Originally Posted by John G
I would agree that JtR wasn't a sadist- espeically if your definition of sadism is an interest in pain, rather than, say, domination- but I don't believe that any definition of picquerism necessarily implies any such thing. Thus, Dr Anil Aggrawani, in his book Necrophilia: Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects, 2011, gives us this definition of lust murders:
"Lust murders are homicides in which the offender stabs, cuts, pierces, or mutilates the sexual regions or organs of the victim's body. The sexual mutilation of the victim may include evisceration, picquerism...it also includes activities such as posing and propping of the body, the insertion of objects into the body cavities..."
Now this definition clearly corresponds to Keppel's. Moreover, Dr Aggrawani has specifically defined picquerism as: "sexual gratification through penetration of another person, most commonly by stabbing or cutting the body with sharp objects": see Aggrawani, 2009. It is submitted that this definition is also consistent with Keppel.
However, it must be conceded that "picquerism is currently an ill-defined concept. The DSM, for example, doesn't codify the "condition" but lists it under "paraphilia NOS (Not Otherwise Specified), whereas the ICD doesn't recognize the condition at all.
Unfortunately, as Batman has pointed out, psychology is not a "hard" science. There is no bio-medical proof for the existence of the vast majority of psychological conditions, which is why labelling theory is such an attractive proposition for many, including myself.
Even schizophrenia is an ill-defined condition, and the DSM V has now removed all sub-categories for schizophrenia because of "their limited diagnostic stability, low reliability and poor validity". In fact, I prefer the social defeat hypothesis myself.
As for the clinical concept of paraphilia, perhaps that also needs to be thrown into the nearest waste paper basket: see Ogas, 2012: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...s-do-not-exist
Well that's a vasty can of worms. Firstly never quote a non psychiatrist about an all around admittedly psychiatric condition. I mean, Ogas is good for almost nothing except for parlaying his PhD as a way to get on TV game shows. The article you referred to was written for the sole purpose of promoting a book about a bunch of things he knows nothing about. I mean, if I was to write a book about sexual proclivities, kink, paraphilias, etc. I would want to know the definitions of those things. He doesn't. Apparently he couldn't find a DSM any younger than the late 60s, so... it's bad. In fact it's legendary bad. It gets referred to in conferences and classes as to how NOT to do a study. And he says he deliberately did not use any scientific method or information specific to any discipline in order to stay the bad boy outsider with street cred or whatever. Hello? Science. He calls it pop psychology but it isn't, it's just really really wrong. But people like reading about other people's turn-ons so it sells. The guy is actually a colossal douchebag, though I suppose that wouldn't be relevant if he was right. Bad reference. No biscuit. Also I gotta say there are very few time you want to reference Psychology Today: The Only Psych Publication No Psychologist Reads. It not that they aren't capable of publishing a consequential paper, they just haven't done it as yet. It's like referencing Readers Digest in a History textbook. Even if for some reason it was right an accurate, you still would never choose to write the way they write.
And there is no tear to go on with Dr. Aggrawal. He is one of the foremost pathologists in the world, and recognized everywhere as a forensic expert. So having him talk about psych is a little like asking a mechanic for stock tips, but for all I know your mechanic is phenomenal at playing the market. Dr. Aggrawal did a psych rotation in med school. Everyone has to. But thats the last time he practiced psychology or psychiatry. As is evident by the laundry list of shrinks he quotes and thanks in his publications. And he hasn't treated a living patient since 1989. The terms forensic scientists use are criminological, not clinical. Which he acknowledges. Mostly because they never treat anyone ever. So, fair enough. But no shrink gave him this definition of picquerism. So where did he get it? Who knows? It wasn't used before 1995. It was not anyone's standard definition before 2002. It really picked up around 2008. Why? In the "I kid you not" category, because the criminology definition appeared on a Law and Order SVU episode in it's first round of syndication in 2007. It shows up a couple times before that episode aired in syndication, it gets used every few months after. So... there's that.
One thing I think we can all agree on about a diagnosis is that whatever it is, it's the same thing every time. My chicken pox looks like your chicken pox. If someone turns purple and sings incessantly, not chicken pox. Because every disease has diagnostic criteria right? Okay. This is where I whip out my own psychology today article. I have no idea who the author is or what his expertise is, doesn't matter. He's not the important thing here. The stories that he has collected and dutifully referenced are. You'll note that the Law and Order episode is in there, and a more wrong summary of an illness cannot be found. It' on par with babies coming from storks. But read the article, and see how the definition changes. Not just little changes, but really big changes. Everyone attached to psychology or psychiatry will give you the same definition. No two criminologists will. That's a problem. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ife-knife-edge
Let me tell you what sucks the most about my life. Being Bipolar is no picnic, I must confess. But somehow in this day and age being bipolar is the second worst thing that has happened to me. The most worse thing? People. People and bipolar. So I got some guy nattering on at me about how his girlfriend can never order off a menu in a timely manner and he says "God she's just soo bipolar I can't stand it." What I SAY is "You mean she is indecisive, not bipolar". What I THINK is "How ******* dare you compare your little ******* twit of a girlfriend and her general faults to having a disease that I have to deal with every ******* hour of every ******* day for the rest of my ******* life you ignorant piece of ****." And sometimes I imagine beating this guy with a stick to make myself feel better. Nine time out of ten, that guy is being an insensitive douche, and when I correct his language he feels bad about it. But one guy in ten, that's not what happens. Some of these guys think that indecisiveness IS being bipolar, and they are telling me to get advice. Some other of these guys think the same thing, but they don't want advice, they are about to tell me that they dumped her for it and boy did they dodge a bullet. Some of these guys think bipolar is made up so what am I bitching about, some of them somehow thought that I was kidding for all this time, and this is where they figure out that I meant what I said, and the wheels fall off. And when I say the wheels fall off they take several steps back, check their exits, and start talking to me like I'm a toddler mixed with a growling pitbull. Definitions are important. The inability to add to a definition without peer reviewed study with oversight is important. Here's why. I'm bipolar. That has a definition. It is a malfunction in the synthesis absorption or reuptake of seratonin, dopamine, or a combination of both that elicits periods of depression mixed with periods of mania, hypomania, or mixed episodes. That's not hard right? Except that a bunch of people (and I mean a bunch) think that being bipolar makes you unable to exercise self control. And it's hard with mania, I'm not going to lie. Then again most people with Bipolar don't experience full mania ever. A lot of people think that being bipolar means you can't be trusted. Not with money, not with possessions, not with people. And state governments are listening to those people now. A lot of people think that Bipolar people are violent. Almost none of us are. But they "can't take that chance, surely you understand" except I don't, because really it's a lie. But if I say that I'm being unreasonable, and that makes me more scary and sometimes people weep and beg me not to hurt them when I tell them they are offensive or full of ****. SERIOUSLY??? When it comes to declaring people incompetent, judges now listen to psychiatrists less than any other time going back to the early 60s. They don't think they have the luxury of trust. But it's about facts, not trust. But all the facts in the world won't sway you when you are convinced that mentally ill people are dangerous because you saw that one Oprah episode.
And I'm not championing the right of the picquerists here. But the lion's share of picquerists are self harming. Not violent. So while they desperately need help, they don't need to go to jail for having the wrong label. So now this paraphilia is associated with knives and knife murderers. At least according to criminologists. But read that article again. It's not just pins and knives. Now teeth is included. And now it doesn't have to be a sadistic act. It can be about seeing blood (which already has it's own thing thanks.) And if it's about all those things, maybe it doesn't even need blood. Maybe bruising is okay. So beating someone to death is now the same thing. But here's the real problem. It's about blood and it can be teeth so one day in the moment, perhaps startled by something, you accidentally bite down on your SO, and you guys go to the ER because human bites are nasty. Doesn't happen often, but there's a couple hundred cases a year. Except now there's a body in the morgue with the complete works of Shakespeare carved into it, and suddenly you are a suspect because your accidental bite is considered part of this very rare disease. Biting is the same as cutting is the same as blood letting is the same as sadism, and when sadism you always have to throw in dominance for those who didn't get that memo. It has to be specific, and it has to have the same definition every time or that happens. And it does happen. We've only just stop outright arresting dominants within the last 10 years. And we've known they were not clinical sadists since the early 80s. Picquerism is not kink, and is in fact readily separated from kink, except that now it's not. Now it could be kink, it could be something clinical. Which helps no one. It doesn't help law enforcement, it doesn't help the mental health field, it certainly doesn't help anyone with a not quite vanilla sex life, the only people it helps are criminologists, because now they have a word for something and they didn't have to go through the trouble of making one up for themselves. Everyone else, this kind of clinical hijacking hurts.
Did you know that spankers used to get talked to in all sadistic murders? There's an old dominant in New York who kept a list of every investigation he was called in for, and I think the last one was in 1989. So either they figured out that it was two different things, or he got too old to be a suspect. He's like 100.