Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[FrankO]

In short, the 'fix' he experienced had to be worth it for its own sake: the brevity, the lack of privacy, the risk of discovery, as well as the darkness in which he was compelled to get his jollies.

So I'm not sure that curiosity/exploration of the dead female form could have been what motivated him, simply because he was severely limited in that respect by the conditions.

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.

Therefore, I'd say that it's quite feasible that he was motivated by curiosity/exploration of the female body, just as he may have been driven by a desire to destroy an important part of it.

In Mary Kelly's room there was time and light available to see, touch and feel everything in situ, which may explain why body parts that could so easily have been taken away for later attention were left at the scene. If the fix was a truly satisfying one this time, he may not even have thought about 'afters'.

Good point!

All the best,
Frank

[DVV]

If Jack was a Paraphiliac, that is important.

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.

[DVV]

What a nonsense. Paraphilias are just what I said they are, please go to wiki or prove wiki wrong.
Once again, a harmless foot-fetichist is considered a paraphiliac.

[Errata]

God knows what you're talking about, sincerely.
Paraphilias ? There are plenty and do not necessarily imply an "unconsenting person".
That a serial killer is a paraphiliac is no big news. We all are paraphiliacs of a certain type, to some extent.
One may feel the Ripper was a necrophile or a necro-sadist, but who is entirely satisfied with this ?
Nobody. Just because you cannot find in books nor name his real and exact paraphilia.
Human nature is complex and terminology is running after it.

What I'm talking about is really quite simple. You stated
"Agreed, Mike, in fact that is my point precisely. Paraphilia is just a synonym of the old "perversion", and there are perversions of all sorts, some harmless, some more dangerous. We are all "paraphiliacs", more or less, and the list of paraphilias cannot be exhaustive, it will evolve with human nature - and perversions."
That is patently untrue. It is a very specific set of conditions that are based on dysfunction, not judgement of various sex practices.

And the reason it matters (aside from generally consigning all of us into the category of having a debilitating sexual dysfunction) is that kink, or "perversion" doesn't hurt anyone. Paraphilias do hurt someone. Sometimes many someones. The specific Paraphilia, be it necro-sadism, copraphilia, whatever doesn't matter nearly as much as what happens when a person indulges after a period of self-denial. Because that's when bad things happen. A man does not have to have one of the violent Paraphilias to kill someone for it. Profound shame at indulging in a relatively benign act can cause people to kill. And has.

If Jack was a Paraphiliac, that is important. Not because of whatever his particular poison was, because it could have been comparatively benign. It matters because of the dysfunction that having a Paraphilia causes. It speaks to both method and motive. It would also rule out those with certain other conditions.

[DVV]

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.

God knows what you're talking about, sincerely.
Paraphilias ? There are plenty and do not necessarily imply an "unconsenting person".
That a serial killer is a paraphiliac is no big news. We all are paraphiliacs of a certain type, to some extent.
One may feel the Ripper was a necrophile or a necro-sadist, but who is entirely satisfied with this ?
Nobody. Just because you cannot find in books nor name his real and exact paraphilia.
Human nature is complex and terminology is running after it.

[Abby Normal]

I met my fiance in my Abnormal Psych class, and we had been dating for about a month when I had to stand up in front of everyone and talk about strange sexual fetishes in front of a giggling (and sometimes howling) class of twenty somethings. Never mind what I had been researching on the computer for the previous month or so. It was... not ideal in a personal sense. It turned out to be fine, but there were a few curl up and die moments.

Thanks Errata
I could see how that might be a tad uncomfortable.

[Errata]

By the way, the most uncomfortable Abnormal Psych oral presentation ever. Ever. Especially when one of them is your boyfriend. Just saying.

Whats up with your boyfriend?

I met my fiance in my Abnormal Psych class, and we had been dating for about a month when I had to stand up in front of everyone and talk about strange sexual fetishes in front of a giggling (and sometimes howling) class of twenty somethings. Never mind what I had been researching on the computer for the previous month or so. It was... not ideal in a personal sense. It turned out to be fine, but there were a few curl up and die moments.

[Errata]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

Hi Garry & all, sorry to insist, but paraphilia seems to be what I said it was. Not that I believe everything from wiki, but...

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.

[DVV]

Hi Garry

Now does it make sense?

Yes it does, but does it change anything ? Such paraphiliac killers are what we used to call "lust murderers", aren't they ?

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

I agree.

Nuff said.

Mike

[caz]

Hi All,

The gratification the killer got from the overpowering, killing and mutilation of these women must have been over in a flash - like a hurriedly performed sex act with a street prostitute would have been. In short, the 'fix' he experienced had to be worth it for its own sake: the brevity, the lack of privacy, the risk of discovery, as well as the darkness in which he was compelled to get his jollies.

So I'm not sure that curiosity/exploration of the dead female form could have been what motivated him, simply because he was severely limited in that respect by the conditions. Even if touching and feeling were more important to him than seeing what he was doing, he would have had his work cut out to do much exploring with any of his outdoor victims. No bright lights, soft music or ceiling mirrors there.

But I do see the taking away of bodily parts as an indication that he wasn't satisfied with a quick fix in the dark, and wanted to take the experience home with him, if only to see those parts in better light later, and to know that what had happened had really happened and he had made it happen.

In Mary Kelly's room there was time and light available to see, touch and feel everything in situ, which may explain why body parts that could so easily have been taken away for later attention were left at the scene. If the fix was a truly satisfying one this time, he may not even have thought about 'afters'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Garry & all, sorry to insist, but paraphilia seems to be what I said it was. Not that I believe everything from wiki, but...

It probably is if you stick rigidly to DSM IV and other psychiatric manuals, Dave, but personally I never trust any discipline that continues to accept the validity of Freudianism.

Let's try this a different way. Bundy returning to a recently murdered body, decapitating it, then using the head for the purpose of fellatio - that's paraphilia. Albert Fish maintaining a state of hypersexual excitement throughout the nine days during which he cannibalized the body of Grace Budd - that's paraphilia. Peter Sutcliffe inflicting nine hammer blows to the head of a victim and then breaking off the attack in order to assuage his sexual arousal - that's paraphilia.

When citing paraphilia in context of the Whitechapel Murders, I'm referring to the overwhelming likelihood that the killer derived untold sexual gratification from the act of stalking, waylaying, killing and mutilating his victims. And I say overwhelming because we have the evidence for such from many similar cases.

Now does it make sense?

[Garry Wroe]

Actually it has nothing to do with deviancy. Or any degree of it.

Paraphilia has everything to do with deviancy, Errata, or at least those behaviours considered by the great and the good to be grossly abnormal. Were they normative, there would be no departure from the acceptable and thus no deviation. I don't know about the US, but here in the UK people are generally left to get on with things. If someone gets their sexual kicks by drinking their own urine, they'll probably be left alone. If, on the other hand, they get their sexual kicks by forcing someone else to drink their urine, the chances are that they'll experience some form of medico-legal intervention.

I prefaced my reply to Dave by stating that I was dealing with paraphilia in general terms, and in general rather than strictly diagnostic terms a paraphilia will only be considered as such if it causes distress or injury to others. At least, that's the way it is in the UK.

[Abby Normal]

Actually it has nothing to do with deviancy. Or any degree of it. Fetishism is normal. Paraphilias are simply anything sexually oriented that cause a problem in the sufferer's life, or the inability to function. So if someone likes tying someone up now and again, no problem. When they can no longer function sexually without it, that's a problem. Masturbation can be a paraphilia. Missionary style sex with one's wife can be a paraphilia. It's about dysfunction and disruption.

Certain acts can only be paraphilias due to the nature of the acts. They are illegal, or life threatening. The four guaranteed paraphilias in the Western world are necrophilia, pedophilia, frotteurism, and snuff. There is no way to legally or consensually engage in these acts. Now there are some extremely weird fetishes out there. Sexual gratification from receiving an amputation for example, or the whole Furry thing. And there are quite a few of them that are extremely difficult to engage in legally and consensually, but it is possible. But as long as it is not disrupting a person's life, causing sexual or social dysfunction, or illegal, it isn't a paraphilia.

The reason I think it applies to this case is not due to any specific fetish that Jack might have had. It almost doesn't matter what the fetish was. It's the dysfunction that was caused. Perhaps an inability to engage in healthy sexual behavior, keeping him celibate until he could act out his fantasies. With cases like that, it is not unusual for there to be an explosive escape from self-denial. The legalization of homosexuality and the advent of the AIDS crisis is a perfect example. When people were finally free to indulge their sexual needs, years of repression caused an explosion that decimated the homosexual population because of some unheard disease showing up at the same time.

By the way, the most uncomfortable Abnormal Psych oral presentation ever. Ever. Especially when one of them is your boyfriend. Just saying.

Hi Errata
I think trying to define what behaviour is exactly a paraphilia is kind of like the same problem with trying to define exactly what "type" of serial killer JtR was (as previously noted in this thread). Its too nebulous a phenomenon to "Capture" totally accurately with strict definitions or categories. I'd tend to go with Garry's general description.

If i f--k my Geranium everyday-it may not be illegal, it may not hurt anyone or cause dysfunction. But I got a problem. Like someone once said-I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

By the way, the most uncomfortable Abnormal Psych oral presentation ever. Ever. Especially when one of them is your boyfriend. Just saying.

Whats up with your boyfriend?

[Malcolm X]

Makes you wonder exactly what Tumblety was selling as a young man that was called pornography.


Mike

photos of gays wasn't it, young boys, young men etc

in addition, more ``normal`` victorian porn is common on the web, just google it and turn off ``safe search``... the Victorians were very kinky indeed

but if you do just make sure that you have some tissues handy; just in case !