Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[FrankO]

Apologies, I can see how what I wrote was ambiguous. I consider the brevity, lack of privacy, risk of discovery and darkness to be the disadvantages of doing what he did outdoors.

Thanks for clearing that up, Caz!

If curiosity and a desire to 'explore' were what motivated him he was setting himself up for disappointment each time.

Pure speculation of course, but maybe that’s why he did for Chapman in the early morning light, then went back to doing things in the dark as dawn turned out to be a bit too risky, and was finally able to find someone with a room of her own.

All the best,
Frank

[Garry Wroe]

I know what DSM is. It means Doltish Satire and Mockery, of which I am a respected student. Analyze that, mental giant.

Wrong again. It’s Diddly Squat Michael – a reference to your intellectual prowess.

[The Good Michael]

Since DSM is a psychiatric manual, your vilification of psychology serves only to expose your ignorance in yet another subject area.

I know what DSM is. It means Doltish Satire and Mockery, of which I am a respected student. Analyze that, mental giant.

Mike

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're saying that the brevity, lack of privacy, risk of discovery and the darkness were more important than what he did. If so, I don't quite agree with you. After all, he could have done any number of things instead of lifting their skirts, opening their legs & mutilating their abdomen, but he didn't. Those mutilations were clearly his driving force.

Hi Frank,

Apologies, I can see how what I wrote was ambiguous. I consider the brevity, lack of privacy, risk of discovery and darkness to be the disadvantages of doing what he did outdoors. He presumably felt it was all worth it - particularly after his first repeat performance - for what he managed to do at the scene each time. I agree that the mutilations must have been extremely important to him or he wouldn't have attempted any a second time.

I just wonder how this killer could have hoped or expected to satisfy a morbid curiosity about the female body, knowing his next encounter was likely to be another of the briefest kind, in the dark, under the noses of a watchful police and public. If curiosity and a desire to 'explore' were what motivated him he was setting himself up for disappointment each time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

In fact since psychology is such political BS, how is anyone wrong? The goal of psychology should be to heal people. Instead it seems to be about classification in order to put someone into a neat bin in order to see what they are, and then to use drugs to help them control their natural state. Fact: teachers have been analyzing 100s of students a year without classifying them and without suggesting drugs and have helped many. So who's the real psychologist?

Since DSM is a psychiatric manual, your vilification of psychology serves only to expose your ignorance in yet another subject area.

[Abby Normal]

If you want to have sex with your house plant repeatedly, but it is not required for you to function sexually, you don't break the law, no one gets hurt, and you aren't crying yourself to sleep over it, thats fine. It is not a Paraphilia. It's a fetish. And there is nothing psychologically wrong with fetishes. An anthropologist might have a field day with you, but a shrink has nothing he can hold you on.

Hi Errata
Thanks again for responding.

Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g. are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of nonconsenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships)."

"B: The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important ares of functioning."

If this behaviour is discovered by a spouse, family members, coworkers, friends, neighbors, etc. than it would most certainly cause the underlined above. So, again, my point is the behaviour exists, but if not discovered it is not considered a paraphilia, if it is then it would be-BY THE DEFINITION ABOVE. IMHO it just makes no sense. Its like saying the moon does not exist if you are not looking at it.

[harry]

'there was method in his madness'.An old saying,out of fashion now.Not exactly contained to how things were done,but as to why.Now I am ignorant of the present mumbo jumbo used to describe the various manias that seem to abound, and which few seem to understand,but I was once told there is a reason for everything ,so there was a reason for what was done to Kelly.Wish I knew what it was,but I would expand in her case to three reasons.The disfigurement of the features,the mutilation to the torso area,and the stripping of the flesh,In a vague sort of way I can understand the injuries to the face,having been in ,and seen many altercations in which the face becomes the prime target,and the greater the flow of blood and abundance of lacerations give the greater pleasure,but I never ever e xperienced an erection in doing so.So for those that know,what mania did I suffer from?

[DVV]

Thanks, Mike. Paraphilia is merely the updated version of Anderson's old "sexual mania", and it englobes "necro-sadism", thus telling us nothing new about JtR.

Ironically enough, Errata, while trying to furiously advocate paraphilia, merely said : "IF Jack was a paraphiliac, that is important", whereas it is important but already well-known. Hence my last comment :

Here is the proof that you have missed my point from the start.

OF COURSE Jack was a paraphiliac. But since we already know he was something like a necro-sadist, it tells us nothing new - necro-sadism being, OF COURSE, a paraphilia.

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;206059]DSM-III through DSM-IV-TR

"The term "paraphilia" was introduced in the DSM-III (1980) as a subset of the new category of "psychosexual disorders". The types of paraphlias listed were: fetishism, transvestism, zoophilia, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, and "atypical paraphilia". The DSM-III-R (1987) renamed the broad category to sexual disorders, renamed atypical paraphilia to paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified), finessed transvestism as transvestic fetishism, added frotteurism, and removed zoophilia, relegating it to the NOS category. It also provided seven nonexhaustive examples of NOS paraphilias, which besides zoophilia included telephone scatologia, necrophilia, partialism, coprophilia, klismaphilia, and urophilia.[43]

The DSM-IV (1994) retained the sexual disorders classification for paraphlias, but added an even broader category, "sexual and gender identity disorders", which includes them. The DSM-IV retained the same types of paraphilias listed in DSM-III-R, including the NOS examples, but introduced some changes to the definitions of some specific types.[42]

Paraphilias are defined by DSM-IV-TR as sexual disorders characterized by "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors generally involving (1) nonhuman objects, (2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or (3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of 6 months" (Criterion A), which "cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" (Criterion B). DSM-IV-TR describes 8 specific disorders of this type (exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, and transvestic fetishism) along with a ninth residual category, paraphilia not otherwise specified (NOS).[44] Criterion B differs for exhibitionism, frotteurism, and pedophilia to include acting on these urges, and for sadism, acting on these urges with a nonconsenting person.[12]

Some paraphilias may interfere with the capacity for sexual activity with consenting adult partners.[12] According to the DSM, "Paraphilias are almost never diagnosed in females,"[12] but some case studies of females with paraphilias have been published.[45]

The DSM provides clinical criteria for these paraphilias:

Exhibitionism: the recurrent urge or behavior to expose one's genitals to an unsuspecting person, or to perform sexual acts that can be watched by others.
Fetishism: the use of inanimate objects to gain sexual excitement. Partialism refers to fetishes specifically involving nonsexual parts of the body.
Frotteurism: recurrent urges of behavior of touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting person.
Pedophilia: strong sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[46]
Sexual Masochism: the recurrent urge or behavior of wanting to be humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer for sexual pleasure.
Sexual Sadism: the recurrent urge or behavior involving acts in which the pain or humiliation of a person is sexually exciting.
Transvestic fetishism: arousal from wearing "clothing associated with members of the opposite sex."[12][47]
Voyeurism: the recurrent urge or behavior to observe an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing, or engaging in sexual activities, or who is engaging in activities usually considered to be of a private nature.[48][49"

How was David wrong? In fact since psychology is such political BS, how is anyone wrong? The goal of psychology should be to heal people. Instead it seems to be about classification in order to put someone into a neat bin in order to see what they are, and then to use drugs to help them control their natural state. Fact: teachers have been analyzing 100s of students a year without classifying them and without suggesting drugs and have helped many. So who's the real psychologist?

Mike

[The Good Michael]

DSM-III through DSM-IV-TR

The term "paraphilia" was introduced in the DSM-III (1980) as a subset of the new category of "psychosexual disorders". The types of paraphlias listed were: fetishism, transvestism, zoophilia, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, and "atypical paraphilia". The DSM-III-R (1987) renamed the broad category to sexual disorders, renamed atypical paraphilia to paraphilia NOS (not otherwise specified), finessed transvestism as transvestic fetishism, added frotteurism, and removed zoophilia, relegating it to the NOS category. It also provided seven nonexhaustive examples of NOS paraphilias, which besides zoophilia included telephone scatologia, necrophilia, partialism, coprophilia, klismaphilia, and urophilia.[43]

The DSM-IV (1994) retained the sexual disorders classification for paraphlias, but added an even broader category, "sexual and gender identity disorders", which includes them. The DSM-IV retained the same types of paraphilias listed in DSM-III-R, including the NOS examples, but introduced some changes to the definitions of some specific types.[42]

Paraphilias are defined by DSM-IV-TR as sexual disorders characterized by "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors generally involving (1) nonhuman objects, (2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or (3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of 6 months" (Criterion A), which "cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" (Criterion B). DSM-IV-TR describes 8 specific disorders of this type (exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, voyeurism, and transvestic fetishism) along with a ninth residual category, paraphilia not otherwise specified (NOS).[44] Criterion B differs for exhibitionism, frotteurism, and pedophilia to include acting on these urges, and for sadism, acting on these urges with a nonconsenting person.[12]

Some paraphilias may interfere with the capacity for sexual activity with consenting adult partners.[12] According to the DSM, "Paraphilias are almost never diagnosed in females,"[12] but some case studies of females with paraphilias have been published.[45]

The DSM provides clinical criteria for these paraphilias:

Exhibitionism: the recurrent urge or behavior to expose one's genitals to an unsuspecting person, or to perform sexual acts that can be watched by others.
Fetishism: the use of inanimate objects to gain sexual excitement. Partialism refers to fetishes specifically involving nonsexual parts of the body.
Frotteurism: recurrent urges of behavior of touching or rubbing against a nonconsenting person.
Pedophilia: strong sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[46]
Sexual Masochism: the recurrent urge or behavior of wanting to be humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer for sexual pleasure.
Sexual Sadism: the recurrent urge or behavior involving acts in which the pain or humiliation of a person is sexually exciting.
Transvestic fetishism: arousal from wearing "clothing associated with members of the opposite sex."[12][47]
Voyeurism: the recurrent urge or behavior to observe an unsuspecting person who is naked, disrobing, or engaging in sexual activities, or who is engaging in activities usually considered to be of a private nature.[48][49

How was David wrong? In fact since psychology is such political BS, how is anyone wrong?

Mike

[lynn cates]

Now repeat after me . . . .

Hello Jon.

"Whatever happened to being just plain evil?"

Well, it's been new spoken out of existence. Social science, you know.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Whatever happened to being just plain evil?

[Errata]

Hi Errata
I've read this and still have a problem/question about this definition/description of a Paraphilia.

Lets just take my previous example of someone who has sex with their house plant repeatedly(but we could actually use any number of other examples). So if someone is discovered doing it its a paraphilia, but if they aren't- its not? Thats absurd. And thats the problem with these definitions, its like trying to catch smoke in a butterly net.

If you want to have sex with your house plant repeatedly, but it is not required for you to function sexually, you don't break the law, no one gets hurt, and you aren't crying yourself to sleep over it, thats fine. It is not a Paraphilia. It's a fetish. And there is nothing psychologically wrong with fetishes. An anthropologist might have a field day with you, but a shrink has nothing he can hold you on.

[Errata]

Okay.

A Paraphilia is a psychiatric condition. A mental illness. Differentiated from a "harmless foot fetishist" by this clearly defined statement from the differential diagnosis of Paraphilias from the DSM-IV. Read it a couple of times if you have to.

"A Paraphilia must be distinguished from the nonpathological use of sexual fantasies, behaviors, or objects as a stimulant for sexual excitement in individuals without a Paraphilia. Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g. are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of nonconsenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships)."

Which dumbed down to an even greater degree is that if no one is getting hurt, it isn't a Paraphilia. It may be a fetish, but not a Paraphilia.

It isn't about whether they get caught, how strange it is, anything like that. It is all about whether or not it causes distress, dysfunction, or disruption. Any indulgence in necro-sadism, by definition causes problems. If you read the above statement, it says "leads to legal complications". Therefor it is a Paraphilia. A foot fetishist is only a Paraphiliac if any of the above conditions are met, from being obligatory to interfering with social relationships.

DVV: I read the wikipedia link. I even referenced it in my reply. I am quoting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth edition. Which you are absolutely free to check for yourself. I'm sure there are online versions. You want me to prove Wikipedia wrong? I already did that. I said it was incomplete. I explained why. I gave you the reference from the DSM-IV. I can give you the page number if you like (Paraphilias pg 566, Differential Diagnosis pg. 568). Surely you do not believe that some guy writing a Wikipedia article knows more than the people who wrote the DSM-IV?

[Abby Normal]

Okay. This is precisely why I say that everyone needs to step away from DSM IV. Because there seem to be a number of people who don't know how to use it. The one line definition quoted in the Wikipedia article is in fact the one line definition in the preface of the DSM IV. But that has nothing to do with how a paraphilia works. Just like the one line definition of Schizophrenia does not allow you to diagnose a schizophrenic. You have to read the differential diagnosis and the diagnostic criteria.

Under the differential diagnosis heading in the section on paraphilias it states:
"A Paraphilia must be distinguished from the nonpathological use of sexual fantasies, behaviors, or objects as a stimulant for sexual excitement in individuals without a Paraphilia. Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g. are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of nonconsenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships)."(their bold font, not mine)

It goes on to talk about how unusual sexual behavior in people intoxicated, with mental retardation, dementia, etc. is not Paraphilic behavior if it is not the persons preferred method of pattern.

Under the diagnostic criteria of every Paraphilia listed in this rather heavy book are two universal criteria.
"A: Over a period of six months, recurrent, intense sexual arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving" Insert Paraphilia here.
and
"B: The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important ares of functioning."

The appropriate Paraphilias also have as a diagnostic criteria that they have acted upon the urges on a nonconsenting person.

I know this because A: I have the book right next next to me, and B: I was taught how to use it.

No offense, but taking one line out of the book as the gospel on the disease is not dissimilar from deciding that Jesus Christ will bring about the zombie apocalypse because the only thing you ever read from the Bible was the bit about Lazarus.

And yes, technically it is deviancy in a statistical model. I was saying it doesn't have to be deviant as far as society judgement in order for it to be a Paraphilia.

Hi Errata
I've read this and still have a problem/question about this definition/description of a Paraphilia.

Lets just take my previous example of someone who has sex with their house plant repeatedly(but we could actually use any number of other examples). So if someone is discovered doing it its a paraphilia, but if they aren't- its not? Thats absurd. And thats the problem with these definitions, its like trying to catch smoke in a butterly net.