necrophiles have bad skin and an incapacity to laugh

Sorry if this is a double post, had a bit of a problem writing the first draft of this.
I guess I should start by saying that I'm new on this forum. My orientation is necrophilia.
This has never been easy for me, but what is really upsetting is when I find articles like this floating around: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/necrophiles/4c.html This is page 8 of an article from trutv.com about necrophiles. I thought I would share it, just for the lulz.
I found it insulting, largly innacurate and over-hyped.

Now I'm not a revlon skin-model, but I think I have nice skin. I take good care of my skin. I also laugh, almost constantly. I do not feel I have an immature and narcissistic ego. I dont desire to live in a lifeless world. Actually I am very fond of life, reproduction and fertility. For example I love seeing the baby birds and baby animals being born in spring.

But y'all tell me what you guys think about it.

I had to stop reading that, HaxX. I shouldn't get annoyed by such ignorance, but that really is a prize example of somebody talking out of their arse.

I've seen some of those generalisations before, and they're every bit as ridiculous as saying that gay men wear pink, and prance around giggling, or all lesbians are short, stocky skinheads in dungarees, with faces like bulldogs.

Out of those traits, the only ones that could possibly apply to me are: "a tendency to wear light-absorbing dark colors and to dislike bright colors" and "a view that the past is more real than the present".

I don't like wearing lairy colours. I'm far from alone in that.

I admit, I'm a bit of a nostalgia and history buff, but in no way do I see the past as more real than the present.

The rest of those 'traits' are complete crap. They say nothing about you or myself, but a lot about the moron who wrote them.

Sorry, it wasnt my intent to be upsetting. I found it amusing, in a bitter way.

I also have an inclination towards dark clothes, and am pretty informed about the past. ( but how the concept of time, and may other things mentioned, would relate to ones sexuality is never explained.)

It to me shows a classic example of how someone can write ill-informed foof about a small minority and get away with it, whilst being called an expert on the subject. Negative generalisations breed ignorace and automatic bad treatment of people discovered, or confessed to be, a certain way. I recognise this is a common burden carried by many people with a wide range of philias, which is why I thought it may be of interest to others here.

Evaluations of pathology must only be made on an idividual basis, painting everyone with a broad brush doesnt help anything move forward.

The worst generalisation is that we're dangerous, and inclined to kill.

Then there's the stupid assumption that necrophiliacs choose dead people because they desire an unresisting partner that they can dominate.

Anyone with such a motivation is not a necrophiliac.

From page 6...

A true necrophile is only interested in the corpse, not the living person. If he kills, it's only to get a corpse. He's often incapable of even making a sexual approach to the living.

If someone targets a corpse because they cannot make sexual approaches to the living, then that does not make them a necrophiliac. That makes them a desperate individual seeking a convenient alternative.

As for a 'true necrophile' only being interested in the corpse and not the person, I'd like to point out that I attend spiritualist church, and would never go near a grave that didn't feel welcoming. It's not the easiest thing to explain, but it's always been about the person for me. If it wasn't, I'd invest in a plastic skeleton or a blow-up doll.

Surely the list featured in that sorry excuse for an article applies to goths, not necrophiles?

As always with this kind of thing, the principles of inclusion and exclusion are more than transparent. The equivalent in literature would be prose so purple and ornate that the narcissistic, self-promotion element of creative writing is foregrounded and eclipses any artistic merit. When the desire to be original and be held in esteem within a scientific field is more evident than any genuine scientific merit, the only response warranted is to print off the material in question, vomit on it, then mail it to the author.

Besides, the article starts out purporting to describe a distinction posited between sexual and non-sexual necrophilia, but then instead treats the subject of 'necrophilous character'. It's all over the place, the desultory nature of it being a technique of deflection, flitting between speculative assertions with sufficient haste as to avoid getting mired in finer detail (i.e. the need to expound and underpin points).

GinaSmith wrote:Surely the list featured in that sorry excuse for an article applies to goths, not necrophiles?

Ha! I'm surprised they didn't devote a page explaining how we all listen to Death Metal, and religiously watch Tim Burton movies.

If i have nothing better to do some time I may write them an email. Not that it will change anything, but might make me feel like I did some little worthwhile thing defending myself.

I like movies by the Cohen brothers, Oliver stone, and Tarantino. Tim Burtons directing has never been my style

I quite enjoyed The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride. Sweeney Todd was alright, and who doesn't love Beetlejuice?

I wouldn't bother with an email to someone like that, HaxX. You're more likely to get the police at your door than to invoke any reason in their shallow mind.

Graveyard wrote:I quite enjoyed The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride. Sweeney Todd was alright, and who doesn't love Beetlejuice?

I wouldn't bother with an email to someone like that, HaxX. You're more likely to get the police at your door than to invoke any reason in their shallow mind.

Oh but thats half the fun of high ANON proxies, internet tunneling, vPNs and surfing public wifi signals and using disposable email addresses. I doubt they would waste their time, add to that the website is based out of a different country than where I reside.

Tim Burton does have a unique texture to his landscapes and carachter design thats for sure. I loved edward scissorhands when i was little. His movies are very lovable I will agree. my least favourite was planet of the apes.

Are you people familiar with Katherine Ramsland? (Just Curious)

She happens to be infamous for this sort of thing, especially half assed information, exaggeration, outright lies, purports to have the real scoop on everything, etc

Piercing the Darkness is an infamous example of her frivolous work.

I wouldn't take anything she says too seriously as she is a "true crime" joke of an author and quite off kilter. This sort of generalization combined with not know wtf she's talking about half the time is her method of operation. Her works always seem like she reads other peoples works, picks bits and pieces out half assed and then adds ton of fantasy or speculation.