why we tend to do it differntly. And if you think its only women hiring hit MEN to wipe people out you are sorely mistaken. And in such a case the Hit man would have been the real danger and not the wife to begin with and Ive never heard of a female hit man.

Your comparing apples and oranges. A serial killer would be someone who commits a series of homicides over a period of time. A person killing only a spouse or spouse and childeren would not fit the definition of a serial killer. A person slowly poisoning five spouses to death over a period of five years would be as much of a serial killer as someone who went on a one year rampage and stabbed five different unrelated people to death. And personally, a quick death by knife would be preferable to a slow agonizing poisoning over a period of years. After that dead is dead.

I will grant you that men as a whole, are more likely to become dangerous than women as a whole. However, taken one at a time, either gender is as potentially dangerous as the other. Dead is dead.

Why? Dead is dead.

I would disagree here. Men are not as good at, nor as likely to use long term planning as women. We, as a general rule, don't have the patience for it.

I beg to differ. Without the wife, the "hit man" has no reason to make the hit. Never hearing of a female "hit man" very well could mean that they are so good at what they do (especially when it come to plotting and planning), tha