The reason I am including their study here is because of its relative 'popularity' as an oft-quoted authoritative contemporary reference in the study of necrophilia.  Those of you who have done research in necrophilia in the past or are currently involved in doing a report for a school requirement have no doubt seen their names pop up as reference sources from psychologists and psychiatrists alike who have published their own extended theories based on these statistics.

I managed to acquire the original published volume of "The Bulletin", Volume 17 Number 2, 1989, and I have scanned in the entire report, including their own sources.  Up until now it has been nearly impossible to find this much-quoted study in its entirety.  Usually you find a statistics table or segment of the report in another person's paper... but I've never seen the complete work until now.

Before I begin we really need to center in on the proper use of terminology.. even within the psyche community.  Necrophilia, in its basic interpretation, means ‘love of the dead’ which I presume the original term was used to define a psychic condition as it applied to those who have sex with the dead.  In those days it was felt (as many do this day and age) that even a single act of sex with the dead was a psychotic condition which needed treatment.  Now, when we talk about psychological terminology we are generally using terms that describe a basic condition of a ‘troubled’ mind (‘troubled’ being relative to what a current society regards as ‘normal’), which might simply be another way of classifying someone who is obsessive to the point that they cannot experience a quality of life.  But in today’s usage of the term, necrophilia, the meaning has gone from being simply a condition but rather describing an event as well.  Yet, there is a word, necrochlesis, that allegedly has the specific meaning for the act of sex with a dead person.

So, technically speaking, my site would be more accurately called, Rob’s Necrochlesis Fantasy, since I really want no fantasy of being a true necrophiliac in the obsessive sense (I do not obsess over thoughts of sex with the dead to a point where it affects my quality of living) but rather to include in my somewhat ‘normal’ sex life an occasional dead person, or in the least, a living person playing dead.   If you’ve read the various stories on my site of people who have engaged in sex with the dead at least once in their lives there is not a one that could be classified as a true necrophiliac in the psychological sense.  All are simply a collection of acts of… necrochlesis, if that’s the proper word to use.
(Author Note: Over the last couple years I've been contacted by various people about the actual word "necrochelsis", or my defined use of the word, as being in doubt.  Since the word itself doesn't appear to be in anyone's dictionary I would appreciate hearing from someone knowledgable enough to define this term properly and/or provide another term.)

Even if you were to refer to the psyche community’s own bible, DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the definition of a ‘paraphilia’, of which necrophilia is one of many, reads, “sexual impulse disorders characterized by intensely arousing, recurrent sexual fantasies, urges and behaviors considered deviant with respect to cultural norms and that produce clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of psychosocial functioning."   This definition by no means suggests that a given ‘act’ constitutes a problem condition but rather that the condition exists if the subject suffers significant social impairment or other psychosocial functioning.

But for some reason the term, necrophilia, has come to mean the condition and/or an event.  State laws are even sometimes written using ‘necrophilia’ as synonymous with ‘sex with the dead under any condition’ (I wonder if it would be possible to offer as a defense if you were caught performing such an act that indeed you were not under the influence of ‘necrophilia’ at the time but simply performing an act of ‘necrochlesis’ which is not defined under the law?).

Well, the reason I bring all this up is that the R&R research is also fraught with this terminology usage issue and it tends to cloud certain meanings as they try and interpret their findings.  For example, R&R classified their sample research group into two broad groups (page 154)… genuine necrophilia and pseudonecrophilia.  Well, the ‘genuine’ labeled group makes some sense… the examples cited tend to support necrophilia in the traditional sense.  But what’s this ‘pseudonecrophilia’?   The 37 year old guy shot his girlfriend allegedly by accident, then in the process of trying to dump her body he had anal sex with her, which up until that point he never had any interest in necrophilia (maybe R&R never heard of the term, necrochlesis; I never did until just recently  myself and I am suspect as to its origin anyway.. but it’s a needed label).  So I am suggesting that this classification need not even be in this research as it has nothing to do with the topic of necrophilia as a condition… which presumably this entire report is trying to evaluate.  I think you get my drift.

Not too long ago I discovered this little tidbit at www.world-sex-records.com.
Necrophilia was a word coined in 1860 by Dr. Guislain to define a category of "insane destroyers." In 1901 Epaulard suggested that anyone who loved corpses, platonically or not, should be called a "necrophile." The word necrophagy was invented in 1875 by W. A. F. Browne who reckoned it an instance of cannibalism without any erotic connotations. Epaulard was sure however that it had erotic significance. The necrophage is taken as different from the cannibal inasmuch as the latter chooses the man he is going to eat while the victim is still alive. Necrosadism was a term invented by Epaulard in 1901 to designate those who mutilated corpses. The sadism in a case of this sort is only apparent as the victim can experience no pain. The corpse fulfills the purpose of a fetish. (O. Volta, "The Vampire"). 
I have no idea how accurate this is nor could I find anything on who “Epaulard” is, although R&R use him as a reference (page 162, #23).  The other fellow, “Dr. Guislain”, does seem to have some psychiatric history in Belgium. 

My Overview
Okay, let’s start at the beginning.  In general I think the study was a fine study for what it was intended to study... which was simply a statistical review of a number of past published and non-published case studies for trends, occurrences, and personal demographics as it relates to necrophilia.  Of course the idea was to shed some light on necrophilia itself and provide some measure of statistical data to help in supporting future treatment to those obsessed with it.  While this study is remarkably taken as one with definitive results by many professionals, students, and armchair researchers when R&R themselves point out the study’s limitations fairly well is rather amazing in itself.  I think much of the willingness to accept this study is because there is so little available on necrophilia and it’s much easier to acknowledge contemporary research than working your own given the social taboo of the subject matter. 

The Introduction
A bland yet concise and very broad description of necrophilia as an act, or event, performed through the ages for various reasons.  R&R’s goal, “..to gain a more thorough understanding of necrophilia by examining the largest possible sample.”  From that statement then I presume we are exploring necrophilia as a condition?  As I’ve mentioned earlier, adequate application of the term would lessen the confusion and certainly provide more focus to the problem.  Events occur but a condition needs attention. 

Methods
I found this section (page 154) to be the crux of this entire study; the sampling by which all this data is based and presumably new treatments studied .  R&R did a good job, in my opinion, listing the shortcomings of the sampling.  In one way one wonders why even do the study when the variables were so… variable.  But in light of pioneering and breaking frontiers in tackling new psychiatric realms someone had to start somewhere and this was a good study for that.  The key drawback, and it’s a major one in my opinion, is what R&R indicates and also inserts a caveat of over-interpretation.
“The data were aggregated from several decades, many countries, and various languages.  There were great variations in the reporting methods.  Further, the problems of a low base rate and gaps in the data enhance the risk of over-interpretation.”  Again, one wonders given that significant drawback why even do the study.  But I don’t think R&R actually thought their research would be as widely accepted as it seems to be.

What’s important to understand that the research does shed light on is that obsessive necrophilia can originate, not only from traditional self-esteem-robbing child abuse elements like sexual or emotional abuse, but also from socio-economic conditions, existing cultural and religious mores, and being raised in such environments.  For example, if you browse through the reference pages (161-163) you will note that many of the case studies are from other countries with obvious different cultures at a wide variety of historical dates, each reflecting a social cycle of the times.  Now, add to those variables the interpretation of the various case study researchers/psyche professionals of the time… reflecting times or cultures of lesser understanding and less scientific objectivity… you can see the limitations of the sample. 

Classification
As I’ve indicated above, of the two major groups R&R used, genuine and pseudo-necrophilia, it was the latter that seemed to muddy the study regarding the terminology.  If anything that group should be called “genuine necrochlesis” which might be a valid group in the statistical research of this specific sampling but has no importance to the study results in regards to true necrophilia.

The classification of ‘genuine necrophiles’ into the three sub-categories seems applicable enough although the example case provided under “necrophilic fantasy” (page 155) is totally not appropriate as a true necrophilic fantasy.  R&R themselves state in the example that, “Although he denied any actual sexual contact with the corpses, he had become sexually excited when he cut them up.”  Okay, so where’s the necrophilia?  If anything it’s necrosadism or a form of necro-cannibalism.  I would think in general those with obsessive necrophilic fantasies would be those who have a more direct fantasy of sex with a corpse.

In any event, these three necrophile classifications are probably the most often quoted aspect of this research:  Necrophilic Homicide, Regular Necrophilia, and Necrophilic Fantasy.  But it's also important to note that these are the categories that R&R used based on assimilating their case data as trends were revealed.  These categories are NOT indicated by these gentlemen as being defining categories for all of contempory necrophilia cases in general.   Although, I would think that these classifications are about as accurate as any thus far in attempting to classify a necrophilic obession.  So then why am I making an issue?  Well, R&R formed no theories or conclusions about necrophilia in general much less using any contemporary case studies to presume that these categories might have any relevence at all outside of this singular study (using aged and diversely interprative cases).  If you read it again you will see that they state in the first sentence that, "We classified the genuine necrophiles into three groups, based on the nature of their acts with corpses."  My issue is that I continually read other authors quoting these R&R groupings with something like, "According to Rosman & Resnick necrophiles are classified into three categories." and this is incorrect quoting.  R&R used these classifications for this research data only.

Characteristics of the Sample
If anything I think the age and gender of the subjects, the age and gender of the corpses, and sorting into the three categories indicated above is worth notable attention in suggesting a trend.  Occupational access to corpses is an interesting measurement but by itself it doesn’t indicate if with the sample cases access itself was the cause of the necrophilia condition or the goal of a person already with the condition.

Psychopathology
Again, I think it’s to R&R’s credit in indicating that while they made every attempt to clinically catagorize the cases according to DSM-III-R that there is a “notorious unreliability of diagnostic labels from country to country and decade to decade”.  This should be very compelling to researchers bent on using this study as gospel research.  This continues to be an overriding variable in the sampling used.

Acquisition of Corpses
While this sample doesn’t reflect this I feel there are really two real life categories here.  The first being those with occupational access as the study states, but also a ‘passive access’ as well.  As you can read from my site there are many stories of someone outside the realm of normal access to dead bodies engaging in sex with a corpse.  Boyfriends/girlfriends of morticians, breaking into a funeral home, rescue workers, natural death in the home or hospital, etc., all form a sizable real life category.

Specific Act and Fantasies
I am not sure the measurement of specific acts or fantasies means a whole lot in the end result.  Besides, I think we are talking apples and oranges here anyway.  The chart (page 159) illustrates the specific attention area on the dead body given to the corpse by the subject which is a rather ‘normal’ list of things anyone might to during normal sex.  But mutilation and necrophagia are elements that are unique all to themselves.  In addition, you could also add to that ‘body positioning’, ‘body tossing’ (simply to get aroused seeing it flop around), etc.  The fixation list could be quite endless but nonetheless not part of that found in typical sexual activity.

Discussion
It certainly sounds like R&R were on the right track in surmising their sampling reflected very little reason to suggest that IQ has a role in being a necrophile although I have to think that in decades past, before the days of IQ measurement, a psychotic was generally assumed to be an idiot.  So I would imagine much of the sampling was biased in this measurement.  Regarding the use of alcohol or other mind-altering substances, it would appear that in those cases where it was an issue it simply acted as a catalyst to breaking down objective thinking and inhibitions.

One consistent element in their findings is that indeed necrophiles, like any other paraphilia, generally have more than one motive for their actions.  We as humans engage in sex but we all prefer it in different ways.  Paraphilias are no different.

Pschodynamic Themes
Oh, boy.. this section I have some real issues with regarding what R&R ‘postulates’ as leading to necrophilia.  It’s one thing to present statistical findings based on a given sampling and admit that the sampling has extraordinary variables, but to begin to develop hypotheses or theories or postulates from that data seems a bit outlandish to say the least.  Let’s take this one at a time.
R&R states,
“1.  The necrophile develops poor self-esteem, perhaps due in part to significant loss; “
Here we go with the terminology again.  First off, a necrophile is a person with a condition and as such the condition is the result of some outside influence.  If anything, the necrophile already has poor self-esteem… he’s not developing it.  What might have been said would be, “Necrophiles generally suffer from poor self-esteem”.  Also, what does “due to significant loss” mean?  Loss of what?  This isn’t explained.  I would like to think they mean their poor self-esteem is reflective of a loss of certain elements supporting their social acceptance, an emotional loss due to past emotional or physical trauma, or a genetic abnormality in the brain… all manifesting into some level of depression.

Continuing on… 
Both sub-elements, (a) and (b), are simply part of a greater list of reasons that go beyond just simple ‘fear’ of women.  In fact, in spite of the fact that the numbers would indicate men are more predisposed to be necrophiles than women do we surmise by this logic that women necrophiles only have a sexual ‘fear’ of men as well?  Common sense would suggest otherwise.  We do know that the motivations for women to have sex in general is vastly different that the motivations for men.  There’s no reason to suspect that all necrophiles, regardless of gender, operate from the same necrophilia handbook.

Treatment
I think this is a good summation.  R&R’s 6 point diagnostic/treatment steps seems applicable.  As with anything to do with the psychic mind each and every case is different to the individual.  To understand why a person has been driven to a given paraphilia is more important than the paraphilia itself when developing treatment.  The goal is not to stop the obsessive individual from wanting to have sex with a corpse but rather explore the reasons way they got there and treat from there.

My Epilog
As R&R indicates, obsessive necrophilia (redundent, I know, but I am trying to deal with the label thing for clarity) is a very rare and poorly understood paraphilia (this does not mean to imply that the sexual fantasies or real life occurances of sex with the dead are rare by any means).  Much of it is, in fact, due to the few reported cases.  While it’s true in most states that it’s illegal to engage in sex with a corpse few are ever exposed when caught simply due to the public ramifications (such as bad public relations and potential lawsuits) falling on the facility who discovers such a perpetrator.  Also, sex with a corpse is a very private affair involving only one person, so being discovered in the act is very rare.  For the most part if people are discovered they are simply fired and the event quickly forgotten.   Also, trying to gather outside data on necrophilia, or occurrences of necrochlesis, as an interest is next to impossible (ie., surveys of morticians, morgue attendants, etc.).