Talk:Necrophilia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 11 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aiyuri. Peer reviewers: BigelowC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jfvrbes. Peer reviewers: Preyessanchez, DCHWave.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Animal "Homosexuality"

The statement "This is the first recorded case of necrophilia in the mallard duck- though not the only recorded case of homosexuality within the bird family" is inappropriate and not encyclopedic for two reasons. Firstly, There is a lot of debate in the scientific community about whether same-sex behavior outside of the human species is homosexual per se (instead of hierarchical and suchlike). Secondly, the New York Times is hardly a credible source for scientific information.

Utah state law

i dont know how to add tidily

  (e) (i) commits or attempts to commit upon any dead human body any act of sexual penetration, regardless of the sex of the actor and of the dead human body
    (b) Abuse or desecration of a dead human body as described in Subsections (2)(b) through (e) is a third degree felony. 

here is citeation: http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_09_070400.htm

86.161.58.136 (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Farewell intercourse

I am not going to redirect Farewell intercourse here, but the topic needs to be covered somewhere. The planned Egyptian 'farewell intercourse law' has caused a moral panic in the Western media. See for example:

• Lee Moran (26 April 2012). "Outrage as Egypt plans 'farewell intercourse law' so husbands can have sex with DEAD wives up to six hours after their death". Mail Online.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya published a follow up story saying no such proposed law ever existed, and the christian science monitor published a story pretty thoroughly debunking the idea. The faux controversy may be appropriate to cover somewhere, but not in the legality section - since it isn't at all actually related to the legality of necrophilia - and I have the feeling it would be undue weight in this article to mention it at all Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The section in the article is more or less a copy paste from http://www.egyptindependent.com/opinion/necrophilia-law-how-western-media-savors-islamophobia and surely violates copyright. -- Random Passerby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.251.100 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent numbers

The lead says 12%, but the "Research" section says 11%. I'm not sure which is correct, but they should be harmonized... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.155.105 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Tiny Amazon Frogs

See also: In Tiny Amazon Frogs, Males Observed Extracting Oocytes from Females Killed in Mating Struggles Jidanni (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC) who says you are welcome to add it.

Davian behaviour

It redirects here, so added it to the page. BP OMowe (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC) A pdf with the source can be found here BP OMowe (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of incidents of necrophilia

The parent article isn't long in depth so it makes perfect sense to merge this article into it. versace1608 (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Give me like, 2 days. There are like 10 more people to add. OccultZone (Talk) 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Brazil

The article previously said: "Article 212 of the Brazilian Penal Code (federal Decree-Law No 2.848) states as follows:

Art. 212 - To vilipend a cadaver or its ashes:
Penalty: detention, from 1 to 3 years, plus fine.

Although sex with a corpse is not explicitly mentioned, a person who has sex with a corpse may be convicted of crime under the above Article. The legal asset protected by such Article isn't the corpse's objective honor, but the feeling of good memories, respect and veneration that living people keep about the deceased person: these persons are considered passive subjects of the corpse's violation." (end quote) The Brazil law, in Portuguese, says " Vilipêndio a cadáver: Art. 212 - Vilipendiar cadáver ou suas cinzas:" "Vilipendiar" appears, per Google translate, to correspond to the English "to villify," meaning "to denigrate." In English dictionaries, "Villipend" is an old word meaning "to villify," so this is bad English even it is a term in Brazil meaning "to have sexual relations." Is villipendiar also a term meaning in Brazil "to have sexual relations?" Are there reliable sourcs for necrophilia prosecutions under this law in Brazil? Even if it is Brazillian law against necrophilia, a better translation is required. Edison (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been studying law here in Brazil for some years already. I decided to add the brazilian legislation because although the strict semantics of the portuguese word vilipendiar (to vilipend) has a generalistic meaning - in Portuguese, it refers to desdenhar (disdain), desprezar (despise), menosprezar (belittle) and desrespeitar (disrespect) -, the brazilian law doctrine, specially that of Nélson Hungria Guimarães Hoffbauer (one of Brazil's all-time greatest specialists in Penal Law) and others before him, has already given its contribution to the (now pacified / settled) jurisprudence according to which having sex with a cadaver does characterize vilipêndio (vilification).

I'm gonna cite some examples here of actual penal prosecutions in Brazil where such line of thought was adopted by many different judges, just to illustrate that my assertion is correct and should've not been removed from the article (all documents are in Brazilian Portuguese and users interested in such theme are recommended to search inside those documents looking for strings such as necrofilia, art. 212 and vilipen. In the first two of them, the judges also mention Nélson Hungria - just search for Hungria inside the first two URLs):

• http://tj-ma.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/4686587/recurso-em-sentido-estrito-rse-148772007-ma/inteiro-teor-101724671
• http://tj-pr.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/6483897/recurso-em-sentido-estrito-rse-844017-pr-0084401-7/inteiro-teor-12594840
• http://tj-df.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/7345680/recurso-em-sentido-estrito-rse-53185419988070004-df-0005318-5419988070004/inteiro-teor-102358005
• http://tj-ms.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/5898756/apelacao-criminal-apr-5964-ms-2004005964-7/inteiro-teor-12036592
• http://tj-pr.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/19552303/apelacao-crime-acr-6399088-pr-0639908-8/inteiro-teor-104383085

Also, notice that these prosecutions ocurred in diferent brazilian states: Paraná (PR), Distrito Federal (DF), Mato Grosso do Sul (MS) and Maranhão (MA). Hence, it's a nation-wide judiciary understanding that to vilipend a cadaver (Article #212 of Brazil's Penal Code) does comprise cases of necrophilia.►Sampayu 00:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Other sources:

• News about a police investigation on sexual abuse of human corpses. This news article reports an investigation by the civil police at the brazilian state of Paraná. It is mentioned there that Quando existe a suspeita de necrofilia ou, por algum motivo, como roubo, o corpo é violado, o crime atribuído é o de "vilipêndio a cadáver", que significa que o corpo foi desrespeitado. Quem comete o crime de vilipêndio a cadáver pode ficar na cadeia de um a três anos e ainda terá que pagar uma multa., which translates to "Where there's suspected necrophilia or, for any reason, like theft, the corpse is violated, the crime attributed is vilipend to a corpse, which means that the corpse's been disrespected. Someone who commits such crime of vilipend to a corpse may be sent to jail for 1 to 3 years and will also have to pay a fine".
• Os Crimes de Estupro e de Estupro de Vulnerável na Lei 12.015/2009: Considerações Críticas (the title means "The Crimes of Rape and Rape of Vulnerable Individuals According to Law 12.015 of Year 2009: Critical Considerations"). This is an academic text by Samanta Jenifer Basso (Law Graduation) from UNIJUI (a university at the brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul - RS). On page 19, it reads (making a comparison between Rape and Necrophilia): No pólo passivo, encontrava-se exclusivamente a mulher viva, pois se o ato fosse praticado sobre um cadáver por necrofilia teríamos outro bem jurídico, tipificando o injusto de vilipêndio a cadáver, fugindo, deste modo, da figura do estupro (ESTEFAM, 2010)., which translates to "Only the living woman would be on the passive pole [of rape], because if the [sexual] act was performed on a [woman's] cadaver/corpse due to necrophilia, then we would be facing another legal good typifying the unfair vilipend to a cadaver/corpse, which thus escapes from the characterization of rape (ESTEFAM, 2010)."►Sampayu 06:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be no surprise if Brazilian Portuguese sometimes uses euphemisms to describe sexual relations. In English, we have "have sexual knowledge" and "perform an outrage" sometimes used. The Brazilian law can certainly be included based on the references provided, but by no means should the English translation say "To vilipend a cadaver or its ashes". There is no hint of necrophilia in the archaic English "vilipend." So that the reader understands better, I suggest "To sexually abuse a cadaver or its ashes." Edison (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not using an euphemism: article 212 of the brazilian Penal Code was written in 1940. At that time, the verb vilipendiar was a commonly used word (nowadays it's considered outdated, an archaic Portuguese word). Although archaic, such word was and still is a versatile and elaborated way to refer to a wide range of crimes against a corpse/cadaver - not only the sexual ones. The use of vilipendiar made the legal text concise, yet comprehensive.

When the same Penal Code refers specifically to sexual crimes against living humans, it then specifically uses words and concepts such as estupro (rape), violação sexual (sexual violation), assédio sexual (sexual harassment), sedução de menor (sexual seduction of a minor/underage), exploração sexual (sexual exploitation) and so on. Just read the brazilian Penal Code (take a look at articles 213 et seq): the brazilian Penal Code has two entire titles - Title VI (Crimes Against One's Sexual Dignity) and Title VII (Pimping, Human Trafficking for Prostitution, and Other Forms of Sexual Exploitation) - comprising a total of eighteen articles about sexual crimes and sex-related crimes. These eighteen articles were added or updated during the 2000s and 2010s. Article 212 didn't receive the same attention from the legislators because the crimes comprised by it aren't as common/recurrent (statistically) nor as relevant as e.g. the sexual ones commited against living persons.

About the use of "To sexually abuse a cadaver or its ashes", I'd rather use "To abuse a cadaver or its ashes", because vilipendiar is an "umbrella word", as previously mentioned. Also because sexually abusing the ashes of a cadaver doesn't make much sense. Spreading them (the ashes) is a form of abuse, though not a sexual one. Hence, using the word "abuse" (instead of "sexually abuse") keeps the translation very similar to the original vilipendiar, not to mention that "abuse" is a "contemporary English" word, thus easier to associate with necrophilia, and it's adopted by USA's states' legislations such as the Code of Alabama, 1975 (Title 13A, Chapter 11, Article 1, Section 13A-11-13: Abuse of corpse).

Please keep in mind that the brazilian Penal Law intentionally uses a "generic" word (vilipendiar), thus Article 212 refers to several crimes against a cadaver, being the sexual abuse of a corpse only one of them (but it is one of them).►Sampayu 02:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Abuse" without "sexual" would be comprehensible English, but in no way is "vilipend" comprehensible English. It is archaic, Late Middle English, per the Oxford English Dictionary. Edison (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

Would sexual acts with a vampire or zombie classify as necrophilia? They were both corpses, if animate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.226.164 (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Vampire yes, zombie no. Friginator (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Necrophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505021654/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=07001-08000&file=7050.5-7055 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=07001-08000&file=7050.5-7055

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

@General Ization: I reverted the vandalism today, but it should be reverted further back; please fix. I am not able to watch this page due to being busy for a while. Please take care of this. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@CryMeAnOcean: Er, no, it looks to me like you introduced vandalism with this edit. Care to explain what you were trying to do? 22:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done OK, I see what happened. You reverted only one of the two edits made by the same IP immediately before your reversion. Don't really understand why you couldn't have reverted the other yourself, but I have done so. General Ization ^Talk 22:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@General Ization: Thanks for taking care of that. I wasn't sure how to do it. I thought if I revert again I will revert the vandalism I just rolled back. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

State of decay

Any information on what they consider to be acceptable state of decay??
Still warm but dead bodies? Dead no more than X days? What is the worst condition of a corpse for them to indulge in the activity? Setenzatsu (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Grave robbing

Any confirmed grave raids to satisfy the need? Setenzatsu (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Necromanticism is NOT Necrophilia

Flyer 22 Rebird told me that Necromanticism is Necrophilia when I tried to add Necromantic as a Romantic Orientation here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_orientation. Now Admin is always right, but I wished to add on this Talk page that I personally am a Necromantic, but NOT a Necrophiliac and NOT a Necromancer. Having a Romantic Orientation towards a dead being is not the same thing as having a sexual attraction to a dead body, nor the same as communicating with the dead for sorcery purposes. I hope people can understand why I would wish to note the difference. There is a Facebook group for people into “Necromanticism”, fyi. 🙏☮️ DErnestWachter (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It does not appear to be a widely recognized use of that word, so it doesn't belong on the list of romantic orientations. ... discospinster _talk 15:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Karen Greenlee Reference

Reference 66, linked in the Case Studies section for Karen Greenlee, appears to be about mice, not anything to do with Greenlee or necrophilia. The link to the study referenced only provides an abstract, and on the off chance the actual article does reference her, I've not touched it. Based on the abstract linked, though, I can't imagine it does; it appears to be an ecological study on mice on Marion Island. JackMeraxes (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Texas State Law Felony or Misdemeanor

In the table in the United States subsection on Legality, it states the severity in Texas as a Class A misdemeanor and uses § 9.42.08 as a source. However, I think this is inaccurate. I will paste the legal text here for ease of discourse:

Sec. 42.08. ABUSE OF CORPSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person, without legal authority, knowingly:

(1) disinters, disturbs, damages, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in an offensive manner a human corpse;

(2) conceals a human corpse knowing it to be illegally disinterred;

(3) sells or buys a human corpse or in any way traffics in a human corpse;

(4) transmits or conveys, or procures to be transmitted or conveyed, a human corpse to a place outside the state; or

(5) vandalizes, damages, or treats in an offensive manner the space in which a human corpse has been interred or otherwise permanently laid to rest.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony, except that an offense under Subsection (a)(5) is a Class A misdemeanor.

In line (b) it states that any offense with the exception of (a)(5) is a felony, with only (a)(5) being a Class A misdemeanor. Furthermore, (a)(5) would not be considered necrophilia as described in the main article. (a)(1) would best fit the definition of necrophilia, and thus the severity of that offense, defined as a felony in (b), should be listed.

However, I do not have any background or experience in law so I would like to have a second opinion before making this edit.

BlueXeta (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Dubious source for "documented case" of someone have sex with a corpse motivated by the dead person's wishes.

The cited source is an Indian tabloid which does not itself cite any sources besides unnamed members of "the deceased's family".

Other tabloids cite ZimEye as originator of the story. ZimEye has the name of the deceased and a quote from the woman, but no further documentation. This publication additionally ups the ante by also alleging that impregnation occurred as a result of the necrophilic act.

The paragraph should be removed, or at the very least presented as "reported" rather than "documented". 87.49.45.31 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)