do you see sadism in Jack the Ripper's crimes?

[babybird67]

Definition of sadism:

"Psychosexual disorder in which sexual urges are gratified by inflicting pain on another person. The term was coined in reference to the Marquis de Sade, who chronicled his own such practices."

Personally, I think the manner of death of the victims of the Ripper, being fast once the throat was cut, is the opposite of sadism, since if the victim is not feeling anything, the perpetrator cannot derive enjoyment from watching how they react to pain or other stimuli.

I think sadistic killers prolong their victims' pain with torture, and prolong their lives for the same reason. So, perhaps strangely, i feel, i don't see sadism at all in the Ripper crimes.

I'd be really interested in hearing/reading the opinions of others, however learned or new...so please contribute.

[Jane Welland]

No, I don't see sadism. I think it appears that the Ripper is more interested in what he can do once his victims are dead, which probably happens very quickly. I think he's disinterested in the person his victim is when alive, but that doesn't mean necessarily that he has no personal interest in them when dead - maybe it's the ability to transform them from living women to dead ones and then transform them further, by mutilating them - so changing them, that gives him his thrills.

So no, I don't think pain is part of his fantasy - but killing - yes. He could, I suppose, find his own dead woman and just mutilate the body if it was all about the post-mortem events - and so far as we know he doesn't. Killing his victims is part of his process, I think, which probably implies a personally felt connection to them in some form.

Janex

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Gotta agree with you about the Ripper not showing signs of having sadistic tendencies; his victims would've lost their consciousness within seconds and would have been dead when he started cutting.

Though I still think he enjoyed slitting a woman's throat as much as he did opening and rooting around in their torsos.

[perrymason]

Hi BB, all....

I dont think that the term Sadist is not applicable here, perhaps just not in conventional form. The definition presupposes that the killer enjoys the process and/or the acts themselves, many who kill their victims while sitting back and watching them die might fit that profile to a "T". Jack seems to have killed quickly to move to the phase of his murders that propelled him out to kill women in the first place, evisceration. He doesnt seem to prolong the deaths at all. The murders themselves are but one facet of a process that is phased, at least with 3 victims by the evidence, but its the mutilations he kills for in the first place.....so I think "necrosadism", something Dan Norder explored here back a year or two might address the Rippers form of sadism.

Best regards BB

[JennyL]

I'd agree with the other Jenny--the method of the Ripper to me disallows what's thought of as "sadistic" impulses--the desire to inflict and watch pain and suffering. It's clear that he killed extremely quickly-one wonders how many of the canonical five really knew what was happening to them by the time they had had their throats cut. With Mary Kelly he could have gagged her and rendered her silent but awake and begun inflicting torture well before slitting her throat, if sadism was his thing.

He seemed rather to simply want to make a kill as quickly as possible, the better to do what did interest him. Once dead he wasn't dealing with another creature but a thing, an inanimate object that he could treat entirely as his own property-and of course, he did, going so far as to take away part of the object he'd claimed.
I'd call him a necrophiliac before I'd call him a sadist (if he didn't actually have sex with the corpse he certainly got a sexual charge out of interacting with it).

[The Good Michael]

What if the pain is inflicted upon the soul?

Mike

[babybird67]

hmmmmm

hello Mike! I've missed you! Where have you been?

Trust you to come and put the proverbial cat amongst myself and my friends...

I had never considered sadism as being inflicted on the soul before....metaphysical sadism, perhaps?

Interesting concept...and perhaps more relevant in the LVP than to us lot now in our Godless universe...

catch you around sometime

[Jane Welland]

Yes, it is interesting...

I know that it was once the case that a person had to be whole to enter the Kingdom of Heaven on Judgement Day - hence dismembering was originally intended to prevent this - and thus a pretty bad thing.

But I don't know how relevant that would be to the LVP - maybe not at all - if anybody still thought in those terms by then, or if disembowelling counted.

Lovely topic for breakfast time!

[babybird67]

I know that it was once the case that a person had to be whole to enter the Kingdom of Heaven on Judgement Day - hence dismembering was originally intended to prevent this - and thus a pretty bad thing.

But I don't know how relevant that would be to the LVP - maybe not at all - if anybody still thought in those terms by then, or if disembowelling counted.

Lovely topic for breakfast time!

Indeed, Jane...one lump or two with your coffee?

[Jane Welland]

Eeugh!

Indeed, Jane...one lump or two with your coffee?

BB - I thought you were such a nice girl, too!

I've gone off coffee now....

[perrymason]

What if the pain is inflicted upon the soul?

Mike

Are you making a case for the killer being the "Saviour" of Souls Mike, Vasiliev?

I sort of agree with a comment made regarding his opinion of his victims, which may have been that of a resource rather than a human being. I dont think the man treated his victims as anything but meat....I dont see anything soulful or meaningful in the crime scene evidence or the wound descriptions.

Besides,...if any one victim had her figurative soul taken from her, it was Mary. A uterus or a kidney apparently need not have the same kind of spiritual significance,.... particularly when they are not consistently taken.

All the best Miguel.

[halomanuk]

Aaah i had seen it and voted 'no' but didn't comment unusually for me.

I don't think there was any sadism involved,i think it was a morbid fascination with the 'workings' of the women's bodies and also a need to satisfy some kind of revenge or pain from the past that maybe involved a mother figure or similar.
Could be many reasons but sadism IMO isn't one of them.

[Lozle]

Hello,

I would be inclined to say, no, Jack the Ripper was not a sadist.

The apparent interrelated killings by JTR was like he / she was "working". For some reason, the killer was quite often interested in disfiguring his victims as women.

Also, noticing all the women, with the exception of Mary Kelly, had children - though, (I believe) it was Liz who's child died or was still born?. Though the likelyhood that JTR inquired whether his victims went through child birth and had children or not is quite probably unlikely, but it was just an observation.

I would also agree with Barry - I think, forgive me if i'm wrong - that these kills could possibly be related to something personal to the killer which lead to an impulse to take revenge on women / "Unfortunates".

JTR appears more interested in killing quickly and quietly, THEN seeking gratification by disfiguring and mutilating his victims. To me, I do not see a sadistic killer there, if he were then he would put his victims through endless hours of torture, especially if skillful with a blade. Seeing / hearing / feeling his victims in pain would be enough for him if he were a sadist. However, JTR seems uninterested in savouring the moments when his victims are dying. In fact he seems quite careful not to prolong the death. Also careful not to attract attention by wounding his victims in a specific area of the neck and in such a way that he would not look like he's just walked away from a massacre - understandable as the streets at that time were always relatively busy -.

Overall, it appears JTR is careful not to prolong death so he can get to work straight away to acquire whatever he had killed them for. Quite simply it appears he killed the women because they served a purpose to him. He was not interested in who they were or what they were like as people.

All the best.

[Cap'n Jack]

'He was not interested in who they were or what they were like as people'

That is a very, very fine observation, Lozie.