Was JtR a necrophile?

[Nick Spring]

Dennis Nilsen the "Muswell Hill Murderer" was also a necrophile.

I agree it is difficult to put people in boxes however, I think there is sufficient criteria to suggest the Ripper was a necrophiliac.

The question of why is of course impossible to judge.

Best

Nick

[Jon Guy]

I don`t believe the Ripper was a necrophile.
I do think he got a kick out of killing his victim but his ultimate goal seemed to be the messing about inside them, and they had to be dead for him to do that.
He didn`t stay with the bodies very long after death, he didn`t revisit them and there is no evidence that he was whacking off at the scene. although we can`t rule that out.

[Hunter]

The trouble is, I have an uneasy feeling that anyone who doesn't fit the boxes will simply be placed in a new box. How many boxes will we end up with?

And who wants to be placed in a box by people who spell their profession with letters they don't even need? Where's the logic in that? And besides, you might end up sharing a box with someone who really is a wierdo - like Woody Allen.

[Nick Spring]

I don`t believe the Ripper was a necrophile.
I do think he got a kick out of killing his victim but his ultimate goal seemed to be the messing about inside them, and they had to be dead for him to do that.
He didn`t stay with the bodies very long after death, he didn`t revisit them and there is no evidence that he was whacking off at the scene. although we can`t rule that out.

Hi Jon,

Yes he did have a limited time limit in which to indulge however, if you include Mary Kelly as one of his victims, this becomes his defining moment, where he has time act out his ultimate fantasy.

Best

Nick

[Jon Guy]

Yes he did have a limited time limit in which to indulge however, if you include Mary Kelly as one of his victims, this becomes his defining moment, where he has time act out his ultimate fantasy.

True Nick, but in that time he could also have had sex with Kelly whilst she was still alive. In fact there are more things pointing to the fact that the killer had been in bed with Kelly before she was killed than there is suggesting anything necrophilic. I know he was cutting her up when she was dead, but she had to be dead for him to get away with doing what he did.

Regarding the killer having time on his side with Kelly, it should be remembered that with Peter Sutcliffe`s only indoor murder, it was the victim who told him to drive to her flat, he hadn`t planned it that way. In fact he was quite surprised, and was umming and arring on whether to go into the flat. He did eventually but didn`t stay long.

[Nick Spring]

True Nick, but in that time he could also have had sex with Kelly whilst she was still alive. In fact there are more things pointing to the fact that the killer had been in bed with Kelly before she was killed than there is suggesting anything necrophilic. I know he was cutting her up when she was dead, but she had to be dead for him to get away with doing what he did.

Regarding the killer having time on his side with Kelly, it should be remembered that with Peter Sutcliffe`s only indoor murder, it was the victim who told him to drive to her flat, he hadn`t planned it that way. In fact he was quite surprised, and was umming and arring on whether to go into the flat. He did eventually but didn`t stay long.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for that.

Yes that Sutcliffe murder has certain parallels with Kelly and it is possible that Kelly did lead the killer to Miller Court and he wasn't expecting that.

I agree about the suggestions that Kelly could have been in bed with the killer prior to the killing but it could be just as likely that "bed scene" was acted out with someone else prior to a second visit by the Ripper.

There just seems to be a pattern of sexual gratification and fantasy that runs through right from Emma Smith to Kelly.

Best

Nick

[Abby Normal]

I don`t believe the Ripper was a necrophile.
I do think he got a kick out of killing his victim but his ultimate goal seemed to be the messing about inside them, and they had to be dead for him to do that.
He didn`t stay with the bodies very long after death, he didn`t revisit them and there is no evidence that he was whacking off at the scene. although we can`t rule that out.

of course he didnt stay with the bodies for long nor revisit them because he did not want to get caught!

which is why he took organs away.

i give up. maybe he was a necromancer.

[Jon Guy]

of course he didnt stay with the bodies for long nor revisit them because he did not want to get caught!.

Very good. Therefore a necrophiliac would work out another way to get his rocks off, but the Ruipper didn`t, so he wasn`t.

which is why he took organs away..

No.
Trophies are taken by many serial killers, and has nothing to do with not having time whilst with the body.

[Errata]

Interesting, Errata. I´ve seen Bundy described as a necrophiliac many times, sometimes by authorities. This is food for thought, so thanks for posting it.

The best,
Fisherman

Bundy was a necrophiliac in the legal sense. Necrophilia is a crime in this country, it has a legal definition and Bundy certainly fits that definition. The law deals with the act itself. Psychiatrists deal with the whys and hows. It's why the definition differs. And paraphilias are treatable. But if you're going to fix it, you have to know whats going on. Treating someone like Bundy for Necrophilia won't work. It doesn't apply to him. Different motives, different behaviors, different focuses.

In the purely technical sense, Bundy had no sexual disorder. Which seems ridiculous given what he did to those bodies. But there is a difference between a paraphilia and a fetish, and the difference in need vs. want. A guy who likes to be spanked now and then but can sexually function without it has a fetish. The guy who cannot function sexually until he is spanked has a paraphilia. One guy is normal, the other mentally ill. Bundy's problem wasn't that he was masturbating with rotting body parts. I'm not saying that's normal, but that wasn't his dysfunction. The fact that he was serially killing people was his problem. The corpse thing is gross, but there were sites he revisited where he had no access to a body, and he did just fine. For him it was about power and ownership. His sexual relationship with those corpses was exactly the same as that of a dominant dog humping a submissive dog. It's how he expressed his dominance, not what he sexually preferred. Ergo, not necrophilia.

On a side note, bad enough to be the girlfriend right? Your boyfriend is a serial killer. Thats gonna take some therapy. But then it comes out that most of the other women he slept with during your relationship were dead at the time. Really dead. Flesh slipping off bones dead. I honestly cannot think of a way that if it were me, I would ever be able to have sex again. Thinking about every time he didn't shower first... ugh.

[Fisherman]

Bundy was a necrophiliac in the legal sense. Necrophilia is a crime in this country, it has a legal definition and Bundy certainly fits that definition. The law deals with the act itself. Psychiatrists deal with the whys and hows. It's why the definition differs. And paraphilias are treatable. But if you're going to fix it, you have to know whats going on. Treating someone like Bundy for Necrophilia won't work. It doesn't apply to him. Different motives, different behaviors, different focuses.

In the purely technical sense, Bundy had no sexual disorder. Which seems ridiculous given what he did to those bodies. But there is a difference between a paraphilia and a fetish, and the difference in need vs. want. A guy who likes to be spanked now and then but can sexually function without it has a fetish. The guy who cannot function sexually until he is spanked has a paraphilia. One guy is normal, the other mentally ill. Bundy's problem wasn't that he was masturbating with rotting body parts. I'm not saying that's normal, but that wasn't his dysfunction. The fact that he was serially killing people was his problem. The corpse thing is gross, but there were sites he revisited where he had no access to a body, and he did just fine. For him it was about power and ownership. His sexual relationship with those corpses was exactly the same as that of a dominant dog humping a submissive dog. It's how he expressed his dominance, not what he sexually preferred. Ergo, not necrophilia.

On a side note, bad enough to be the girlfriend right? Your boyfriend is a serial killer. Thats gonna take some therapy. But then it comes out that most of the other women he slept with during your relationship were dead at the time. Really dead. Flesh slipping off bones dead. I honestly cannot think of a way that if it were me, I would ever be able to have sex again. Thinking about every time he didn't shower first... ugh.

Ugh indeed, Errata...!

So a legal necrophiliac, but not one deep down, eh. Most interesting - thanks again for expanding on this!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

No its not. Its useless. You can't put people's mental state in a box. Psychiatry should be classed as a mental disorder.

Been saying this for years. It belongs in pre-science age of magic.

[Errata]

Ugh indeed, Errata...!

So a legal necrophiliac, but not one deep down, eh. Most interesting - thanks again for expanding on this!

The best,
Fisherman

Well, it's like not everyone who has gotten busted stealing a bunch of times is a kleptomaniac. They could just be poor, or a criminal, or a sociopath, or my grandmother (she didn't know she was doing it. I don't know how she didn't know, but she didn't know). Which is something we all understand, but we are helped out enormously by the fact that theft is not called kleptomania. Two different terms exist for two different problems with a similar theme. Necrophilia doesn't have that. The crime, or the act is called the same thing as the disorder. So we end up saying really dumb things like "Well Bundy was a necrophiliac, but he wasn't." Which given what we are talking about you wouldn't think there could be any grey area involved. And there isn't, but it sounds like there is because we only have the one word.

Although it does have a different name in Nevada, and I only found this out cause some guy I worked with had one of those fun-fact-a-day calendars. I can't remember it exactly, but it's one of those stupid politically correct terms that makes it sound 10 times worse because thats not an act you can pretty up. I think it's something like sexual interference on a non living person or something equally ridiculous.

I'd be the first to admit that psychology is pretty imperfect. It so soft a science that it oozes. Essentially it's playing fantasy football with people's brains. Most of the time all you have is common sense and statistics. If this person is depressed, and prozac helps depression in 70% of depressed people, you try prozac. You know that Eli Manning completes 65% of attempted passes, you put him in your fantasy football line up. You're going to be wrong some times. The key is to not be unrecoverably wrong.

And a lot of this has to do with a total lack of funding for brain science. We were operating on the heart in the late 30s I think? Within 15 years we knew everything there was to know about the heart. We've been operating on the brain since the Stone Age, and we still don't fully understand how memory works. Much less have the technology to be able to watch a brain work close up. We know for a fact why leukemia victims all present with similar symptoms. We know what is going on in the body. We have no idea why Bipolar people are Bipolar, we don't know what causes it, we don't know why the symptoms are what they are, we don't know why most people present with certain symptoms, and we don't know why some people don't present that way at all. I can see on a PET scan where my brain gets snarled, but no one can tell me why, or even how it happens. And Bipolar Disorder is well documented, and the research for it thanks to Mary Tyler Moore is relatively well funded. Imagine if you have a really socially unacceptable mental illness, like a paraphilia. You'll never get any answers, even if you are successfully treated. It's kind of embarrassing how little we know.

[Hunter]

What do psychoanalysts classify a man who has sex with a woman who acts like she's dead every now and then?
And maybe smells a little?

Nobody I know, of course.

[Errata]

What do psychoanalysts classify a man who has sex with a woman who acts like she's dead every now and then?
And maybe smells a little?

Nobody I know, of course.

If it's the only way he can sexually function, a necrophiliac. Or he could just be married.

Also psychoanalysts don't classify anything, and a lot of psychoanalysis is now known to be crap, although all women knew that when we heard about penis envy being a thing. But Freud didn't listen because he didn't like women. Except his daughter, and yes, how terribly Freudian. Sort of hard to think that the father of modern Psychology didn't see his relationship with his daughter as a problem.

Oh and one more factoid about Necrophilia. Necrophiliac men who have sex with corpses (women do as well, but the process is clearly different) often use some artificial means of heating relevant anatomy to at least room temperature. Necrophiliacs who make do with living women have them lie in very cold baths in order to drop their body temperature. So if corpses are too cold, and living women are too hot, what on earth is "just right"?

Really. Worst research paper ever. And ever fetish has it's own slang, and the slang for necrophilia is just extra not okay. Not that it's not funny, but you feel terrible about laughing at it.

[Fisherman]

I´m not sure that I grasp all of this correctly, but I believe that Errata is saying that as longs as a person likes to have sex with a corpse and goes through with it, it does not put that person on the same level as somebody who must have a corpse at hand to be able to function sexually. Person number one would be like Bundy, who functioned sexually with living people too, but who enjoyed the odd sexual encounter with putrifying women all the same...

On a basic level, though, I think most people would recognize both categories of people as seriously ill persons, and the "illness" that springs to most minds in both cases would be necrophilia. I can accept that this is wrong, but I would also have a very easy time understanding those who make the mistake - myself included.

The best,
Fisherman