Is necrophilia immoral?

So I've been thinking, is there anything inherently wrong with necrophilia?

The facts:

1. No one gets hurt (lets assume that no one finds out about it for a while)
2. <ost people wouldn't rationally object against using a sex toy.

IF we are going to get all emotional, that's fine I suppose, but from a rational perspective is there anything morally wrong here?

Well firstly there is the issue of consent as somebody mentioned. A dead person can't give consent (obviously) so to carry out a sexual act on the body could be perceived as immoral or possibly as an assault on the deceased.

Secondly ask yourself this; God forbid it was a member of your family, how would you feel if somebody performed a sex act on the dead body of one of your loved ones?

It's immoral, disrespectul and rather morbid and frankly anybody considering practising such an idea should seek psychiatric help immediately. It just isn't normal.

Does a bear take a dump in the woods?

So I've been thinking, is there anything inherently wrong with necrophilia?

The facts:

1. No one gets hurt (lets assume that no one finds out about it for a while)
2. <ost people wouldn't rationally object against using a sex toy.

IF we are going to get all emotional, that's fine I suppose, but from a rational perspective is there anything morally wrong here?

haha, well I'm glad I have your support. If I werea necrophile, I'd not try bodys that were already buried, unless it was VERY recent. I'd get a job that enables me to work in a morge on a regular basis.

Say it out loud: IS. HAVING. SEX. WITH. A. DEAD. PERSON. WRONG?

If you don't think "Yes"; get help.

The person's dead. If you're that desperate, why not buy a blow-up doll or something?

I really hope that you don't own a morgue or funeral home.

WHY?

Why is it wrong to have sex with a dead person?

These answers do not count:
"Mummy and Daddy tell me it's wrong"
"Ew, it seems icky to me!"
"I wouldn't want to do it."
"I wouldn't want it done to me."
"I wouldn't want someone I know to be involved."
"It's not legal."
"It's not normal."

Because it's F*** creepy.

Ok, that aside...

1. For the necrophile: You do not know if the deceased is carrying a sexually transmitted disease. Thereby endangering public health.

2. Consent.

3. It is inherently disrespectful to the dead body. There's a reason why one cannot wander about in a cemetery and dig up dead bodies. Property rights come into play, here.

4. (Without consent) it would be rape. It is rape, just of a dead person.

5. A decomposing body is HIGHLY unsanitary.

6. Fancy your hypothetical younger sister to be violated by a 500 pound 80 year old man after he death?

7. Wouldn't we have to take into account things like age of the deceased? Otherwise things such as pedophilia can also come into play.

If I said no it doesn't you'd be equally as dissatisifed with my answer as I am with yours.

Besides, it's not obvious that the bear does take a dump in the woods, it could be a polar bear.

They could wear a condom? But this isn't an argument against necrophilia - plenty of people have unprotected sex with live people. That a person is dead makes no difference.


Pre-death consent


Respect is subjective. We should respect someone's wishes if they give pre-death consent.


Pre-death consent.


Their health, not mine. I'd expect to know if a necrophiliac, or anybody at all, had conditions before being in a position to pass them onto me.


I respect their wishes - if they don't give consent, I respect that wish and would be unhappy at them being violated. If they give pre-death consent, I would respect that wish.


Agreed.

So I've been thinking, is there anything inherently wrong with necrophilia?

The facts:

1. No one gets hurt (lets assume that no one finds out about it for a while)
2. <ost people wouldn't rationally object against using a sex toy.

IF we are going to get all emotional, that's fine I suppose, but from a rational perspective is there anything morally wrong here?

Their health, not mine. I'd expect to know if a necrophiliac, or anybody at all, had conditions before being in a position to pass them onto me.

Would you want someone to violate you after you died?

I thought not.

Unless they have a little "____ has been here" book, how do you know which necrophiles have have sex with the deceased?

One could not be as careful as you are, have aids, have sexual intercourse with the deceased, and leave their infected fluids in the deceased genital area.
Should some stupid bloke come around (with the deceased's consent) and decide to shag her without protection, he would also get infected - even though she was supposedly not infected.

OP said in a later post: "...because the consciousness is now absent."
Well, when one grows old and develops a disease of the mind like Alzheimer's, they lose the right to make their own decisions. OP just shot himself in his necrophiliac foot with his own argument.

In addition, many countries gives the dead rights to remain undisturbed and unmolested.
In France, there was the Martinot case which is a prime example. Prioux said something like "the dead deserve more respect that they urge" (totally paraphrased). It was the case of a family that stashed their son's body in a freezer.
Though the son gave them consent to do so, Prioux said that consent meant little since the body's inherent right to remain undisturbed after death in a proper burial was violated.

Habeas Corpus also comes into play (like in the example above). The dead have VERY little power when deciding where/how their remains will be tended to. Therefore they cannot exactly choose if they will be buried after death, or be fondled by someone.

Many countries also limit the interactions the living can have with the dead.

It is a steep and slippery slope, and is not as simple as "to each their own" as many have stated. Law are there for a reason. If you wish to have all laws that are standing in the way of necrophilia to be abolished, then you are opening the doors to many things - and not merely the intended.

It's really not that simple. I edited my post above, adding more a few minutes back.
Anyhow, when it comes down to "consent", this may seem silly... but the person who is alive, if not the corpse. Here we're arguing that they're dead (which is a different state of being) and therefore they have lesser rights when it comes to sexual activities. The person isn't a "person" anymore, right?

Well, since the corpse is almost a different entity and it's being violated as opposed to the "person", it should thereby provide consent. Since it cannot, the sexual activity should not take place.

Basically: the consent of the "person" must be rendered void upon death, becoming a "corpse".

1. Non-necrophiliacs often have a huge host of stds, and don't tell anyone. If unprotected sex is legal, then there is no argument.


2. All you do is say that only the mentally capable can give consent.


3. I disagree with this. Respect means following the wishes of the person. I believe that the wishes of a dead person (eg. over their funeral) supersede the wishes of live people if it doesn't concern them.


4. Because of this, it must be spelled out clearly in life.


5. Just because something is law doesn't mean the law is right.


6. The slippery slope argument is a slippery slope in itself. What about the people who are against homosexuality, because gay marriage is opening the doors to so many things, and soon it'll be marriages between three men and a dog?

The corpse is an object, like a dildo. Can a dildo give consent? No.

The only thing that actually matters is the prior owner of the corpse to give their consent.

Last time I'm going through this, as I'm turning in.

1. Your logic is flawed. If person A is going to have sexual intercourse with person B, person A has the ability to ask person B for a STI or STD test. Necrophilia involves a dead person. Someone who is alive CAN ask the deceased to do a test... though they will be disappointed when they receive no answer back.

2. I'm not saying that, laws all over the world are. It comes down to protection of citizens. If an elderly lady is delusional, it is unfair to put them at risk of being taken advantage of.
Surely you wouldn't want someone with say, untreated epilepsy driving?
Now don't say that I'm discriminating against people with epilepsy.

BUT, if you're trying to say that "only the mentally capable can give consent" (another sense to your phrase), then as I had already stated in another post, the dead are mentally/physically unable to make decisions for themselves. Seeing as, you know, THEY'RE DEAD.

4. I don't care if you disagree. It has little to do with respect, and all to do with precedent. When it comes to the law, precedent matters. All rulings matter, as future cases can appeal in regards to precedent.

5. Should society accept the "consent" idea, the necrophiliac must go to great lengths to prove that the statement was not coerced from the deceased (when they were alive), they were mentally stable, and did in fact give their consent.

And quite frankly, I doubt that someone would go to such great lengths seeing as they can just go to a slag-for-hire and pay them a few quid to play-dead.

6. Oh gee, then appeal it worldwide. That's THE most childish argument that you have provided, by far. Following that logic, should one think that adults should be able to have sexual intercourse with children, and that the law isn't necessarily right, they should go ahead and have sex with the child regardless?

7. No, it is by no means the same thing. OK'ing necrophilia opens the doors to things like pedophilia-postmortem, rape and such.

What does allowing gay marriage open doors to? Dogs of the same sex getting married? because marriage between three men and a dog is completely apart from gay marriage, seeing as that calls both bestiality and polygamy into question.

Now. I have no more time for these circular arguments, seeing as you'll just revert to inherently flawed arguments that [I suppose] seem witty in your mind, such as: "The slippery slope argument is a slippery slope in itself."

And obviously childish notions such as: "Just because something is law doesn't mean the law is right". Well, obviously, Einstein. Go throw a tantrum.
Though the former may be true, that doesn't validate it as an argument. It's baseless.

People make laws for people. If humans are still evolving and maturing (as a race) then the laws will obviously be subjective to the lawmakers in question and to their electoral body - which are [surprise, surprise] are made of alive people.

Also... Laws are voted for by democratically elected leaders. Should you have a problem with the ones in place, do something about it by either dealing directly with MPs or through NGOs.

Wrong. What the "alive" person did prior to is utterly irrelevant. Because as stated above, the consent [given during their lifetime] becomes void upon death.

A dildo is rubber. Generally.