My understanding is that desecration is is something that happens to a thing, not a person. You can desecrate a temple but not the priests, the ideas but not the people who hold them. A corpse is no longer animate and therefore a 'thing'. Living things can be violated but not desecrated. So maybe it's not a matter of moral judgement but of word meaning?
Among some religious groups the body is sacred, regardless of the life the person has lived, because it will be needed again at some point or it will anger the dead/gods/other forces to have it treated badly or because bodies treated badly mean the previous resident doesn't get to go to the afterlife. Mishandling of the dead, apart from sanitary aspects, is greatly frowned upon, and rape is pretty high on the 'mishandling' list.
Apart from that, the 'justifications' for rape (she was asking for it, she needed to be humbled, he is a predator that she enticed, he'll make good by marrying her) are pretty hard to hold up if the victim was dead from the start. It's pretty hard to excuse the crime by blaming the victim in those circumstances, so the perpetrator is therefore that much sicker.
a) Because the issue of consent (or the lack of it) is more clear cut with the dead. b) Because we are uncomfortable with the idea of the body as an object.
Although in legal terms, the penalties for defiling the living are usually worse than for anything you can do to the dead, despite the fact that much of law is based on property rather than human rights.
Because if a man rapes a living woman, it's obviously because she tempted him, and if a woman tempts a man she is sinful, and therefore raping her is not desecration. But a corpse has no volition, and cannot be guilty of the sin of temptation: therefore a man who rapes a corpse is guilty of the sin of descration.
Yeah remarkable post but it does rather flattern the urge to post. Feel that anything less than than a term paper is unworthy. Despite that gotta say that the EFFECT of the Xtian doctrine is to glorify the dead and the passive which from a Rationalist POV is kinda weird. Or is that too obvious to need saying.
On a totally different track, I was thinking over the weekend about desecrating graves -- a heinous crime on a recent grave, but a well respected scholarly task if the grave is, oh, say 1,000 or 2,000 years old.
I think its the sense of defenselessness -- which feels qualitatively different from a defense that fails. A body is utterly helpless and dependant on the treatment of society for its dignity. A living victim has obviously not succeeded in protecting themselves, but they had the opportunity to try and still have the chance to react upon the actor: to seek revenge or justice, or just spit in the rapist's face.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-07-23 01:53 pm (UTC)To violate the sacredness of; profane.
[de- + (con)secrate.]
dese·crater or dese·crator n.
dese·cration n.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
***
Based on that, because dead bodies are sacred and live bodies aren't?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-23 01:57 pm (UTC)Sacred
Date: 2003-07-23 02:03 pm (UTC)two ideas
Date: 2003-07-23 02:10 pm (UTC)Among some religious groups the body is sacred, regardless of the life the person has lived, because it will be needed again at some point or it will anger the dead/gods/other forces to have it treated badly or because bodies treated badly mean the previous resident doesn't get to go to the afterlife. Mishandling of the dead, apart from sanitary aspects, is greatly frowned upon, and rape is pretty high on the 'mishandling' list.
Apart from that, the 'justifications' for rape (she was asking for it, she needed to be humbled, he is a predator that she enticed, he'll make good by marrying her) are pretty hard to hold up if the victim was dead from the start. It's pretty hard to excuse the crime by blaming the victim in those circumstances, so the perpetrator is therefore that much sicker.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-23 02:12 pm (UTC)a) Because the issue of consent (or the lack of it) is more clear cut with the dead.
b) Because we are uncomfortable with the idea of the body as an object.
Although in legal terms, the penalties for defiling the living are usually worse than for anything you can do to the dead, despite the fact that much of law is based on property rather than human rights.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-23 02:12 pm (UTC)Just a guess.
oh my. I think I am in awe of you
Date: 2003-07-23 04:23 pm (UTC)Yep. That's awe. Wow. Wonderful post.
Re: volition / free will
Date: 2003-07-23 07:04 pm (UTC)*clapclapclap*
Re: volition / free will
Date: 2003-07-24 08:32 am (UTC)Re: volition / free will
Date: 2003-07-24 09:16 am (UTC)I wouldn't have asked the question if I hadn't wanted people to answer it. No forgiveness necessary, but many thanks instead!
no subject
Date: 2003-07-23 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-23 05:39 pm (UTC)Grave robbing
Date: 2003-07-24 08:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-24 08:53 am (UTC)Mer