|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 528
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 3:11 pm: |       |
Hi AP
Some of us here on the boards place credence in the idea that the behavior of sexual serial killers since 1888 can be related to JTR. I know you believe Jack was an animal of a different sort. (no pun intended) As you correctly imply this goes to the heart of the underlying cause of the differences of opinion. But I would posit that the underlying motivation for Jack's behavior is fundamentally the same as blitz style serial killers since 1888.
No two serial killers are exactly the same in terms of their m.o., backgrounds or motivations. But there do seem to be underlying similarities which pop-up over and over again. You feel that women during JTR's era did not need to be dominated because Victorian society already had them subjugated to such a marked extent. I don't dispute that women were treated as little more than objects to be used. But, regardless of the status of women in Victorian society, I believe the important point is not how society treated women but rather how a serial killer would have viewed them. If a serial killer was raised in such an environment in Victorian London to both hate and fear women, to associate sexual gratification with violence and to feel inadequate sexually-then I believe you have the basic ingredients for a sexual killer during any era.
If the important point is how the killer viewed his victims and not how society treated them, then it is immaterial to the question at hand as to the extent of the degradation of women by society. It need only be necessary to the killers sexual fantasies and hence motivation to kill, for him to require the domination and control of his victims that Jack displayed. If the desire to murder and mutilate was not endemic to Victorian men than we are clearly dealing with an aberration in Jack. Serial killers were not any more endemic in 1888 than in 1988. Therefore I don't believe in the idea that he was a product of his times.
What I am saying is that the desire to control came from the killers own perceived inadequacies as these traits arose from his relatively unique personality structure.
I don't feel Jack can get away with pleading that he was a product of his times or that he was akin to a rat trapped in a sewer who simply reacted to his environment. Further, I don't go for the raving lunatic excuse for his behavior.
In a legal sense I believe Jack knew right from wrong and nevertheless chose to act to satisfy his inner demons and that therefore he would have been found sane in a court of law and been held responsible for his actions.
All The Best
Gary |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 869
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
Gary
I do take on board just about everything you say as I pilot my sinking ship to the inevitable reef, but I still do believe many of you are taking Jack out of the context of the time he lived in.
You see you are ascribing quite modern motives to his crimes whereas I when I look at the LVP would prefer to see the origins of his anger and frustration in the more realistic venues available to him then; the emerging emancipation of womanhood - a direct affront to any red-bloodied Victorian male - where as I have pointed out in previous post women doctors were actually cutting into male flesh for the first time in history; the social upheaval between various class systems leading to rioting and wholesale civil disobedience in the heart of the Empire; the extreme discordance and unhappiness between Catholic and Protestant in matters of government and order in the Kingdom; and the revolution of the industrial age that accompanied the LVP in its rapid development.
It might seem trite to say it, but I feel any of these elements might be more relevant to a study of Jack the Ripper than a foray into the modern world of serial killers. It was his time.
Anyways I’ll study your post again in the morning and dwell on it, but I did enjoy it, and I can’t fault your logic or reasoning, apart from saying that you are out of time by just over a hundred years.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 533
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Hi AP
If I have only missed my mark by one hundred years my aim is getting better.
And to meet the twenty-five word minimum I will bid you a fond farewell.
Best
Gary |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 302
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi AP and Gary.I dont see that the two positions have to be counterpoised really.The ripper could well have been deeply influenced by the prevailing values and attitudes of Victorian London.But that in itself shouldnt have made him different from a present day serial killer.
In what ways werethe values and attitudes of the Yorkshire ripper[or the earlier investigation by police into the Yorkshire ripper]so different from Jack the ripper or the Victorian police force?I would guess that they were more or less identical.Jack the Ripper appears to have thought
prostitutes were scum and dispensible and The Yorkshire ripper thought the same.The Victorian Police thought the women were "asking for it since thet were prostitutes,the earlier investigation by the police into the ripper didnt really get going and it wasnt until a middle class woman was murdered that the investigation took off in earnest.So what had changed? Please tell me.
Best Natalie. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 304
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Hi I. Sawyer, the above report is most instructive with regards to criminal assault/attempted murder and the way the law was adjusted.Thanks for that .
Best Natalie. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 155
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 7:29 pm: | |
Natalie, Michael, et al.,
Your confusion about the thread's title is understandable and to save anyone else disappointment it should be changed to "Hanged or Not Hanged." Hang, hanged are the preferred forms when referring to capital punishment.
Don, |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 8:38 am: | |
AP--The curious sub-plot here reminds me of our old friend Krafft-Ebing, who liked to measure the ear-lobes and jaw-lines of his subjects, and couldn't help make a peep down their trousers as well. But in the old days Jack was (to use Sir Robert Anderson's phrase) 'a virile type.' Ebing was particularly impressed when his madman was 'greatly developed', as in the case of the Italian vampire. This 'creten' liked to choke chickens and (in a most Freudian way) blame it on a mischevious weasel. He then took to choking women, and not sure what else to call it, Krafft-Ebing called it sex. Nowadays, the killer is no longer virile. He's frustrated, meager, impotent, or, in the case of Cornwell's suspect, mangled and malformed. The pendulum swings, but the pivot is the same. More to do with the theorist or the society, methinks, than 'the thing itself.' His true motive? Likely to be obscure, private, idiosyncratic. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 538
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Hi Natalie
I believe you are right about the notion that we can ascribe the same type of motivation to JTR and the Yorkshire Ripper. AP will doubtless disagree for reasons of her own.
All The Best
Gary |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 309
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Hi Gary yes I noticed earlier in the thread that you and I saw the two rippers in much the same way.I am sure this was someone who got his sexual kicks from the murder and mutilation and the trophies were for later "recreation".
I have found your reasoning about the ripper and knowledge about serial killers really helpful previously actually-as in your post above.
All the Best Natalie. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
RJ
Thank you for a most instructive post, like you I believe Jack’s true motive to be something quite intangible to us lot of morsels (sp); probably drifting somewhere in the area of the madcap ideas that the Catholics were poisoning the water supplies or infecting the protestants with syphilis, and this without having a particular suspect in mind, merely illustrations of the type of loony-toon thinking that can be found in the LVP. I still don’t dismiss some sort of biblical jihad against the great whore.
Yes, you are dead right, how we peer into this mystery very often depends on who and what we are, or even from what age we might come, and this in itself is a vastly corrupting influence on our judgement. Robert recently pointed out on another thread that observers from different nations observed entirely different things - when in reality they were all seeing the same things - as they studied a group of primates. They all in fact brought their own unique characteristics, prejudices and opinions into the observations and this obviously coloured and corrupted the events they were attempting to faithfully report. This is a grave danger in this case, and I for one always try to keep a stringent historical perspective when making observations or judgements, but our inner truth will out I suppose and will sometimes discolour the facts.
I suppose it is for the very reasons that you mention that I have left off studying the behaviour of modern serial killers and now spend my time in basic animal behaviour, for there everything is formed without our opinion, theory or prejudice, and basic truths can be teased out.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 539
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
Hi Natalie
Thanks for the kind words.
I think if JTR had been caught, and it probably would have to have been a situation where he was caught red handed, he would have been found to have been an ordinary individual. Someone who fit quietly into his environment and someone whose associates would never have suspected. Perhaps a person whose associates would be forced to admit kept to himself and no-one really knew too well.
Ah well, thats the beauty of it, at this point we can all have our own opinions and no-one can really be proven right or wrong.
All The Best
Gary
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 879
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Well folks, you guessed right, I have great difficulty in accepting the Yorkshire Ripper and Jack the Ripper as ‘brothers-in-arms’ as it were, least of all because I still don’t know who Jack was.
Peter was a family man through and through, until his arrest he kept close contact with all his family; Peter had his own home, and little wife ready with his slippers and kippers for tea when he got home; Peter had well-paid and skilled employment that was demanding on his time and energy; Peter had friends with whom he commonly socialised in pubs and clubs; Peter had a library card; Peter had a union card; Peter had his HGV; Peter had his membership of the working men’s club, etc. and etc.
But obviously Peter had a few secrets as well, his private hobby of slaughtering whores being the most well kept of those secrets, but when I look at the man and his life I see that 90% of his soul is consumed by family, friends and his highly active employment and social life, and that only 10% of his soul remains for his well-kept secrets.
To us, as outsiders looking in, that 10% may appear to be vital, but to Peter it was just another mundane part of his very busy schedule, and probably meant no more to him than whether the egg he had with full English at the truck stop everyday was soft or hard. It was an egg and that was what he had paid for.
I do not see Jack with any of these social attributes at all, yes, he may have had family but I believe they would have been as barmy as him, but Jack with a pint and a library card? Jack with a wife and home, little net curtains and the Ford Capri in the driveway? Jack with a job requiring patience and skill?
Nah, sorry, folks, that aint Jack.
I’ll give you one point, Sutcliffe never had sex with his victims - although he claimed he did - and neither did Jack.
That is a good point.
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 312
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Hi AP,well the point about the Yorkshire Ripper is that he was caught[eventually].
But maybe its a new trend to have a devoted wife our most recent Harold Shipman was a Doctor with a large practice and a big house too.Indeed when he wasnt murdering his patients he seems to have been carrying out his duties as a doctor very well.
But surely the reason we can all speculate about Jack the Ripper is because we can make him up to our own specifications.Thats why this site is so good .It challenges our thinking and our ideas about him.
He could well have been like the Yorkshire Ripper
with a wife,house,horse and carriage.
And like the Yorkshire Ripper JtR could have progressed to killing any woman who was in his range.I believe he had the same despicable attitudes that fired his imagination up to the extent that women were just slime [except for his wife and possibly his mother]to be used anyway he fancied.But nobody could ever say the Yorkshire Ripper was about anything other than sexual domination if they had read about his revolting "killing kit!".
Natalie |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 541
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Hi AP
I don't know who Jack was either. Nevertheless, I believe we can come to some understanding of him through his behavior.
I wholeheartedly agree that Sutcliffe put up a normal front and fooled people as to his true nature. Why couldn't JTR have had the same ability to hide his real nature from those who thought they knew him.
You paint The Yorkshire lad as an everyday family man and a fully functional member of society. I recall that his best friend from childhood admitted that he did not really know him that well. No-one really knew him as he was a loner and there is strong evidence he was anti-scoial.
As far as his normal family life is concerned, his upbringing was probably influenced by the continual state of disharmony created by his father's insistence that his mother was unfaithful and a whore. This seems to have been somewhat of an obsession with his father and destroyed all family harmony. Something triggered his anger toward women and this sounds like a perfect environment to sow the seeds of hatred toward half the worlds population.
As far as his marriage is concerned, he married a woman he did not know well and who was a diagnosed schizophrenic. She was institutionalized a number of times and she was somewhat oblivious to many things going on around her. She was the perfect mate for a serial killer. Then again there is no reason a
serial killer can't be married to a woman prone to denial of what she sees going on around her.
I will have to go back to my books on the lad, but I recall he was underemployed throughout most of his life. For a time he was employed as a grave-digger and mortuary attendant. He was prone to removing items of jewelry from the corpses which he is said to have taken an unnatural interest in. His rather odd comments and treatment of the corpses were taken as jokes by his co-workers. However, he was very likely a budding necrophile. When he wanted to avoid being held responsible for his crimes, he claimed that the corpses had spoken to him.
At this time in his life his favorite outing was to go to the wax museum which had a graphic display of corpses suffering from the advanced ravages of venereal disease. He was said to linger over these displays for hours at a time.
Are you starting to detect that something is wrong with the lad? I know I would begin to wonder if I was one of the many people you erroneously claim knew him so well or closely befriended him.
As far as his status as a contributing member of society is concerned, he was a long haul trucker I'm sure the solitude of his profession fit in nicely with his private life as The Yorkshire Ripper.
We are therefore in agreement that a serial killer can put up a normal front. I strongly disagree, however that Sutcliffe was the social butterfly you imply. My guess would be that, similar to Sutcliffe, JTR had a number of people whom he held at a distance, fooled and that is the main reason he remains undetected to this day.
All The Best
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 542
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
P.S. I recalled a quote you might enjoy from Peter Sutcliffe. 'I talked to her (his dead victim) saying I was sorry for what I had done. It was the first time i had apologised to someone I had killed' KILLING FOR SPORT; Brown (pg`28) |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 314
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Hi Gary,A very informative and interesting post.
I started to remember bits and pieces from what I had read about him.Ghastly stuff.
I dont know what you think about the strange marks on Catharine Eddowes" face [triangles and the like] also the crazed crime scene of Mary Kelly"s room.So far these have indicated to me that the ripper was a bit deranged in that the triangles are bizarre and the crime scene "over the top".It has puzzled me that a sane person could have done such a thing.
So I often have hesitated and thought Glenn"s theory[and others] of Mixed type may have been nearer the mark.
However since reading all the posts and discussing it a bit more I wonder if he wasnt actually climaxing or similar[stop/savour/start]
when he was mutilating Mary and sort of "decorating" when he drew the triangles ,rather than obeying a voice from on high or burning himself out.I"d be interested in your thinking on this. Natalie. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
‘Just cleaning up the streets, our kid.’
That’s his most famous quote.
On a young prostitute he had just battered over the head with a claw hammer and then claimed to have sex with:
‘She didn’t put much into it.’
One must be very careful when dealing with cases like this for much of what you read has been created by briefs attempting to devise some sort of defence for the indefensible, and all this graveyard garbage comes out then and goes on to form the history of the case. The trick is to read the original police statements before the case reaches court for therein is a germ of the truth. No mention of graveyards there, or any other such nonsense, you got me bang to rights is what he said then. The rest came later, courtesy of the briefs.
Allowance must also be allowed for the fact that the chap knew he would be spending the rest of his life in prison and wanted to ensure that fellow inmates recognised him as a sexually tough predator who was taking nasty whores out whilst enjoying them sexually - big kudos for that in the prison system, especially amongst the pimps and beasts - but the truth of the matter was that Peter had no peter and couldn’t even satisfy his - and I use your words here - obviously highly disturbed wifey.
Peter did not want other inmates thinking that he might be either or impotent or gay, but I’m afraid he was, and that is why he got sliced up on the Isle of Wight, not because he had slaughtered whores, but because he wouldn’t come across for Big Bert who reckoned Peter was just a repressed gay who just needed a little help to get out of his shell, and you know what? Big Bert was right.
Sutcliffe represents the probably perfect example of the typical serial killer who in total confusion regarding his own sexual identity - and thereby unable or unwilling to satisfy either or any sexual partner - strikes out at the most obvious and accessible portion of the population with which he can identify his own sexual confusion... The whores who have ribbed him about his little peter.
Peter was a socialite, loved having his photo taken, leaning on his truck, man of the world, knight of the road.
Queen of the road.
Hit the road Jack.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 543
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Hi Natalie
I just quickly read over the discussion of Sutcliffe contained at the Crime Library web site. It strikes me that the books on The Yorkshire Ripper do a better job of portraying his odd personality and anti-social behavior than the author at the Crime Library site.
I believe JTR was a mixed type of offender leaning towards the disorganized type. I guess that belongs on the medical/psychological thread. We have had some good arguments under the Schizophrenic Jack sub-category. I find profiling an interesting but inexact art more so than a science.
I will probably get in trouble for saying this but-IMHO Jack's treatment of the corpses of Kate and MJK indicate something about the workings of his inner mind. Once he had his victims subdued he was free to disfigure them out of a desire to act out his fantasies and manipulate the corpses because he felt unable to relate to, or exert his twisted desires around a living breathing woman. Somewhere along the way sex and violence became interwoven in his mind. I would imagine that he could not relate to a women as a normal man would be capable of doing. The specific disfigurement you mention defies my ability to comprehend what was going on in his mind.
All The Best
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 544
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 5:54 pm: | |
Hi AP
The 'graveyard garbage' and bizarre behavior around the corpses is independently verified by Sutcliffes' co-wokers at the cemetery. I can tell you on good authority that the police notes exempt any mention of any behavior which might land the defendant in a cozy institution for the criminally insane, rather than a prison.
Conversely, there is no doubt that some of these killers say things calculated to get them into nuthouses rather than prison. The trick is to find corroboration.
The next brandy is on me.
All The Best
Gary |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 881
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Hold that brandy.
The majority of people employed in the 'death' industry - be that graveyard workers, hospital staff, firemen or policemen - do silly things that later would be looked at with sinister purpose if they were involved in a murder case. However if they were not involved in a murder case it would be just seen as 'old hat'.
An old and dearly regarded policeman friend of mine was once severly reprimanded for making the comment to a journalist 'he's 'armless enough now' after picking up the arm of a criminal who had been hit by the 5.30 London to Bournemouth express whilst attempting to escape from the police. Another friend of mine used to commonly park his hearse at a cafe and show all his buddies the corpses within, and much horseplay went on with the contents.
Regardless of your good authority you must be aware that the trial of Sutcliffe was one of the biggest jokes ever acted out in an English court of law, and all involved, including the police, prosecution, defence and the CPS were all patently guilty of being involved in the farce of attempting to give Sutcliffe an insanity defence. Which your comments do endorse.
Thank god that the judge ruled the whole pack out of order and told them to begin again.
That was one good moment for British justice in a decade of dishonour. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 545
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 6:47 pm: | |
Hi AP
In a legal sense the test for insanity in my neck of the woods is whether or not the defendant knew right from wrong at the time they acted. Sutcliffe knew that what he was doing was wrong in the eyes of society and any indication of an attempt to hide the crime or negotiate a successful getaway show he knew that what he was doing was wrong. Therefore he should have been found guilty. This is true regardless of whether he may have been delusional at times or if he suffered from a disordered thought process.
If the police conspired with the DEFENSE in the Sutcliffe trial to let Sutcliffe off easy, it must be a first in the history of jurisprudence. That behavior would be antithetical to everything I have ever seen transpire in court.
All The Best
Gary |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 882
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 2:44 am: | |
Gary
'conspired' would not be my choice of word.
In the end I believe we look at another one of those situations where behind the scenes haggling goes on between all concerned with regard to the vested interests of all concerned.
The police and prosecution were heavily involved in this haggling and were prepared - at one point - to go along with an insanity plea from the defence. Their position only changed when the judge threw them all out of court.
There was much in this case that the police were uncomfortable with, not the least their botched and flawed investigation. They wanted it over as quickly as possible with as little publicity as they could manage... sort of blew up in their face though. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 757
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
Hi All,
AP,
‘…for women were already and totally dominated in the LVP…’
Can you not imagine then, how much worse it might have been in those days, for the individual male who nevertheless found himself hen-pecked, mother-smothered, or generally taken for a ride by a member, or all members, of the ‘weaker’ sex?
Today it is so much easier and more acceptable for a man to joke with his male friends, during a stolen hour or so in the pub after work, about the nagging the missus is bound to give him when he gets home. In the LVP the ‘joke’ might have been about how much of a damn fine hiding the little woman would get if his dinner wasn’t on the table. 
Love,
Caz
PS Wildly off-topic? Or spot on if we keep to the theme of individuals who attempt murder with the aim of feeling more important and therefore less impotent.
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 316
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
Hi Caz,not wildly "off topic" then.I do think that these murderers of women were obssessed with their feelings of inadequacy in all the directions you refer to-particularly domination
and sexually perverted ideas about women in general.The prostitutes were chosen for their availability and the Yorkshire Ripper clearly demonstrated that his prey were "women" in that he quickly moved onto any woman he took a fancy to when he thought he could get away with it with.
He took a big chance ofcourse in that the outcry that followed the murder of a young woman getting off a bus etc in fact led to an intensification of the search and his eventual capture.
It is my own view that this would eventually have happened with the Victorian ripper.He evaded capture possibly only because he confined himself to prostitutes and the semi vagrant and nothing much seems to have changed in this respect.If he were at it today you can bet that these would be the groups he would target---nothing to do with hating prostitutes[thats his "excuse" not his reason] and it still goes on though such murders have tended not to be serial in type especially.
The Camden Ripper seems to be the nearest to the two above I think.
Best Nats. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 884
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
Caz
As right as I probably think you are, the problem is that we are dealing with the ‘great unknown’ here, it is just not possible for us to relate adequately to the mindset of the young male in the LVP. Sure we have some pieces which we can move without our blindfolds, the ‘young Victorian bucks’ who were well-moneyed and probably enjoyed and exploited their privileged positions in society as far as women and prostitutes were concerned; the older Victorian gentleman with his addiction for volumes of spanking young ladies and dallying with common whores when nobody was watching, but in between there is a massive grouping about whom we know exactly nothing and can only peer baffled through the darkness of our blindfold.
It is one area concerning the crimes of Jack the Ripper where I’m afraid we cannot even claim that we are blinkered, for we are in fact blind.
I have spent years trying to tease information out of history concerning this very subject and have failed dismally, for all one finds is ’populist’ manure without a real cow pat in sight.
Unfortunately I am quite prepared to believe that the ’playground sexual myths’ of man have not moved on a jot since the LVP, and unlike you when I see a group of modern lads sit down to discuss the alarming topic of sexuality I am left with the abiding feeling that society is actually moving backwards in this regard, and this despite our supposed easier and more relaxed attitude to matters of sexuality. You see Caz, that supposed modern attitude to matters carnal is on the TV and in the Mags but it aint out there on the streets, there all is what it was.
Sad bastards humanity is.
Just to let you know that I’ve got uncle Charles sat here loading his service pistol if anyone dares to call his nephew a ‘sexual predator’.
You have been warned.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
