There is a question of why certain circumstances can be more horrific than others, even if the event remains essentially the same. As an example, murder of a single individual may have degrees of horror, its placement on the spectrum dependent upon the nature of the act. Stabbing is more horrific than gunshot, beheading more so than those. Pain and time from attack to clinical death must certainly play a part, the fear of a lengthy murder fueling the horror of the hypothetical. However, there must also be another source, for if we were to combine these actions, but place the more horrific acts postmortem, would it not still be considered more horrific than the original act that killed in the first place? As example, if a person were shot dead, then following dismembered, the whole of this series would be considered more horrific than merely the shooting itself. So it is a question of what about the act itself and not merely the experience that creates the horror. The answer is in the human construct of its own body and identity. Our perception is as if vacuum sealed around our regular experience. The way in which we see the world and, further, the way in which we devise that perception in order to interact with it becomes the good, the right and the appropriate. When this construct is betrayed by the reality it’s based on, we call this circumstance perverse. The human form as we experience it daily and subsequently use that perception to express it and read the expressions of others is a construct of human rationality and perspective. When the uncommonly experienced reality residing beneath this one is shown, it’s a perversion. When the innards of the human body are revealed outwardly, the circumstance emits horror, it’s aesthetic quality determined by its counter to human construct. Rationality has decided the right is in having human innards within skin, therefore when they exist without, the result is something horrific. Horror is in this irrational, but nonetheless true, circumstance.