First off, I'm not arguing anything about the case. As I mentioned, I don't care about true crime and don't think I am the right person to decide on the right judgement. I'm also not arguing about society's double standards when it comes to males and females. It could well be that it exists but I don't think it morally justifies anything so I'm staying out of that discussion. The only thing I am arguing since I do strongly disagree is your statement on libido excusing the guy's actions.
It could well be that he shouldn't be judged guilty due to being manipulated or mental retardation (in the medical sense) meaning he doesn't have a concept of right or wrong. It could also be that he was judged more harshly than he should have been because of double standards when it comes to gender, but neither of those are discussions I'm interested in.
The one excuse I won't take into consideration is that his strong libido or not having had much of a sex life excuses him, because I've seen that excuse used dozens of times by rapists and feel it takes agency away from the male and casts judgement on the female (it would also be the opposite were the genders reversed, but I have quite literally never seen this excuse be used by or about a woman). My observation has been that in societies where rape is punished, whether legally or societaly, cases of rape tend to decrease, while in societies where it is accepted, the frequency is higher, which indicates that abusers do what they can get away with rather than libido causing them to perform actions they have no control over, even though it would make for a convenient excuse. To prevent misunderstandings, I know he didn't rape anyone, but I disagree with the concept that libido somehow makes you unable to control your actions and is thus a valid excuse.
Not judging, and you didn't do anything wrong, but not knowing what PMS is (technically or colloquially) and not taking a few seconds to google it, yet having the confidence to toss your philosophy into the thread is...fascinating.
To begin with, if you aren't judging and don't think I did anything wrong, why include this part? It makes it look like you are judging even if it isn't your intention. Secondly, abbreviations are a peeve of mine. There can be loads of meanings for a single abbreviation so I prefer it if the person who first used it explains what they mean to prevent misunderstandings. Thirdly, what PMS means has absolutely no bearing on my argument. It's completely irrelevant. If it was relevant I would have asked what it means first, but in this case, my argument would be the same regardless so I didn't see the point.
PMS could mean "really need to pee" or "traumatic brain injury", yet it doesn't change my central point that just because you disagree with one thing excusing a crime, it doesn't automatically follow that another thing (in this case, high libido) does. Just like how seeing other kids bully someone doesn't mean you are justified in bullying the kid as well, since "they started it". It could also be that you agree on PMS being a legal excuse, but I still see it as irrelevant when it comes to the discussion of libido excusing crimes. Again, I'm not discussing manipulation, double standards or mental health (which could well have had an unfair bearing on the case).
It reminds me of an argument I had with someone who said I couldn't be a real atheist since I hadn't read the Bible. While reading it would no doubt be interesting from a historical perspective, my atheism does not stem from philosophical or moral disagreement with Christianity but rather from my disbelief in the supernatural, so unless the Bible would start levitating in my arms, nothing it has to say would have any relevance on my reason for not being religious. The same goes for the Quran and the three palms.