Necrophillia is not immoral

I do not need logic to tell me that something is wrong,

If I had a family member I'd rather have the knowledge that they're dead and in the ground rotting/burnt into ashes

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?

I think it's high time for a sensible and reasoned debate on the issue.

Necrophilia is the act of sexual stimulation with a corpse. An inanimate object.

Some might say a corpse cannot consent. A corpse doesn't NEED to consent, there is no requirement to consent as there is not a living person there to consent! You might as well ask why a dildo doesn't need to consent. There is nothing to consent to, a corpse is an object.

When you are dead, why do you care about your body so much? You have left your body, either to be burned or put in a hole in the ground. It's going to rot away anyway and be slowly eaten by microscopic organisms.

To those who would say necrophillia is somehow disrespectful, how exactly?

If someone actually wants to have sex with you, even when you've died and blue and as stiff as ironing board, how could you take that as anything other than a compliment?

If made legal, people would be able to donate their body, if they so wish, to some sort of Necrophilliac society. Necrophilliacs could pay money to the deceased's family for the pleasure.

Nobody gets harmed, necrophilliacs finally get the right to have sexual satisfaction and the family in mourning and possible financial insecurity benefits. Everyone wins. I can't see how there would be a rational argument against this...

Any thoughts?

Ew...

It is a very Kantian approach to adopt

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?

~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?

I find this all severely disturbing. The idea of necrophillia itself, and the idea of supporters bothers me. Necrophillia is a dysfunctionality. Violating the dead is disgusting.

What necrophillics need is not a corpse for sexual gratification, it's very very intense psychological treatment.

This is why i'm getting cremated.

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.

I think it's high time for a sensible and reasoned debate on the issue.

Necrophilia is the act of sexual stimulation with a corpse. An inanimate object.

Some might say a corpse cannot consent. A corpse doesn't NEED to consent, there is no requirement to consent as there is not a living person there to consent! You might as well ask why a dildo doesn't need to consent. There is nothing to consent to, a corpse is an object.

When you are dead, why do you care about your body so much? You have left your body, either to be burned or put in a hole in the ground. It's going to rot away anyway and be slowly eaten by microscopic organisms.

To those who would say necrophillia is somehow disrespectful, how exactly?

If someone actually wants to have sex with you, even when you've died and blue and as stiff as ironing board, how could you take that as anything other than a compliment?

If made legal, people would be able to donate their body, if they so wish, to some sort of Necrophilliac society. Necrophilliacs could pay money to the deceased's family for the pleasure.

Nobody gets harmed, necrophilliacs finally get the right to have sexual satisfaction and the family in mourning and possible financial insecurity benefits. Everyone wins. I can't see how there would be a rational argument against this...

Any thoughts?

Actually, I'm going to disagree with you. A person's sexuality isn't something that can be changed or forced. And yes, I believe that a person can't chose whether they are sexually attracted to corpses, animals, male/female/whatever else there is. It is something they probably don't understand themselves and the use of 'intense psychological treatment' to rid someone of their sexuality, in my opinion, is immoral. Who are you to dictate who (or what) a person should be attracted to?

I'm not saying whether necrophilia is right or wrong, I am saying that everyone has a right to choose their own sexuality. Would you send a homosexual to therapy to 'straighten him out'?


(I am no way comparing homosexuality to necrophilia, I am merely stating that they are both a form of sexuality. Necrophilia is just considered extremely socially unacceptable ...and illegal for now)

I think it's high time for a sensible and reasoned debate on the issue.

Which is exactly why Kant was an idiot. We are talking about the same person who said that if an axe murderer turned up at your door wanting to kill your mum, you should tell him exactly where she is and point him in the right direction because lying would be immoral. Mill > Kant any day of the week.

Kant was far from an idiot, mind you. Many consider him one of the greatest of all the modern philosophers. I won't deny that his deontology is difficult and impractical (as evident by your example), but the moral points that he raises are nonetheless valid: rationality is a core aspect of humanity that cannot be denied; there are certain actions we hold accountable to moral absolutes and we shouldn't treat people as means to an end. That, I don't think, people have qualms with.

It's completely illogical though, a dead corpse has no relationship with the person which once inhabited it.

It's like saying, my wife recently passed away, the day she passed away she had a hair cut and her nails trimmed. Because the stylists and the manicurist threw her hair and nail clippings in the bin like common trash, I'm going to be offended.

That is not a good illustration. Even if my wife was alive, I wouldn't care about the trimmings of her nails or hair. Bits of her that were going to come off naturally when she was alive aren't going to have the same impact as someone having sex with her corpse, I'll tell you that. It would worry me if someone said that they were on the same level of ethical worth.

First of all, Kant was the most irrational philosopher ever. Secondly you are giving more importance to decaying matter than the actual person itself. It's a very primitive thing to not recognise that a dead corpse has nothing to do with your loved one apart from appearance.

Just think of when in Sean in the Dead(spoiler) when Simon Pegg's character didn't want to shoot his zombie mum even though she would have tried to kill them all.

and the bit where he says "It's not Phillip, the man you loved isn't there any more" etc.

This line of argument is relying too hard on rationality, which ironically enough is exactly what is wrong with Kantian deontology. By saying "once someone is dead they cease to be human", you immediately deny any intuitions that go with the notion that we have respect for the dead. Yes, it is a rational way of thinking, but it isn't by any means how most would want to think. Rational behaviour is not immediately the most justified behaviour (and your axe murderer example seems to illustrate that perfectly).

The purpose of a dead corpse to a necrophiliac would have the same purpose as a dildo to an aroused female. Other than that, a dead corpse serves no real purpose other than organ donating and medical experiments.

I'd actually probably rather a necrophiliac make love to the corpse of my mother, rather than have her bits cut up and mutilated in on a table and bits put in jars.

I am not saying a dildo is the same as a dead person, a corpse is not a dead person. There is no "person" there, a corpse does not have the requirements for "personhood". The dead person either does not exist, or is in some sort of spiritual afterlife.

You said "the purpose of a dead corpse to a necrophiliac". When I mentioned the dildo's purpose, I am talking about the reason it was created, so when speaking of the person/corpse, we are talking about the purpose for their creation (which as I established, has yet to be determined). In essense, you've pick-and-mixed purposes.

1)
3) OP, would you allow it to happen to yourself?