Necrophillia is not immoral Watch

Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#61
(Original post by u02dpb7)
I do not need logic to tell me that something is wrong,
I switched off right after that...

(Original post by Troubled_Student)
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:
You know that came off sounding more ****ed up.
1
reply
Cornish student
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 years ago
#62
(Original post by Stefan1991)
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?
In which case I can leave it in my will so that my corpse becomes the property of a family member or partner when I die. Why are you so against my body being used to create shoes for the poor children across the world?!?! :curious:
0
reply
Jesse_Mac
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
Uhm. I can see the logic behind saying it's not immoral (much as I hate referring to morals to justify actions). I just personally wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea of someone having sex with the corpse of my mother/father/friend, etc. Surely that the concept distresses people in that way makes it not so much 'victim-less', ie, 'immoral'.

However, the same argument goes towards saying some people might find their sister's homosexuality distressing, or their opting for organ donation. Then it's back to the choice of the individual.

If I was unaware of this practice it in no way hampered my life or my mourning of loved ones appropriately, I can't really justify saying no, mum, you may not allow people to sexually gratify their selves with your inanimate orifices, because it's not now nor has it ever been my choice.
0
reply
ShayCamp
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
(Original post by Stefan1991)
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?
How could the person see it as a compliment?!? They're DEAD. And to your argument that a corpse doesn't need to consent - what about the family. Ok sure. When you're alive, you could possibly consent to something that gross. But if you don't then why the **** is it moral. You say that with the person being dead it doesn't matter anyway - i respectfully disagree. I think it's a simple matter of respect. Sure, the way we choose to be disposed of could be better, but that doesn't mean that people can do what they want with a dead body. That person used to be alive, and therefore deserves respect in some form at least.
Anyway I've finished summing up my thoughts on this particular subject. I hope i dont get any stupid comments from you about me being a **** or an idiot or something for speaking my mind. If this is a sensible reasoned debate on the subject then I hope you will respect my thoughts on the subject as i respect yours - even if they are a little unorthodox.
0
reply
smartini
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
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.
0
reply
ShayCamp
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by yvaiine)
Ew...
LOOOOL Love your David Tennant sig from Partners in crime! - ok I am truly a Doctor Who freak!
0
reply
Jenny_C
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
People have the right to say what they want done with their body when they die (burial/cremation), so I think it goes without saying that they have the right to not be f.ucked by a horny pervert.
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#68
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by Bandicoot)
It is a very Kantian approach to adopt
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.

(Original post by Bandicoot)
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?
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.

(Original post by Bandicoot;31199974 [I)
Philosopher Immanuel Kant grants humans intrinsic dignity, and that appears to be violated by necrophilliacs when there is no prior consent[/I].
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.

(Original post by Bandicoot)
~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?
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.
0
reply
Delta Aitch
Badges: 13
#69
Report 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by smartini)
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.
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)
reply
ShayCamp
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
(Original post by Shippy)
This is why i'm getting cremated.
LOOOL I'm loving The Creep (The Lonely Island) sig! xx
0
reply
*Zep
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 years ago
#71
(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.
1) Some people like the idea of having their corpses shagged?
Edward Cullen?

2) But you have to think of the person - not just the family. You really think they would want their body to be used like that after their deaths - and by anyone? Also, imagine you had a child, they grew up - you loved them - and then they die. You'd happily take money from some random person who wanted to have sex with them? That's rather disturbing.

3) OP, would you allow it to happen to yourself?
0
reply
Arekkusu
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 years ago
#72
You are not supposed to tamper with a corpse in any way; it's disrespectful to the family of the person as well as to his soul and/or memory. Since our society holds sex to be the greatest physical communion - rape is worse than physical assault - so it is for necrophilia.

Though of course there is nothing wrong with the system you describe; of course people should be allowed to donate their body to necrophilia if they consented. I'm sure their estate would be very happy with the extra money that would come from the auction of the corpse.
0
reply
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 years ago
#73
Well as long as you can manage to gain acceptance from its relatives and friends then I can't see what the problem is. Except for the hygiene.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 years ago
#74
(Original post by Stefan1991)
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.
No, a corpse is more than that. You can't ignore that a corpse was once a living person. Innately it's more than just "an inanimate object" and from the the emotion attached to a corpse by their loved ones (and probably even by strangers), it is not a meaningless 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.
Getting what you want falls into two categories: want fulfillment and want satisfaction. Want satisfaction requires that the person knows, or thinks, that their want has been satisfied: it doesn't necessarily have had to been. Want fulfillment is the satisfaction of a person's desire irrespective of whether or not they know that. It is want fulfillment that is key to upholding a once-living person's desires and this is key to wills, funerals according to what the person wanted and post-humous tributes.

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.
So? If this is what a person wants to happen to their body, so be it. What alternative is there anyhow?

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?
So if x wants to have sex with y, y should always be flattered? This would justify rape.
I find the idea of someone having sex with my body disgusting and I'm entitled to. Don't prescribe what we should and shouldn't view as a compliment on others.

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?
Hmm, this part I find less controversial because you've made clear that the once-living person consented. However, I would still say that their family need to be ok with it. And I would expect major infection control. All those conditions all hard to be fulfilled and to be honest the psychology of a necrophiliac is perhaps one that needs to be addressed as opposed to the desire satisfied. That's probably why necrophilia is still illegal.
0
reply
kingkev
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#75
Report 7 years ago
#75
At least we know who to look for if there has been a mass excavation.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 years ago
#76
(Original post by Delta_Aitch)
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)
You bring up a good point, and you showed me a perspective I hadn't really considered before. I think my idea that necrophiliacs need help stems from the idea that a necrophiliac relationship is unworkable and counter-intuitive: you can't raise a child (your own or adopted) from necrophilia; you can't share mutual, romantic times together and so on.

And I just can't see the attraction of a dead body. Attraction, as far as we know it, is just how healthy someone looks- so things such as youth, facial symmetry, height are rated highly. A dead body, by definition, can't exhibit health.

I think there should be a separation between people who are attracted to dead bodies and people who have a partner and then the partner dies and the person wants to have sex with the partner one last time to hold on. In the latter, I do think that the grievance would be better countered by counselling than by the person being legally allowed to have sex with the dead body. As for the former... I'd like to see a study into the psychology of necrophilia, but I just can't imagine it being genetic in any way because where is the evolutionary advantage to it?
0
reply
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 years ago
#77
(Original post by Stefan1991)
I think it's high time for a sensible and reasoned debate on the issue.
Really? Do you not think that this 'issue' might not have been debated several centuries ago?

Look, if you put your reasoning to a topic that isn't completely disgusting and disrespectful then you may do well in taking arguments to an extreme. But I don't respect you for choosing such a topic. It just makes me wonder whether you thought 'what is the most taboo thing that I can think of and how can I excuse it?'

And.. do YOU or anyone else you know want to do this?

It IS immoral. A dead body used to be a living person. And, dead, it remains a biological entity. It remains PRIVATE property that may happen to be buried on public land. It remains a meaningful thing to those living who were related or acquainted with the deceased. Just because something can't choose to consent or not consent to something doesn't mean that it's OK. Someone in a coma wouldn't be able to either.

What kind of person would want to? A dehumanised rapist basically.

Anyone with these tendencies should buy themselves a mannequin instead.

There's no normal psychology that explains it. To be attracted to dead flesh is not right full stop. It doesn't make sense in terms of attraction- if you're attracted to older people then you should still like them to be a bit animated. It's psychopathic and selfish, about having complete control and trying to have no consequences. There are consequences.
1
reply
Bandicoot
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 years ago
#78
(Original post by Stefan1991)
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.
Replies are in bold.

I hope that you know that I am not the kind of person going "it is wrong outright, necophillia is disgusting" and spouting diatribe without thought. I realise -- and have evaluated before -- the crushing weaknesses of Kant's ethics and know that they lack practicality. But the key aspect of using reasoning to make moral conclusions is that it is unemotional, and when we do this, we often arrive at conclusions that are perfectly rational but either amoral or immoral. So trying to find a completely rational conclusion for why necrophillia is right or wrong simply won't do, because it devolves into descriptive ethics instead of normative ethics (balanced occasionally by people justifying it on whose interests get best served by the outcome).
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#79
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#79
(Original post by *Zep)
1)
3) OP, would you allow it to happen to yourself?
Why would I care?
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#80
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#80
(Original post by Arekkusu)
You are not supposed to tamper with a corpse in any way; it's disrespectful to the family of the person as well as to his soul and/or memory.
Proof of this?

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Since our society holds sex to be the greatest physical communion - rape is worse than physical assault - so it is for necrophilia.
But necrophilia isn't sex, it's masturbation. Rape is putting through a traumatic horrific violent experience, violating their body without their consent and leaving them with psychological trauma for years to come.

I think it's damn right offensive that you are somehow comparing that to necrophilia which if happened in secret nobody would even ever know about.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (443)
37.86%
No - but I will (88)
7.52%
No - I don't want to (80)
6.84%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (559)
47.78%

Watched Threads

View All