You mean like this?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding
This reminds me of a debate I heard on the radio two days ago. What’s worse: Rape or necrophilia?
Almost everyone would agree the guy that likes the latter is more messed up, but he’s committing a victimless crime (I know, weird right?). But, no one wants that guy walking around their town. The former is one of the worst crimes someone can commit, but it just doesn’t seem as bizarre.
I’d say rape = worse crime as it (terribly) hurts someone, but is more socially (I can’t think of another word to use here…) acceptable. Necrophilia doesn’t really hurt anyone but is way, way more creepy.
Look at it like this, who would you rather have watch your 8 year old daughter for a few hours? (Shivers)
Both crimes speak to boundary issues, which is why both are creepy. If they don’t respect those boundaries… what other boundaries are they willing to transgress. Therefore, to what extent can they be trusted with any kind of responsibility (or sharp implents). At least that’s how our minds appear to evaluate the issue on a basic level.
However, the rapist is a little more understandable. We all occasionally desire people who aren’t interested in us, and although we typically respect people’s boundaries, it’s easier to imagine that if we just were selfish and took what we wanted with no concern for others, that we would be the rapist. So we don’t want to be the rapist, but it’s easier to understand the rapist as someone who has normal-ish desires but no impulse control or respect for others.
Wheras the necrophile is harder to understand. Fewer people can understand why one would even want to do something like that to a dead person. Because they are harder to understand, they are creepier, even if they likely do less damage to others (except if killing the person is also part of the fetish). I think it’s because it’s harder to understand how their mind works and what they are reacting to that they seem creepier/scarier/riskier.
I’d add that we probably have an unrealistically simplistic idea of how rapist minds work (my description of rape here is certainly oversimplistic, but it is how many people percieve it). It seems that for many rapists, the power dynamic is what is most exciting about rape, not the actual sex. That’s still easier to understand than a desire to copulate with dead people, I think, but it’s not as straightforward as one’s run-of-the-mill libido.
^Well, Ed Gein did both and you know what he said about women…
Ugh. I did not know about Ed Gein (or had forgotten). I have no idea what he said about women.
Thank God I read about this stuff in the morning, so I have all day to forget about it. Yuk!
Someone will answer this riddle within the hour.
Robin Hanson and Steve Landsburg had gotten in some hot water a while back because they were debating whether cuckoldry is as bad as rape.
Peter Singer? It was a hard read because I understood his logic… but can’t give up eating animals. A friend of mine doesn’t eat pork because she argues that pigs are intelligent animals (rational?) and so they understand their fate more than, say, chicken or sardines, and therefore it’s more cruel to kill a pig. I get that, but… bacon.
Wait I reread what you wrote and maybe you’re not talking about singer. Singer said something like what’s more ethical, eating an intelligent animal capable of reasoning (to an extent we understand) or a baby, which is incapable yet of any rational thought? If we were to say there’s a difference between human and animal, that’s specieism, and you might think that’s rational and ethical now, but remember 100 years ago that was the same rationale for slavery? etc etc. I’m not doing it justice.
American Pyscho.