Was JtR a necrophile?

[Cogidubnus]

Looking at this thread, I fear I may be a sadistic necrophiliac with bestial tendencies...but perhaps I'm just flogging a dead horse...

All the best

Dave

[Abby Normal]

Necrophiliacs are aroused by dead bodies. Not murder, not violent death, just a corpse. Necrophiliacs don't kill to satisfy their fetish. They satisfy their fetish on people who are already dead. And dead people are everywhere, so it's not hard to do whatever they want with a minimum of planning.

If Jack was a necrophiliac, it wasn't why he killed people. He didn't have to in order to be a satisfied necrophiliac. So necrophilia wasn't the motive. He killed women for some other reason. People don't commit murder unless they have to or want to. He didn't have to in order to be a necrophiliac. If he wanted to, then necrophilia isn't the problem. Something else was the problem, and it so happened to satisfy his necrophilia as well.

Bundy was not motivated by post mortem sex. He was motivated by being an extremely sadistic dominant. He wanted to hurt and control these women, even after death. He raped his victims before during and after the murder. He wanted to own them, be the last thing they saw or thought about, cause them extreme pain and dehumanization. Bundy was never going to break into a hospital and have sex with a corpse. He may have technically been a necrophile, but that wasn't his problem.

Dahmer wanted to be dominant, stemming from a deep fear of being left. He didn't want them dead. He wanted them compliant. He drugged his victims, did what he wanted while they were compliant, and killed them afterwards. The problem with wanting that level of compliance is that you really only get it from the dead. Which he did, but he was trying to find a way to make zombies who would be his compliant sex slaves. And truth be told he was a lot closer to succeeding than anyone likes to give him credit for. He didn't want to be a necrophiliac, but he couldn't otherwise get what he wanted. But he wasn't going to break in to a morgue and have sex with a corpse either. That wouldn't have fulfilled his needs.

Necrophiliacs have a pattern of beliefs and habits that are universal to all necrophiliacs. They cannot perform sexually with a living woman who isn't at least pretending to be dead. They will not have sex with any corpse, but they are not choosy. If a necrophiliac prefers blondes, he will have a blonde wig to make the corpse fit his ideal, he will not wait for a blonde woman to end up dead. They do not kill to have sex. They do not fetishize living women and kill them to have sex with their corpse. They break into morgues and hospitals, they did up graves, they work in death related industries. And they have elaborate fantasies about the experience during the experience. And they do not take body parts. They are almost to a man shy and awkward. They are not violent, they cannot deal with conflict, and when confronted with conflict will retreat.

If Jack was a necrophiliac, then the above statements are by far most likely true. but given the prevalence of bodies in 1880s London, clearly he wasn't starved for sex partners. So if he didn't have to kill to have sex, why did he? And of all the reasons, they really only boil down to two. It wasn't about sex, or it wasn't about corpses. If he hated prostitutes and wanted to punish them, his necrophilia had nothing to do with it. If he derived sexual pleasure from murder or blood or causing pain, he wasn't a necrophiliac. So we are left with the idea that he may had some kind of sexual interaction with the body parts, but that wasn't the point, that wasn't the reason, and it wasn't the motive. It may have been a final "**** you' to the victim or something, but then all we are left with is that a man in Victorian London thought sex was both unwanted by and disrespectful to women. And that would be... all of them.

Necrophilia doesn't tell us anything about the killer. It means he liked to have sex with corpses, but it doesn't tell us who or why. If he was a necrophiliac, he was having sex with corpses before he was making them. So why switch? And that is the question that gets us somewhere. Not whether he had sex with corpses, but why he might go from being "just" a necrophiliac to being something more? Something dangerous? It doesn't tell us why he killed, it doesn't tell why he chose who he chose, it doesn't tell us why he stopped, it's doesn't give us a name, or even a population to look at. It's trivia. Like the color of his hair or his marital status. Even if we knew, it wouldn't be meaningful information.

I get what your saying thanks.

But let me ask you this. If he was jerking off to the organs he took away, is he considered a necropheliac?

[Errata]

If you have sex with a dead body, parts of it, or are sexually aroused by touching or being near or looking at dead bodies than you are a necropheliac.
If the "official" definition does not define it that way then it is too narrow a definition and basically totally useless as a label.

Necrophiliacs are aroused by dead bodies. Not murder, not violent death, just a corpse. Necrophiliacs don't kill to satisfy their fetish. They satisfy their fetish on people who are already dead. And dead people are everywhere, so it's not hard to do whatever they want with a minimum of planning.

If Jack was a necrophiliac, it wasn't why he killed people. He didn't have to in order to be a satisfied necrophiliac. So necrophilia wasn't the motive. He killed women for some other reason. People don't commit murder unless they have to or want to. He didn't have to in order to be a necrophiliac. If he wanted to, then necrophilia isn't the problem. Something else was the problem, and it so happened to satisfy his necrophilia as well.

Bundy was not motivated by post mortem sex. He was motivated by being an extremely sadistic dominant. He wanted to hurt and control these women, even after death. He raped his victims before during and after the murder. He wanted to own them, be the last thing they saw or thought about, cause them extreme pain and dehumanization. Bundy was never going to break into a hospital and have sex with a corpse. He may have technically been a necrophile, but that wasn't his problem.

Dahmer wanted to be dominant, stemming from a deep fear of being left. He didn't want them dead. He wanted them compliant. He drugged his victims, did what he wanted while they were compliant, and killed them afterwards. The problem with wanting that level of compliance is that you really only get it from the dead. Which he did, but he was trying to find a way to make zombies who would be his compliant sex slaves. And truth be told he was a lot closer to succeeding than anyone likes to give him credit for. He didn't want to be a necrophiliac, but he couldn't otherwise get what he wanted. But he wasn't going to break in to a morgue and have sex with a corpse either. That wouldn't have fulfilled his needs.

Necrophiliacs have a pattern of beliefs and habits that are universal to all necrophiliacs. They cannot perform sexually with a living woman who isn't at least pretending to be dead. They will not have sex with any corpse, but they are not choosy. If a necrophiliac prefers blondes, he will have a blonde wig to make the corpse fit his ideal, he will not wait for a blonde woman to end up dead. They do not kill to have sex. They do not fetishize living women and kill them to have sex with their corpse. They break into morgues and hospitals, they did up graves, they work in death related industries. And they have elaborate fantasies about the experience during the experience. And they do not take body parts. They are almost to a man shy and awkward. They are not violent, they cannot deal with conflict, and when confronted with conflict will retreat.

If Jack was a necrophiliac, then the above statements are by far most likely true. but given the prevalence of bodies in 1880s London, clearly he wasn't starved for sex partners. So if he didn't have to kill to have sex, why did he? And of all the reasons, they really only boil down to two. It wasn't about sex, or it wasn't about corpses. If he hated prostitutes and wanted to punish them, his necrophilia had nothing to do with it. If he derived sexual pleasure from murder or blood or causing pain, he wasn't a necrophiliac. So we are left with the idea that he may had some kind of sexual interaction with the body parts, but that wasn't the point, that wasn't the reason, and it wasn't the motive. It may have been a final "**** you' to the victim or something, but then all we are left with is that a man in Victorian London thought sex was both unwanted by and disrespectful to women. And that would be... all of them.

Necrophilia doesn't tell us anything about the killer. It means he liked to have sex with corpses, but it doesn't tell us who or why. If he was a necrophiliac, he was having sex with corpses before he was making them. So why switch? And that is the question that gets us somewhere. Not whether he had sex with corpses, but why he might go from being "just" a necrophiliac to being something more? Something dangerous? It doesn't tell us why he killed, it doesn't tell why he chose who he chose, it doesn't tell us why he stopped, it's doesn't give us a name, or even a population to look at. It's trivia. Like the color of his hair or his marital status. Even if we knew, it wouldn't be meaningful information.

[Abby Normal]

There is of course no evidence to say Jack was a necrophiliac. Unless he had sex with the body parts or with the victims bodies after he'd killed them then he was not a necrophiliac.

Cheers John

Hi john of course.
I should clarified. I am making the assumption that at the very least he was sexually aroused by the mutilation and removal of the body parts.

IMHO opinion I think there is more chance than not that there was a sexual component to the post mortem behavior.

[John Wheat]

The ripper, kemper, bundy seemingly were motivated by everything post mortem. Sexually. Kemper even said he wanted to make dolls out of his victims so he could do anything he wanted.

There is of course no evidence to say Jack was a necrophiliac. Unless he had sex with the body parts or with the victims bodies after he'd killed them then he was not a necrophiliac.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

And what I'm saying is that if you are right, what does that tell you about the killer, except for his sexual proclivities? The reason necrophiliacs aren't killers is actually pretty simple. There are dead people everywhere. Getting access to a corpse, especially back then, was about as easy getting a knife. As easy as getting a job as the guy who drives the dead cart. If a corpse is what a guy needs, he doesn't have to kill for it. Not even a little.

So if Jack was a necrophiliac, it had nothing to do with the murders. And as a clue or a behavior is a dead end. It may say something about the man, but it says nothing about the murderer. Now if he was an eratophonophiliac, that would mean something. That would mean clues and back story and a bunch of small telling details that could explain a lot about the murders, the killer, even the identity and psychology of the man.

--------

The part where I go on about why specifics matter:

There are two killers who are classically identified with necrophilia. Dahmer and Kemper. Because they had sex with dead people, and that's a pretty good sign of necrophilia. But the necrophilia was incidental, leading nowhere with either Dahmer or Kemper, and it was only the smell at Dahmer's apartment that led police to believe something bad had happened there. Dahmer ironically was trying very hard not to be a necrophiliac, which is why he was experimenting on his victims with drugs and surgery to create essentially living corpses. Kemper was not aroused by corpses, he was aroused by living women. He killed them before having sex with them because he couldn't bear the thought of rejection. If they were dead, they couldn't say no.

Looking back on both cases, the necrophilia aspect was a non starter. If the cops in Milwaukee had paid attention to rash of missing gay men of a specific body type, they would have realized they had a serial killer and could have easily found Dahmer. Looking back on Kemper, a man so terrified of rejection that he kills women in order to have sex with them is a textbook case of a man with an abusive and domineering mother. Calling them necrophiliacs gets you nowhere, criminologically or psychologically.

Gein is ironically the only killer whose necrophilia matters, and we don't even know that he was a necrophiliac. Clearly the guy was obsessed with dead women. I mean, he had a box of vulvas. All of the traits of a necrophiliac were there, all the behaviors. He could have been caught before he killed. But we don't actually know that he had sex with a corpse or a body part. His pathology was so far beyond mere sex, that it honestly wouldn't surprise me if he never had sexual contact with anything on that farm. To use the clinical term, the man epically screwed up.

But if Jack was necrophiliac, it doesn't tell us anything. It doesn't explain why he killed, it doesn't even necessarily explain why he took organs. It doesn't explain why he did what he did, it doesn't tell us who he is, and due to a lack of consistency it doesn't even tell us what he wanted. "Getting off" on something is not necessarily the same as achieving sexual climax as a result of something. Did he do it because it gave him an intense feeling of satisfaction? Probably. Did it give him an erection or make him ejaculate? Possibly. But if the erection or ejaculation comes from something else, dominance, victory, the act of murder, expended rage, then that's not necrophilia.

And any of the above emotions resulting in sexual arousal are far more telling than becoming aroused by a corpse. For example a dominant sadist can't turn that off. That's elsewhere in his life. Arousal at expended rage is actually pretty common. Angry sex, arousal after battle, make up sex, all part of that. It's a natural reaction, and indicative of nothing. Eratophonophiliacs start small. They start with animals, then the weak, then the stronger. Eratophonophiliacs leave a trail thiof bodies easy to follow if you know what to look for. Having sex with corpses is like eating olives dipped in lemon icing (I had an ex who did this). Odd, gross, but it has no meaning and no probative value.

Hello errata
You keep saying that it tells us nothing about the murderer. I don't get it.
I think it tells us much about the murderer. Like what's his motivation. Does he like to torture victims, is he basically a rapist who kills to get rid of evidence, etc.

The hillside stranglers were into torture, gacy was into terrorizing/dominance of victims. Once their victims were dead they had no further interest in the bodies.
The ripper, kemper, bundy seemingly were motivated by everything post mortem. Sexually. Kemper even said he wanted to make dolls out of his victims so he could do anything he wanted.

If you have sex with a dead body, parts of it, or are sexually aroused by touching or being near or looking at dead bodies than you are a necropheliac.
If the "official" definition does not define it that way then it is too narrow a definition and basically totally useless as a label.

[Errata]

Hi errata
I still think the ripper was a necrophile. And if not, he gets off on a technicality.

He got off on what he did to dead female bodies. There was probably a sexual componant to the mutilation of the body. and He may not have had sex with the whole dead body, but I am sure he had sex with parts of it.

And what I'm saying is that if you are right, what does that tell you about the killer, except for his sexual proclivities? The reason necrophiliacs aren't killers is actually pretty simple. There are dead people everywhere. Getting access to a corpse, especially back then, was about as easy getting a knife. As easy as getting a job as the guy who drives the dead cart. If a corpse is what a guy needs, he doesn't have to kill for it. Not even a little.

So if Jack was a necrophiliac, it had nothing to do with the murders. And as a clue or a behavior is a dead end. It may say something about the man, but it says nothing about the murderer. Now if he was an eratophonophiliac, that would mean something. That would mean clues and back story and a bunch of small telling details that could explain a lot about the murders, the killer, even the identity and psychology of the man.

--------

The part where I go on about why specifics matter:

There are two killers who are classically identified with necrophilia. Dahmer and Kemper. Because they had sex with dead people, and that's a pretty good sign of necrophilia. But the necrophilia was incidental, leading nowhere with either Dahmer or Kemper, and it was only the smell at Dahmer's apartment that led police to believe something bad had happened there. Dahmer ironically was trying very hard not to be a necrophiliac, which is why he was experimenting on his victims with drugs and surgery to create essentially living corpses. Kemper was not aroused by corpses, he was aroused by living women. He killed them before having sex with them because he couldn't bear the thought of rejection. If they were dead, they couldn't say no.

Looking back on both cases, the necrophilia aspect was a non starter. If the cops in Milwaukee had paid attention to rash of missing gay men of a specific body type, they would have realized they had a serial killer and could have easily found Dahmer. Looking back on Kemper, a man so terrified of rejection that he kills women in order to have sex with them is a textbook case of a man with an abusive and domineering mother. Calling them necrophiliacs gets you nowhere, criminologically or psychologically.

Gein is ironically the only killer whose necrophilia matters, and we don't even know that he was a necrophiliac. Clearly the guy was obsessed with dead women. I mean, he had a box of vulvas. All of the traits of a necrophiliac were there, all the behaviors. He could have been caught before he killed. But we don't actually know that he had sex with a corpse or a body part. His pathology was so far beyond mere sex, that it honestly wouldn't surprise me if he never had sexual contact with anything on that farm. To use the clinical term, the man epically screwed up.

But if Jack was necrophiliac, it doesn't tell us anything. It doesn't explain why he killed, it doesn't even necessarily explain why he took organs. It doesn't explain why he did what he did, it doesn't tell us who he is, and due to a lack of consistency it doesn't even tell us what he wanted. "Getting off" on something is not necessarily the same as achieving sexual climax as a result of something. Did he do it because it gave him an intense feeling of satisfaction? Probably. Did it give him an erection or make him ejaculate? Possibly. But if the erection or ejaculation comes from something else, dominance, victory, the act of murder, expended rage, then that's not necrophilia.

And any of the above emotions resulting in sexual arousal are far more telling than becoming aroused by a corpse. For example a dominant sadist can't turn that off. That's elsewhere in his life. Arousal at expended rage is actually pretty common. Angry sex, arousal after battle, make up sex, all part of that. It's a natural reaction, and indicative of nothing. Eratophonophiliacs start small. They start with animals, then the weak, then the stronger. Eratophonophiliacs leave a trail of bodies easy to follow if you know what to look for. Having sex with corpses is like eating olives dipped in lemon icing (I had an ex who did this). Odd, gross, but it has no meaning and no probative value.

[Abby Normal]

They have. Some people have specifically willed their bodies for this precise purpose. Which make an interesting legal conundrum, because wills are legally binding and cannot be overturned without significant effort not to mention a damned good reason. And necrophilia is illegal, but requires a complainant. Which in the cases of these dead people wouldn't happen, but the wills have been voided on the basis that it is sex trafficking. But since money doesn't change hands, that's a tough argument to make.

I only bring this whole thing up because whether or not Jack was a necrophile is unimportant unless he was killing to be one. It doesn't make him more damaged or more evil, it's a piece of trivia. And in the end doesn't reveal anything about him. Almost no necrophiliacs kill. So Jack being a killer had nothing to do with his alleged fetish. And if he was a necrophiliac, far and away the least of the offenses he perpetrated on these women. It's not a motive. It's a thing for us to be shocked at the idea of, but frankly I don't think we need him to be a necrophiliac in order to be more horrific or interesting.

It's about as informing as whether or not he was married. Whether he was or wasn't doesn't change anything. Something people tend to find shocking in serial killers but is really the norm. A man can be antisocial and awkward and be married, or charming and unmarried. Marriage doesn't reveal anything about a killer. We think it does, because we think that a killer couldn't deal with a wife, couldn't keep her in the dark, couldn't interact well enough to have gotten her in the first place. But that's almost never true. If Jack was a necrophiliac, it meant he was a necrophiliac. Like if he was married, it meant he was married. It doesn't reveal anything, it doesn't explain anything, and it doesn't make it somehow more horrible. There are any number of paraphilias and sexual dysfunctions that could tell us quite a bit about the man, but necrophilia isn't one of them. It might have helped catch him if they staked out graveyards and morgues, but it doesn't help us now.

I said previously, you always know when a necrophile is in a city if you know what to look for. And there is no evidence there was one in London at that time. If they didn't notice it then, we can't find out now.

Seriously. Worst research gig EVER.

Hi errata
I still think the ripper was a necrophile. And if not, he gets off on a technicality.

He got off on what he did to dead female bodies. There was probably a sexual componant to the mutilation of the body. and He may not have had sex with the whole dead body, but I am sure he had sex with parts of it.

[Barnaby]

Seriously. Worst research gig EVER.

No way. I study basic processes of learning and get a few interested students to work in my lab per year. If I studied necrophilia in serial killers, I would have students beating down my door. Sad, sick, but true I think.

This is making me rethink my career.

[Errata]

What would be an interesting case is if someone in their will consented to post-mortem dalliances.

They have. Some people have specifically willed their bodies for this precise purpose. Which make an interesting legal conundrum, because wills are legally binding and cannot be overturned without significant effort not to mention a damned good reason. And necrophilia is illegal, but requires a complainant. Which in the cases of these dead people wouldn't happen, but the wills have been voided on the basis that it is sex trafficking. But since money doesn't change hands, that's a tough argument to make.

I only bring this whole thing up because whether or not Jack was a necrophile is unimportant unless he was killing to be one. It doesn't make him more damaged or more evil, it's a piece of trivia. And in the end doesn't reveal anything about him. Almost no necrophiliacs kill. So Jack being a killer had nothing to do with his alleged fetish. And if he was a necrophiliac, far and away the least of the offenses he perpetrated on these women. It's not a motive. It's a thing for us to be shocked at the idea of, but frankly I don't think we need him to be a necrophiliac in order to be more horrific or interesting.

It's about as informing as whether or not he was married. Whether he was or wasn't doesn't change anything. Something people tend to find shocking in serial killers but is really the norm. A man can be antisocial and awkward and be married, or charming and unmarried. Marriage doesn't reveal anything about a killer. We think it does, because we think that a killer couldn't deal with a wife, couldn't keep her in the dark, couldn't interact well enough to have gotten her in the first place. But that's almost never true. If Jack was a necrophiliac, it meant he was a necrophiliac. Like if he was married, it meant he was married. It doesn't reveal anything, it doesn't explain anything, and it doesn't make it somehow more horrible. There are any number of paraphilias and sexual dysfunctions that could tell us quite a bit about the man, but necrophilia isn't one of them. It might have helped catch him if they staked out graveyards and morgues, but it doesn't help us now.

I said previously, you always know when a necrophile is in a city if you know what to look for. And there is no evidence there was one in London at that time. If they didn't notice it then, we can't find out now.

Seriously. Worst research gig EVER.

[Barnaby]

I think the victims of the crime would be the living persons who loved the deceased and would be disturbed by the event. Perhaps they logically should not be, but they are, and it is reasonable to expect that reaction.

What would be an interesting case is if someone in their will consented to post-mortem dalliances.

[Errata]

To Errata and Digalittledeeperwatson

You sick bastards. Seriously though interesting posts.

Sober now. Owch.

But seriously, we have to temper our disgust with a little logic. When all is said and done, whether talking about psychological definitions, sociological, criminological, legal, whatever... we have to to examine the act itself. Not the motivation, not the implications, just the act itself. Is abnormal? Yes. Is it something most people consider gross? Yes. Is it wrong? That depends. Is t wrong for any good reason? No.

And Watson is right. There's nothing wrong with consensual incest either. And once you get to cousins there isn't even any compelling argument not to have children. Generational incest is a problem. Many royal families have proved that. But a single instance? Mostly problem free.

Truth be told far more actual harm has come to people through the consequences of marijuana than has come to people through either necrophilia or incest. But the social punishment for necrophilia and incest far outweighs the "crime". Why? Social convention.

I have stated elsewhere that I had to do an immense amount of research on paraphilias. And it was both nauseating and informative. I think necrophilia is gross. No getting around that. But there are many many paraphilias I find far more disturbing. Certainly anything involving children or the unwilling. But there are many other consensual acts that I think are far more indicative of a dangerous mind than necrophilia. Furries and Authoepiophilliacs are funny, but it's about a hairs breadth from infantophilia, and thus are far more likely to eventually involve children. Higher creep quotient.

And then there's the gunpoint factor. If I were to be held at gunpoint and given the choice to either engage in necrophilia or say, coprophilia, god help me I'd pick the corpse. Coprophilia is legal and there's a whole industry behind it (not to mention a legendary video), but I'd take the dead guy. Which is a pretty good indication that despite the massive weight of social convention, there are worse things out there that we tolerate. And for no other reason than how we see our dead.

And how we see our dead is as still ours. The body is if not sacred at least sacrosanct. Corpses have significance. Which is odd because no major religion deifies their dead. 99% of humans are taught that their loved ones no longer inhabit the dead body. That a dead body is just an empty vessel. So why we attach so much significance to a body is something of a mystery. There is no biological imperative, no religious one. My professor said that the way we treat our dead is the biggest expression of doubt in human culture. That despite what we know to be true, we hang on to our dead just in case. We signify our dead just in case what we know to be true is wrong. So the crime of the necrophiliac is to challenge our belief that a dead body is just a mound of decaying tissue. And we criminalize it because despite what we know to be true, we want to pretend that our loved ones still somehow inhabit a body. It's a violation only if the spirit and will still remain in the corpse, and we know it doesn't. Nothing in our lives have taught us that it does. So why do we believe it?

[John Wheat]

To Errata and Digalittledeeperwatson

You sick bastards. Seriously though interesting posts.

[John Wheat]

I think its unlikely Jack was a necrophile. It's likely the mutilations were what aroused Jack.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Errata.

Totally stoned on pain killers, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Necrophilia in and of itself is a victimless crime. I mean, I don't want people having sex with my corpse, or the corpses of people I love, but I do recognize that the moment of death does in fact negate the need for consent. So like any crime involving the dead, it says more about our views of the dead than it says about the acts themselves.

All I can really say is don't kill someone to have sex with them when they're dead, and put everything back where you found it. What more can I reasonably ask if I don't think the dead have need of or rights for their bodies anymore? More than anything really, it's just rude. Having read a bunch on necrophiles I can't even say it's 100% disrespectful, but it's rude. People have plans for their corpses, and to not respect the tenor of those plans, including the implied "I don't want someone having sex with me when I'm dead", that's just selfish. It's like cutting in line or stealing a cab. Totally disrupting someones plans for no better than reason than you wanted to. It's rude.

But unlike most other criminal paraphilias, the only reason it is dysfunctional is because it's illegal. Every other illegal sex act harms another living being. If necrophilia wasn't illegal, not only could there be a relatively profitable industry attached, it wouldn't hurt anyone. And this argument is why marijuana was legalized in certain states. And if death rituals weren't the most pernicious in any society, there would be states where necrophilia would be legal now.

So while I don't think Jack was a necrophiliac, if he was, my only real objection is that he killed people to do it. If he just took corpses as he found them, I would just see him as some creepy dude.

I.... you.... Heh, heh, heh. What you said sounds completely insane, but you are spot on. Very similar in tactics to my pro-incest arguement. I do not support or condone incest. I use a logical arguement. It is used to disturb annoying people who won't shut up when I am trapped. What's the harm in it if no one gets pregnant? That's really the only sound reason to not engage in it. The horrid outcome of the offspring. Morality is an application. Like so much makeup. Let me assure you that we've both been in TN for far far too long. Apologies to all. That will be all.