I find this exploration interesting—well, I don't know what it is— I suppose it concerns the Jungian Shadow cast by feminine Eros, or something along those lines. Since I am a man, those perspectives do not come naturally to me. Moreover, I am always interested in reading what is sufficiently alien to me. Thus, my kindest regards.
In the introduction, you ask, "What is wrong with women?" It is interesting since you are not asking "if" there is anything wrong with women. Hence, your preemptive conclusion is that there is indeed something wrong with them if a part of them is gravitating toward this fictional serial killer. However, you do not answer the question; you give only little hints. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with that. Why should there be? Those are fantasies, perfectly safe to play around with in your head. Nobody has acted yet. These attractions point toward something that is undoubtedly worth investigating, and the moralistic proposition that there must be something wrong deep inside does not help to unveil it. For most people, their moral compass is indeed fragile since it is not their own. For the most part, moral propositions are an adopted set of beliefs that are neither rationally nor emotionally understood. When it comes to the test, this rather foreign thing is easily discarded.
I have not seen the series, but I suppose I can identify a few things in the portrayed villain that women usually find attractive. There is genuine agency in being a villain of any kind, violating the conventions of society, and also courage—at least when you understand that you are violating them. He who can kill can defend his position, and since he does at least have one, there is true virility in making others feel—even making them feel bad—which is a stark contrast to the non-offensive, non-personal, and hence unreal existence among the masses in society. Supposedly, there are enough all-too-human elements in the villain's description that you can empathize with him. When you can do this, you can also envision a better version of him. The idea of being "the One" to save him might be the most coherent expression of narcissism imaginable, but it also comes close to being the most romantic story to dream of: purpose and redemption found in the purity of love. However, I could be wrong about all of that.
From a man's perspective, the potentially most unsettling quality of women's adoration for this kind of serial killer is likely not the aspect of violence in itself, but the fact that his violence is connected to a very personal emotional core. In contrast, even little boys feel some strange gravitas toward villainous characters in stories that act violently—perhaps obviously immorally—without any personal reason, but fully detached, supposedly subordinated to a higher ideal. The Bhagavad Gita implies that acts of violence done in pure detachment do not produce karma. While not being an Olympian Hero, the titanic villain is the apex of power, wielding it without being corrupted by it. This might not be the most refined idea of masculinity—the Olympian Hero is—but men often respect this version naturally, while women neither like nor understand it, nor want to understand it. Likewise, men think less of women charmed by this "dark prince," since he is a clown addicted to desire; worse still, he is addicted to unfulfilled desire. A stray dog, rabid—shoot it—do not care if it is cute. She should better love a titan, since the titan is at least a superior man to men. Both are incomplete expressions of masculinity, and there is much to learn from that.
An uncomfortable question must be asked here. Women's freedom is played out in a "playground" built - literally - by Western men, belonging to the civilization that perhaps most of all loves its own women. However, when good men, afraid of feminism, give up their role as real protectors, patriarchs, playground supervisors, women become not only vulnerable, but cooperators of their own misfortune and victims of rogue male players free from control. We see it all the time in the news. Newspapers have reported many times about jailed killers receiving thousands love letters. Recently, in Italy a woman was killed by a convicted murderer on parole. She knew he was a murderer, yet she committed adultery with him until the obvious happened. In an Italian hospital, a lead physician had formed an alliance with lovers, happy to belong to the harem, for the rape of other female colleagues, who, in an unsettling way, submitted to sexual abuse for many years without rebelling and reporting them to the police. Abortion too, is often linked to giving oneself unthinkingly to undeserving men. I asked some women several times what was going on in the head of all these other women, but I never got an articulated answer. It seems that in women there is an intimate nucleus of irrationality that they themselves fear to illuminate with the most reasonable part of themselves, or perhaps because they fear that revealing their side of blind, irrational submission (entirely different from the mutual submission of sacramental marriage, which is based on freedom) can be used to enslave or humiliate them.
I find this exploration interesting—well, I don't know what it is— I suppose it concerns the Jungian Shadow cast by feminine Eros, or something along those lines. Since I am a man, those perspectives do not come naturally to me. Moreover, I am always interested in reading what is sufficiently alien to me. Thus, my kindest regards.
In the introduction, you ask, "What is wrong with women?" It is interesting since you are not asking "if" there is anything wrong with women. Hence, your preemptive conclusion is that there is indeed something wrong with them if a part of them is gravitating toward this fictional serial killer. However, you do not answer the question; you give only little hints. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with that. Why should there be? Those are fantasies, perfectly safe to play around with in your head. Nobody has acted yet. These attractions point toward something that is undoubtedly worth investigating, and the moralistic proposition that there must be something wrong deep inside does not help to unveil it. For most people, their moral compass is indeed fragile since it is not their own. For the most part, moral propositions are an adopted set of beliefs that are neither rationally nor emotionally understood. When it comes to the test, this rather foreign thing is easily discarded.
I have not seen the series, but I suppose I can identify a few things in the portrayed villain that women usually find attractive. There is genuine agency in being a villain of any kind, violating the conventions of society, and also courage—at least when you understand that you are violating them. He who can kill can defend his position, and since he does at least have one, there is true virility in making others feel—even making them feel bad—which is a stark contrast to the non-offensive, non-personal, and hence unreal existence among the masses in society. Supposedly, there are enough all-too-human elements in the villain's description that you can empathize with him. When you can do this, you can also envision a better version of him. The idea of being "the One" to save him might be the most coherent expression of narcissism imaginable, but it also comes close to being the most romantic story to dream of: purpose and redemption found in the purity of love. However, I could be wrong about all of that.
From a man's perspective, the potentially most unsettling quality of women's adoration for this kind of serial killer is likely not the aspect of violence in itself, but the fact that his violence is connected to a very personal emotional core. In contrast, even little boys feel some strange gravitas toward villainous characters in stories that act violently—perhaps obviously immorally—without any personal reason, but fully detached, supposedly subordinated to a higher ideal. The Bhagavad Gita implies that acts of violence done in pure detachment do not produce karma. While not being an Olympian Hero, the titanic villain is the apex of power, wielding it without being corrupted by it. This might not be the most refined idea of masculinity—the Olympian Hero is—but men often respect this version naturally, while women neither like nor understand it, nor want to understand it. Likewise, men think less of women charmed by this "dark prince," since he is a clown addicted to desire; worse still, he is addicted to unfulfilled desire. A stray dog, rabid—shoot it—do not care if it is cute. She should better love a titan, since the titan is at least a superior man to men. Both are incomplete expressions of masculinity, and there is much to learn from that.
An uncomfortable question must be asked here. Women's freedom is played out in a "playground" built - literally - by Western men, belonging to the civilization that perhaps most of all loves its own women. However, when good men, afraid of feminism, give up their role as real protectors, patriarchs, playground supervisors, women become not only vulnerable, but cooperators of their own misfortune and victims of rogue male players free from control. We see it all the time in the news. Newspapers have reported many times about jailed killers receiving thousands love letters. Recently, in Italy a woman was killed by a convicted murderer on parole. She knew he was a murderer, yet she committed adultery with him until the obvious happened. In an Italian hospital, a lead physician had formed an alliance with lovers, happy to belong to the harem, for the rape of other female colleagues, who, in an unsettling way, submitted to sexual abuse for many years without rebelling and reporting them to the police. Abortion too, is often linked to giving oneself unthinkingly to undeserving men. I asked some women several times what was going on in the head of all these other women, but I never got an articulated answer. It seems that in women there is an intimate nucleus of irrationality that they themselves fear to illuminate with the most reasonable part of themselves, or perhaps because they fear that revealing their side of blind, irrational submission (entirely different from the mutual submission of sacramental marriage, which is based on freedom) can be used to enslave or humiliate them.