Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

I agree.

Nuff said.

Mike

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Wickerman]

Whatever happened to being just plain evil?

[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