Necrophillia is not immoral

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

doobucks

Well surprisingly, he has a point. But that's ****ing disgusting.

Reply 41

Cornish student

Original post by Stefan1991

Being set on fire > having sex? :lolwut:

The energy released from my burning corpse could be used in the production of shoes for children in developing nations :bl:

My corporeal form is my property and I would rather it be returned to the world in the form of flames :eyeball:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 42

chloeee!

Who on earth would write in their will that they consented to being ****ed after death?

Reply 43

HomeoApathy92

what's wrong with having sex with people who are alive?

just eurgh man.. what would turn you on about having sex with a dead body
i'm actually interested.. =/

Reply 44

chloeee!

Society would never sanction something so foul, so it doesn't matter how logical your argument is.

I would seriously question the sanity of anyone who possessed so little social/relationship skills that they prefer to abuse a corpse (it is not sex!) Instead of forming a living-human relationship. Same goes for the beastiality perverts, weirdos. I do not need logic to tell me that something is wrong, that seems to me a cop out for committing sick acts, 'well logically it's not immoral blah blah blah...'. So what! Moreover, what about the practicalities, bodies do not last long after death? Do necrophiles molest any corpse or do they have a 'type'? It is not a sexuality it is a perversion and the OP needs help. Where my parents are from those views would get you sent to Heaven on an express train :biggrin:

Reply 47

Troubled_Student

Original post by Stefan1991

There is no reason why the funeral would not be able to be held afterwards.

Believe it or not there are some people who LIKE the idea of having their corpses shagged.

Funerals are expensive, families instead of paying thousands to put a carcass in the ground would actually break even. There is no reason you can't have a memorial service, a body isn't exactly necessary to pay respects and reminisce.

If I had a family member I'd rather have the knowledge that they're dead and in the ground rotting/burnt into ashes than their stone cold, stiff body being done up the arse by some sick ****er. The end. :cool:

Reply 48

Delta Aitch

Original post by Stefan1991

Why does a corpse need to consent?

Fair enough, but it's not like they're going to be forced to look.

I'm not sure the corpse does need to consent, I'm just saying that because it very recently was a living, breathing human who was making decisions for itself, people may think that in death it is the same. If the person hadn't explicitly claimed to want their body donated to this cause, then I think it's safe to assume that they probably wouldn't want people having sex with their corpse.

The whole idea doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, but I don't think it's a case of morality, exactly. I'm just expressing why I guess some people would believe it was immoral.

As for them not being forced to watch, it's their body. If they don't want to watch it being used as a sort of sex-doll then we can assume they don't consent to it ..which again ties into the whole thing being seen as 'immoral' as it's seen as non-consensual.
:dontknow:

(edited 12 years ago)

It's so weird :lol:

I truly understand the needs of necrophilic.

I don't think people should leave comments like "you're crazy" or "sick" as everyone has their sexual preference and we should never discriminate against others' preferences.

Laws exist for the good of everybody. None of those other rights could harm anyone else, but what you propose could. Consider this possible chain of events: You have three sons. The oldest is nineteen, the middle child is fourteen, and the youngest is ten. Now, your oldest boy likes to smoke a bit of crack cocaine, but he can't always come up with the money. He hears that you can sell the right to have sex with your dead body to necrophiles. He signs up thinking he is the luckiest man in the world. He makes a fortune and heads off to meet his local dealer. Once there the dealer shoots him in the chest and takes flight with his money. About a day or so later the wake is on and everyone is very upset over this tragic death. Nobody even seems to notice this guy [1] walking around the place asking strange questions about the departed. Later, however, this man approaches the coffin where you and your family are mourning. He tells you that it was lovely to meet the family, but that he cannot spare much more time. He presents you with the contract and lifts your son out of the coffin and throws him over his shoulder. The end of this story could play out in numerous ways that could harm those involved. For one, you might let this man take your son subjecting yourself and your family to psychological trauma. If it were me, I would probably flip out and kill the man, traumatising my already grief stricken children at the same time. It is within our best interests to have laws in place that protect us from events such as these.

Reply 51

slavetosociety

Seriously, if you get aroused by dead corpses then there's something seriously wrong with you..

Reply 52

Bandicoot

It is important to consider this: what is rational isn't necessarily intuitive. There is many an occasion where the rational course of action is highly counter-intuitive and simply feels wrong to do for a person (e.g. may be rational not to help someone in the street, but your intuitions may tell you that it is wrong to not provide aid).

But for this particular situation, it is more to do with the fact that people respect things that had agency at some stage in their life. The whole concept of respecting the dead is because they were able to once think as a rational, human agent, and this has a lasting impression on our views of them. It is a very Kantian approach to adopt, but I genuinely think that most people see this agency as something granting a form of dignity to human kind. This agency feels violated when we do something that the person hasn't willed. I can't argue though against people who willingly allow their body to be used for that purpose after death, because it is their own choice that they willed.

The real problem with necrophillia is the motive behind the action. Now, I accept that some people do it genuinely because they have an attraction to the dead, and that can't be helped. We can't change people if they have a physical attraction to something. But many, according to researchers, do it due to low self esteem or lack of rejection, which is what I find disturbing. It makes it seem as though it is the easy alternative to rape, and that is what worries me. There are so many alternatives if it is the sex that is all that is wanted: masturbation, toys to aid the masturbation, sex dolls, one-night-stands, f-buddies, prostitutes - you would think that the existence of so many options would negate the need for digging a body out of the ground.

Here is a short illustration: you're a man and have been married to your wife for about 15 years now. Marriage has been happy, but the years are numbered because she has a terminal illness, and the year of that anniversary she passes away. Wouldn't it leave a bitter taste in your mouth to know that after she had been buried and left to let nature take its course that someone dug up her grave for the purpose of self gratification? It needn't be a rational response in this case, but to say "well she's dead, she's not human any more" goes heavily against what is intuitively the case. Your memory of her is still human, and that dignity you had for her would exist even in death, wouldn't it?

That's just my two cents. TL;DR: Philosopher Immanuel Kant grants humans intrinsic dignity, and that appears to be violated by necrophilliacs when there is no prior consent.

~edit~ By the way, you can't really compare a dildo to a dead person. A dildo's sole purpose is for pleasing the recipient(s), and the purpose of a human being has yet to be discovered in life. By saying that they are similar/the same, you are saying that the purpose of a dildo and dead person are the same: do you really mean that?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 53

Shippy

This is why i'm getting cremated.

Reply 54

iainthegreat

Those of you who say having sex with a corpse isn't disrespectful should have seen the faces of the mourners at the funeral I did it at...

Open coffins FTW.

Spoiler

Reply 55

IPlayThePiccolo

Sex. Dead body. Dead body. Sex. Nope, no matter how you look at it it is still wrong.

Reply 56

TurkeyProphet

I'm sure the number of people that actually want to have sex with a corpse (and would go through with it) are in a very small minority.

I think most people take issue with the fact that it would seem to be pretty unhygienic. Even if it wouldn't be all that dangerous. That and the fact people still treat a corpse as though it is human and you would presumably being messing with their grieving process which could be considered immoral.

I'd really say the actual act of ****ing a dead body is pretty amoral. But there are few circumstances where it wouldn't upset someone.

Reply 57

Pindar

Original post by Cariie

Vile.

Well if you're going to say necrophilia isn't immoral and therefore absolutely fune, then hey lets just legalise bestiality while we're at it! Corpses can't consent, neither can animals so we should let people shack up with animals?

Corpses doesn't need to consent. A corpse has no self-interest, opinion, concious thought. Does a dildo need to consent? Thought not. On the other hand, animals clearly can consent to sex, they do it all the time, so that was a pretty stupid comparison. It's called nature.

Original post by Cariie

Never mind whether its moral or not, it's just disgusting and there is no justification for it.

Just because you find it disgusting, doesn't mean it should be banned. That's completely subjective. I might find what turns you on in the bedroom disgusting, but i'm not going to tell you that it's wrong. Are you saying because some people think homosexuality is disgusting they should illegallise that as well?

Reply 58

Pindar

Original post by Cornish student

The energy released from my burning corpse could be used in the production of shoes for children in developing nations :bl:

My corporeal form is my property and I would rather it be returned to the world in the form of flames :eyeball:

It's your property, now. Once you are dead it's not your property. You can't own property when you are dead. How can something that doesn't exist own property? That's illogical.

It's like saying all the skin you have shed, and all the hair you cut is and will always be, your property. People don't usually care about what happens to the hair they cut off, why do some care so much about what happens to their body?

Reply 59

Pindar

Original post by HomeoApathy92

what's wrong with having sex with people who are alive?

just eurgh man.. what would turn you on about having sex with a dead body
i'm actually interested.. =/