Why didn't Jack rape his victims?

[KatBradshaw]

It is interesting to note though that rape is very rarely really anything to do with sex. It is a contol issue in most cases and really Jack had control of these women from the start. The Yorkshire Ripper only had sex with one of his victims although he did masturbate at the site of the murders. The one he did rape it is suggested this is because they could not get away from her at that time. An act of frustration maybe?
What interests me is how they could tell? We know that Mary Kelly lived as a prositiute, we know that Mary Ann Nichols had 'earned' her doss money but had drunk it away. Catherine Eddowes had to have got the money to get drunk from somewhere! In all these cases it would not have been unreasonable to find some evidence of this but all are listed as not having had 'recent connection'.
We must also remember that many people believe that men who commit crimes like this are often unable to engage in normal sexual realtions.

[Gman992]

I think that his attacking the sex organs is evidence that deep down inside he associated sex with violence or abuse...hence the destruction of those organs. If he wanted to have sex with them he could've just paid for it.

[kensei]

On the question of why prostitutes with multiple clients a night would show no signs of "connection"- it is probably because they were well known to have used various tricks so as not to get pregnant while fooling the client into thinking he was having actual intercourse.

[JTRSickert]

Yeah, I've heard most prostitutes were able to fool their clients by being able to put their "John Thomas" between their legs rather than actual penetration.

Aside from that, they probably also resorted to oral sex or manual stimulation (sorry about the graphic-ness of this message)

[Hamrammr]

Here are the two chief reasons I would put forward for Jack not raping the women (sorry for any repetition, and I admit I'm no expert).

1. Time - even if he had the inclination to do so, he didn't rape the women because the time window didn't allow it, except for Mary Kelly, though how the doctor's could have been certain she wasn't raped I don't know, her lower extremities were obliterated! If he had intended t masturbate at the scene instead, again he wouldn't have had time to do this either.

2. He didn't want to rape them - I think this (for whatever reason) is highly likely since his first act in each case (correct me if I'm wrong) was to strangle them theb cut their throats to both silence them and limit the amount of blood loss. He seems far more intent on killing them first and foremost, and though necrophilia may be an objective, the fact that few if any people have brought it up means it can't be likely. The mutilations being a common factor in the killings (also showing signs of escalation) would suggest that he wanted to deface the women just as much if not more so than he wanted to kill them.

Other reasons, if we want to be exhaustive would be (as mentioned already) that Jack was a woman, that he was incapable of having sex for whatever reason (physical restriction or psychological) that he was gay, or that he had an active enough sex life that he didn't feel the need to do it, especially with someone he clearly hated and wanted to tear to pieces.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Hamrammr!

As possible reasoning as any presented on this thread!

Or maybe he only saw his victims as toy-like objects, because he wanted to collect - so to say - their body-parts?!

All the best
Jukka

[Roy Corduroy]

i apologize if i offended anyone with my comment.

Hi Sara,

No you didn't offend anyone. How could someone be offended by anything said in a discussion of this nature? It's not possible.

Do you think maybe jack the ripper had more deeper psychological problems then just syphillic revenge?

Yes, exactly. I picture a man who is mentally unstable, or criminally minded, and when he catches the syphilis bug, he explodes in anger. He takes revenge on the most defenseless of the prostitute class, the unfortunates of Whitechapel.

Don't get me wrong folks, the Ripper could have been "getting off" sexually on these crimes. But I doubt it. Look at the modern serial killers, like Bundy, Green River & Yorkie. Their victims were attractive young women. That's missing here in the Ripper case.

Yet syphilis was very common in London at that time. There were a lot of angry men.

Roy

[claire]

Roy, I think this really depends on what and who the killer was...if he was some old dosser in his fifties, used to the slums of WC, then I think it perfectly possible he still saw these women as potentials for sex--the fact of their (sometime) profession tells us that some men certainly did, however intermittently. We're so used to professionally produced, glossy porn these days (I'm told...), that it's sometimes difficult to understand that desire, in whatever messed up form it takes, can be directed to women who aren't 19, pneumatic, tanned and bleached. (I'm not being bitter, there, just making an observation!!)

That said, whilst I see a sexual component here, it doesn't look like one of desire, does it? I can def. understand your theory in that context.

[Roy Corduroy]

..if he was some old dosser in his fifties, used to the slums of WC, then I think it perfectly possible he still saw these women as potentials for sex--the fact of their (sometime) profession tells us that some men certainly did, however intermittently.

That said, whilst I see a sexual component here, it doesn't look like one of desire, does it? I can def. understand your theory in that context.

That's good, Claire, your profile. The old dosser.

I have latched on to the syphilitic avenger. It was a theme at the time.

Roy

[claire]

that's about as precise as I get these days

[DanaeChantel]

Claire, I am very much in agreement with you. Women of today have much access to beauty such as tanning and bleaching and cleanliness that women of the olden days did not have. Women had to rely on their wits and their own natural looks. The men of WhiteChapel didn't have much choice as to who they solicited for prostitution. I'm sure they went with what was available and affordable. (I'm sure they couldn't spare much)

What I would like to say is this: How could the doctors or morticians tell if the victims had been raped or if JTR had had sex with them or a "connection"? These women were prostitutes (maybe Kate Eddowes was not) but nevertheless I'm sure most prostitutes had sex with several men in a day and I doubt they had a chance to um . . . clean up afterwards. Soap and water and even sinks or toilets were not readily available. I'm sure they went from one John to the next.

I don't mean to offend anyone but it would be difficult to tell if a woman such as a prostitute had been raped or even if the killer had sex with them, considering that SEX was their trade. My guess is that perhaps he did. He would have had plenty of time with Mary Kelly at any rate

[Hamrammr]

I agree that it must surely have been next to impossible to definitively determine whether the women had had intercourse prior to death. But I also think the the killer must have been aware that his surroundings were unsuitable for carrying out his work over a lengthy period of time and would have chosen somewhere else if he'd intended to rape them. Also, as stated previously, the evidence would suggest that killing them was his main priority.

[Rubyretro]

I have my personal theory on who Jack the Ripper was & why he committed
the crimes (explained elsewhere in these forums). As such, I don't think that sex was a motive -in that I think that he was revulsed by the victims and by the fact that they would agree to sex with a section of society which he reviled ; I think that he thought they were 'dirty' & deserved punishment.

I think that he WAS sexually excited by the crimes though -but more by the
curiosity of the mutilation. I imagine that he began by being attracted to the
butchering of animals before moving onto women, and maybe an interest in
diagrams and pictures of the the organs of the human body.

I don't think that rape ever came into his fantasies at all..

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Rubyretro!

Yes, your theory is quite possible.

If I remember correctely, sometime in the 1970s there was a case in America, where two teenagers killed poor people. While being caught they thought, that they "were just cleaning up!"

All the best
Jukka

[skypilot]

why Jack didn't rape his victims

please forgive me if I am posting this wrong; it's my first time and to say I'm computer literate would be like saying JTR was a people person. My theory as to why Jack didn't rape his victims is that he was pathologically scared of women in general and of female genitalia, in particular. I think his mutilation of some victims' genitalia was his way of showing himself his power over them. If I remember correctly (& let me know), there were two very tentative stab wounds on Nichol's genitalia. This always seemed to me like someone poking a "just-killed" spider, etc., to make sure it was really dead and no longer a danger. Jack, to me, was a man simply frightened to death of the female vagina, which in his mind could, literally, swallow him up. (hope this isn't too graphic, certainly not my intent.)