More Insights From “The Sexual Criminal”
So, I’m continuing to read the 1949 criminology textbook “The Sexual Criminal” as my bedtime reading. (And if I seem a little strange, well, that’s because I am.) It’s extremely fascinating/disturbing… but also very enlightening as to the kind of sexist and homophobic rationale that passed as scholarly thinking back in those days.
For example:
Last night’s chapter was entitled “Sadistic Bestiality”. I was bracing myself for the worst… but it wasn’t particularly graphic, thank goodness. There were only two cases discussed and I found the difference between them quite enlightening.
The first case was a man who liked to screw chickens while wringing their necks. (Which brought back memories of the comic book Jonah Hex.) He also tortured and killed other animals while having sex with them. Truly a despicable human being whom I would love to impale with a huge screw myself.
The second case was a woman who let her dog screw her. That’s it. She didn’t beat the dog, she didn’t stab it to death, she didn’t torture it. She just passively allowed it to do what it wanted to do to her. (And she was embarrassed and humiliated that she did this.)
So I gather from this chapter that a woman simply has to engage in an act and it automatically becomes “sadistic”? Whereas a man really has to work to earn that title? Kind of like how a woman who enjoys being orally pleasured is automatically branded a “masochist”. Whereas a man has to enjoy having needles stuck in his penis to earn the same title?
It’s a very strange world that this J. Paul De River inhabited.
Maybe it stems from the idea that women are supposedly inherently more pure and good than men, thus, the idea of them doing anything odd is grouped as sadistic? Women aren’t ‘supposed’ to like any of this, so its all sexually deviant, where men OBVIOUSLY love it all, so they really have to work to be weird?
My question is would a dog just naturally have intercourse with a human? Obviously this woman didn’t just “allow” the dog to have his way with her. She had to get undressed, had to get into position, and stay still for it. Not exactly passive by my definition of the word. Again, my question is, would a dog just get the notion to take leg-humping to a new level, or is that something you’d have to help him along with?
My guess is he needed a little encouragement, at the least, since humans presumably don’t give off dog pheromones and whatnot.
Another thought that has struck me to possibly explain why the dog lady should be in the same chapter as the chicken guy:
Even if the dog initiated the encounter, she is the human and should know better. It’s a bit like if a mentally retarded person, adult or otherwise, makes an advance on a mentally normal person. The retarded person doesn’t know or understand all the ramifications of what they’re getting into, but the normal person does, and if the normal person doesn’t put the brakes on but continues with the sex, then the normal person is taking advantage of the retarded one. Even if he or she doesn’t see it that way.
Well, I agree that it’s perverted and it’s abnormal… but is it sadistic? I don’t think so…
this pertains to the necrofile, i am all for most of sexual interests, though not for my self, as long as they are consenting adults and don’t hurt anybody. however defiling a dead body seems to me to be the ultimate sexual depravity. one my sister was terrified of, hence she was imediately cremated on death.after doing research on embalming and funeral prep., i have decided not to be embalmed. the less touching the better and of course i asked about the cotton butt plug that some funeral homes use. i was assurred that here in goshen, at my funeral home they do not utilize that.drinking the urine?? i can only hope they kept him out of the morgue at the nut house. can u imagine the fun of tghe shrink that got to play with him?? is there any case history after confinment??
I don’t put too much stock in the sadism-masochism angle, since we’ve already seen this book is a bit shaky on what constitutes those things.
I imagine the two cases were used to illustrate the full spectrum of that particular perversion, especially if there wasn’t a chapter for just plain no-frills bestiality.
On a related note, there was a case a couple years ago where a man in Washington State allowed a stallion to have his way with him, and he died of peritonitis afterward. He’d allowed this to happen before but this time he delayed going for medical treatment because he didn’t want to risk losing his security clearance at the Boeing plant where he worked if the word got around (which it would; talk about the elephant in the living room!) of what he liked to do.
Anyway, his death led the state of Washington to pass anti-bestiality laws. All this makes me wonder, (nitpick) as to what exactly you’d call him. A zoophile, yes. Certainly not a sadist, because presumably the horse was never in any danger or pain, and even if it was, it was probably half a ton at least and could kill with one kick. A masochist? Maybe, since he’d been hurt doing the same thing before and it had to have been painful and debilitating, and yet he went right back and did it again.
My vote is there ought to be a category for Abysmally Stupid.