Necrophillia is not immoral Watch

Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#141
Report 7 years ago
#141
Morals don't come into it. Necrophilia is just sick.
2
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#142
Report 7 years ago
#142
(Original post by Stefan1991)
That is irrelevant, in your mind nothing ever happened.
What? How is irrelevant? Just because I don't remember the pain afterwards doesn't mean I didn't feel it at the time.

Yes, but this case is where something happens to something which is not you, you don't know about it, and you are not affected by it.
You are affected, you have less money in the bank.

Are they? :lolwut:

If I put two fingers up to your name on my computer screen, and you don't know about it, does that affect you? Will I get punished?
Did you never go to school? People are punished for it. If you did it to the queen or someone, I would imagine that you could face consequences.

Also people's views on sex and bodies are very flawed which I've always demonstrated in other threads.
You're missing the point over and over again. It doesn't matter what YOU think, it matters what other people think. People have views based on what they perceive to be acceptable, not what you perceive to be acceptable.


Sorry but something being legal means jack all. Marijuana and prostitution are still illegal. Homosexuality was illegal 60 years ago. So was interracial marriage. "Legally recognised, oh it must be right".
Do you know what prompted things like the HTA? The Aldery Hay controversy? The laws of post-humous consent didn't come from nothing, they're from an event -> debate -> law. The law, in this case, isn't baseless.


Explain this. A person who does not exist cannot be a moral patient.
a) once-living person... while you may not recognise that, I do and so do people who's loved ones have died. Necrophilia is never going to become acceptable because of the emotions of dead and grievance.
b) because of the sybolism of a dead body and the emotion attached to them.



Why? They are not their bodies any longer.
They owned their body pre-life, this ownership extends post-humous.


So by not murdering people I'm agreeing to a whole contract I've never read nor agreed to? :lolwut:

Just because I might follow bits of a contract doesn't mean I agree and I'm binded and obligated to fulfil the whole thing.

What does this social contract entail?
You're too literal with the word "contract." Anyhow, it doesn't matter what label you give it, we (and other animal societies) exist in a way where we support each other and where we take care of the sick... you can call it social contract or whatever you want, but it evidently exists.
1
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#143
Report 7 years ago
#143
(Original post by Stefan1991)
Person chooses less selfish option over selfish option which does not even benefit nor affect him. This is bad how?
It does affect him, whilst he's alive and while he's dead. It also affects his family.

You go on about how contracts need to this and that in the context of social contract theory and yet seem to completely disregard the concept of informed, and valid consent, in this case. It's coercion, therefore invalid.
0
reply
aeterno
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#144
Report 7 years ago
#144
(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.
Surely you'll get more satisfaction out of someone who's alive? You know, someone who can actually react (hopefully positively) to what you're doing. Or do you ask anyone you're screwing to lie still while you go at them?

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.
Dildos never used to be alive...(if any you've come across have been, you've got bigger issues there...)

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.
Why would you want to have sex with something that's rotting? It's not so much about people caring about their own body once it's dead...I mean, there's nothing they could do about it and they won't know themselves. It's just that the idea of someone having sex with a corpse brings up the mental instability of that person. Why would anyone want to do that? How can it possibly turn them on?

To those who would say necrophillia is somehow disrespectful, how exactly?
Put it this way - the body is all that's left of that person and you're completely defiling that by sticking it up there and having your way with this body. It's disrespectful to the family of this person - surely you understand that much?

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?
By your logic, rape is also a compliment...and that's just absurd.

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.
Yes, I'm sure that'll go down a treat...

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...
I'm pretty sure the deceased's family will be deeply disturbed by this whichever way you spin it.

Any thoughts?
Yes. You're a nutter and I sincerely hope you're trolling.
0
reply
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#145
Report 7 years ago
#145
(Original post by aeterno)
Surely you'll get more satisfaction out of someone who's alive? You know, someone who can actually react (hopefully positively) to what you're doing. Or do you ask anyone you're screwing to lie still while you go at them?

Why would you want to have sex with something that's rotting? It's not so much about people caring about their own body once it's dead...I mean, there's nothing they could do about it and they won't know themselves. It's just that the idea of someone having sex with a corpse brings up the mental instability of that person. Why would anyone want to do that? How can it possibly turn them on?
I don't personally see the attraction in homosexuality, in fact, I find the physical act to be repulsive. This does not however mean that I believe that homosexuals are immoral, and therefore do not condemn them. I use the same logic for necrophilia, even though I, personally, would never be inclined to do such a thing, I accept that there are other people that are inclined.

(Original post by aeterno)

Put it this way - the body is all that's left of that person and you're completely defiling that by sticking it up there and having your way with this body. It's disrespectful to the family of this person - surely you understand that much?
The body no longer has any use to the individual, so why not let it be used by a necrophiliac? I am only for this however in cases where the previous owner of the body has consented in writing to allow their body to be used by a necrophiliac. So it wouldn't be "death rape" as the person who the body belonged to wanted the act to occur after their death.

(Original post by aeterno)

I'm pretty sure the deceased's family will be deeply disturbed by this whichever way you spin it.
The will of the previous occupant of the body is more important than that of the family.
0
reply
aeterno
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#146
Report 7 years ago
#146
(Original post by imperial maniac)
I don't personally see the attraction in homosexuality, in fact, I find the physical act to be repulsive. This does not however mean that I believe that homosexuals are immoral, and therefore do not condemn them. I use the same logic for necrophilia, even though I, personally, would never be inclined to do such a thing, I accept that there are other people that are inclined.
Homosexuality and necrophilia are hardly comparable now are they? Homosexuality involves 2 consenting adults in which the pleasure of both parties is important. That's clearly not the case for necrophilia.

The body no longer has any use to the individual, so why not let it be used by a necrophiliac? I am only for this however in cases where the previous owner of the body has consented in writing to allow their body to be used by a necrophiliac. So it wouldn't be "death rape" as the person who the body belonged to wanted the act to occur after their death.
But why would anyone even want to do this? Surely they've got far bigger issues if this is what turns them on? I highly doubt anyone actually wants their body to be used for such purposes either :erm:

The will of the previous occupant of the body is more important than that of the family.
This doesn't mean that they'll be ok with it...and it would still cause them a great deal of distress.
0
reply
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#147
Report 7 years ago
#147
(Original post by aeterno)
Homosexuality and necrophilia are hardly comparable now are they? Homosexuality involves 2 consenting adults in which the pleasure of both parties is important. That's clearly not the case for necrophilia.
I would argue that both are consenting adults, but yes, the two are completely different. I was using it as a comparison to try and explain there are things which I find to be disgusting, but when looked at from a rational perspective, not immoral.

(Original post by aeterno)

But why would anyone even want to do this? Surely they've got far bigger issues if this is what turns them on? I highly doubt anyone actually wants their body to be used for such purposes either :erm:
Other necrophiliacs possibly? I think a necrophiliac would be inclined to donate his body to another necrophiliac after death.

(Original post by aeterno)

This doesn't mean that they'll be ok with it...and it would still cause them a great deal of distress.
Like I said, the will of the previous owner of the body is more important than the will of the family.
0
reply
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#148
Report 7 years ago
#148
(Original post by Stefan1991)
Yes, it's not immoral.
So you are saying that even if someone didn't consent to sex when they were alive and were raped when they were alive, it wouldn't matter if they couldn't remember about it? See no evil, hear no evil, feel no evil = Be no evil to you?

You are an apologist for opportunistic heinous crimes. It's like saying that
because there is no natural law- no thunder bolt from the sky when something like this happens - then there should be no constructed law to remedy this either.

I don't particularly object to your idea about people being allowed to choose to leave their bodies for this purpose after death. But I certainly would never respect such a person, especially if they were leaving it for the use of any amount of unknown strangers. What kind of respect would that show to their partner or family, still living, to know that their 'dearly departed' (or not so dearly departed) is allowing any old person to get their jollies on their corpse?
1
reply
Cariie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#149
Report 7 years ago
#149
(Original post by Stefan1991)
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.
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?
Considering you started this thread to try and have a reasonable discussion on the morality of necrophillia you are really yet to develop your argument passed 'let people do what they want' and using ridiculous comparisons like dildos for a dead person as a sexual object.
Personally I doubt many animals out there are consenting to 'sex' with humans. Let's be realistic here, there's a reason its classed as animal abuse. Human's having 'sex' with animals is not nature. That's why we have structural isolation and inter-species gamete mortality.
If you had read my comment properly, my personal opinion was taken away from the original 'morality' question, but I'll go ahead and respond to your point anyway; I'm going to look at it this way, if you have sex with a living person who does not give consent, that is rape and I will consider it the same way with a dead person. It does depend how you see a dead person, whether you still respect them as you would in live or whether you just consider them as an object which is now merely rejoining the carbon cycle.
0
reply
HomeoApathy92
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#150
Report 7 years ago
#150
(Original post by Stefan1991)
That's almost as pointless as saying to a gay person, "what's wrong with having sex with people of the opposite sex???? :lolwut: Plenty of girls around, what's wrong with you?"

I don't understand what gay men are attracted to in other men, doesn't make it wrong.
having sex with a dead person is clearly not the same as having sex with a person who is alive of the same sex.
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#151
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#151
(Original post by Arekkusu)
You drive a good argument which seems to come down to the validity of the emotional response. I understand that much of philosophising, as we are now doing, describes a utopia.

However, practically, it is unethical to cause harm and suffering to people who are aware their relatives/they themselves will be ****ed after death. People are animals and have emotions; they aren't p-zombies.

You rightly say that emotions often hold us back from enlightenment and rationality. Does that justify violating them and causing immense psychological harm simply because those who have them are imperfect?
You have possibly are the only person who has countered my arguments with any sense of logic.

I'd say that if family are unaware of said necrophilic act, then that means no harm is done.

Plus I seriously doubt it would cause any psychological damage, it may cause offence but it's impossible not to cause offence because as we all know causing offence is completely subjective. Even a harmless throwaway comment/joke causes nation-wide controversy and people get mortally offended.

There is no real rational reason for why the family should be offended, as I said before, if anything it's a compliment. They should understand that it would be purely for sexual gratification and not intended to cause offence anyway. People should discard their superstitious beliefs and accept that decaying organic matter, is just decaying organic matter. It doesn't matter what happens to it.

And it's like saying because homosexual partners in the privacy of their own home are making love offends some people, it should be banned for causing 'psychological damage'. Sorry, but getting upset over something isn't "psychological damage".

The family can't claim ownership of the body, so they should not have a right to dictate what and what doesn't happen to it, any moreso than the non-existing non-person.
0
reply
4TSR
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#152
Report 7 years ago
#152
(Original post by jndk109)
no way it cant be any more disrespectful, your mutilating the deceased! imagine your mum had died and you saw someone having sex with her before her funeral what would you think? to be honest i cannot think of anything mroe disrispectful, sick and more horrible.
Oh you want something more sick and horrible? well try this

go to www.youtube.com

type in justin bieber

necrophilia doesn't sound too bad now does it...
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#153
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#153
(Original post by HomeoApathy92)
having sex with a dead person is clearly not the same as having sex with a person who is alive of the same sex.
If anything it is less ethically challenging because a dead body does not need to consent.

Why should the two be treated any different?
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#154
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#154
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
What? How is irrelevant? Just because I don't remember the pain afterwards doesn't mean I didn't feel it at the time.
You really don't seem to be able to grasp how memory and conciousness works. You are not harmed by it, you are unaware it is happening, to you it does not exist.


(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
You are affected, you have less money in the bank.
I was not even referring to that, I was referring to necrophilia which if happened in private would not affect anyone. Keep up lad.


(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
Did you never go to school? People are punished for it. If you did it to the queen or someone, I would imagine that you could face consequences.
Why should people be punished for extending two fingers on the same hand? Are you seriously trying to tell me FINGERS offend you? :lol:

That is a classic example of what stupid things people get offended at for no logical reason.

And lastly, I seriously doubt I would face any real consequences for doing so. In fact, if I ever see the Queen, I'll try it out. Just for you.

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
You're missing the point over and over again. It doesn't matter what YOU think, it matters what other people think. People have views based on what they perceive to be acceptable, not what you perceive to be acceptable.
It's nothing to do with what my views are, if people's views aren't remotely based on reality why should everyone have to pander to them?

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
Do you know what prompted things like the HTA? The Aldery Hay controversy? The laws of post-humous consent didn't come from nothing, they're from an event -> debate -> law. The law, in this case, isn't baseless.
Oh look an example of mass moral hysteria. Is this meant to mean anything to me? Please explain to me how retaining organs and tissue is unethical?

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
a) once-living person... while you may not recognise that, I do and so do people who's loved ones have died. Necrophilia is never going to become acceptable because of the emotions of dead and grievance.
Slightly short-sighted. At least simulated necrophilia will one day be available.

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
b) because of the sybolism of a dead body and the emotion attached to them.
Symbolism? Another thing which is completely subjective. I think fussing over a carcass of decaying organic cells is not going to bring their loved ones back.

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
They owned their body pre-life, this ownership extends post-humous.
How can a non-existing non-person own property? That is illogical.


(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
You're too literal with the word "contract." Anyhow, it doesn't matter what label you give it, we (and other animal societies) exist in a way where we support each other and where we take care of the sick... you can call it social contract or whatever you want, but it evidently exists.

How can I read that as anything other than literally when you use legal terms such as "contract". You want me to interpret it metaphorically?

No social contract exists, it is a myth and a stupid way of explaining simple biological/sociological phenomena such as altruism.
0
reply
googlegel
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#155
Report 7 years ago
#155
Are you serious???
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#156
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#156
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
It does affect him, whilst he's alive and while he's dead. It also affects his family.
How does something which hasn't happened yet affect him backwards in time whilst he's alive? I don't think you really grasped how causality works yet...

It might affect his family depending on how logical and unsuperstitious they are, but it's not going to harm them. So again, if the family aren't aware of it (why should they be?) then there is no harm caused is there?

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
You go on about how contracts need to this and that in the context of social contract theory and yet seem to completely disregard the concept of informed, and valid consent, in this case. It's coercion, therefore invalid.
WHAT is being coerced? Please explain how you coerce a dead body, it's an object. You can't coerce objects, they have no free will, no conciousness, no want nor need to consent. This seems so mind-bogglingly simple, why does it have to be spelt out for you?

And I have no referred to social contract theory to back up anything even once :confused:
0
reply
Kaykiie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#157
Report 7 years ago
#157
(Original post by S1L3NTPR3Y)
I really dont want my corpse to be f***ed by some pervy old man, thx no matter what he is offering
Then don't donate your body to them

:holmes:




Eeeeew.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#158
Report 7 years ago
#158
(Original post by Stefan1991)
You really don't seem to be able to grasp how memory and conciousness works. You are not harmed by it, you are unaware it is happening, to you it does not exist.
For the last time, I'm not objecting to being raped and murdered because of the effects (which in this case would not exist), I'm objecting to it because regardless of whether or not I remember it afterwards, it would hurt AT THE TIME. You can't dismiss suffering because you can't remember it afterwards.

I was not even referring to that, I was referring to necrophilia which if happened in private would not affect anyone. Keep up lad.
I'm not a lad, I would've thought the pink icon next to my name would be a slight hint.

The conversation went as followed:

Me: blah blah want-fulfillment, want-satisfaction.
You: How can something you don't know about affect you?
Me: analogy to illustrate - i.e. physically having less money despite not knowing it
You: I WAS REFERRING TO NECROPHILIA.


Why should people be punished for extending two fingers on the same hand? Are you seriously trying to tell me FINGERS offend you? :lol:

That is a classic example of what stupid things people get offended at for no logical reason.
Because of the meaning behind them. If things were as you are making out, we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation because words and actions would lack meaning.

And lastly, I seriously doubt I would face any real consequences for doing so. In fact, if I ever see the Queen, I'll try it out. Just for you.
For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be.

Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation
Source.

If you "damaged the queens reputation", you might face repercussions.

It's nothing to do with what my views are, if people's views aren't remotely based on reality why should everyone have to pander to them?
It's you who doesn't base things on reality. Emotions exist and they're powerful. Why should we have to pander a way of life that reduces us to emotionless beings?


Oh look an example of mass moral hysteria. Is this meant to mean anything to me? Please explain to me how retaining organs and tissue is unethical?
It was without consent. Even worse when it's children: for children adults make their decisions anyway, to store tissue without the parents' consent is disrespectful and downright hypocritical because the parents were still around to give consent.


Slightly short-sighted. At least simulated necrophilia will one day be available.
You don't have a crystal ball, but so far nothing is indicating that it will be legalised.


Symbolism? Another thing which is completely subjective. I think fussing over a carcass of decaying organic cells is not going to bring their loved ones back.
Mourning is universal and we see it in the animal kingdom. It's barely subjective.



How can a non-existing non-person own property? That is illogical.
What are your reasons for believing they don't? I've already repeated my reasoning many times.


How can I read that as anything other than literally when you use legal terms such as "contract". You want me to interpret it metaphorically?

No social contract exists, it is a myth and a stupid way of explaining simple biological/sociological phenomena such as altruism.
Well, yeah, because no one has ever claimed that you sign a contract to be a part of society.

As I said, altruism, social contract, whatever you want to call it, they all essentially making the same point about morality.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#159
Report 7 years ago
#159
(Original post by Stefan1991)
How does something which hasn't happened yet affect him backwards in time whilst he's alive? I don't think you really grasped how causality works yet...
Another example of your inability to consider the complexity of human emotions. We, and this is potentially what makes us unique amongst animals, can look into the future and feel dread or anticipation for something. If someone decided to donate their body to a necrophile to make money for their family, the idea of it would disturb them at the time of living.

It might affect his family depending on how logical and unsuperstitious they are, but it's not going to harm them. So again, if the family aren't aware of it (why should they be?) then there is no harm caused is there?
So you presume harm can only be physical?

How would the family not be aware of it? Most families plan a funeral so they'd realise if the body went missing. And their consent is required for things to happen to the body after death (organ donation wouldn't be done if the family was really against it, even if the person had consented).

WHAT is being coerced? Please explain how you coerce a dead body, it's an object. You can't coerce objects, they have no free will, no conciousness, no want nor need to consent. This seems so mind-bogglingly simple, why does it have to be spelt out for you?

And I have no referred to social contract theory to back up anything even once :confused:
In your OP you said that the person would agree to donate their body for after death. It is the reaching of this agreement (while the person is alive) that would be coerced.

In other posts you said "consent in social contract isn't valid because of x, y, z therefore it's not consent so can't be a contract so can't exist". And yet here you blatantly ignore the concept of valid consent.
0
reply
HomeoApathy92
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#160
Report 7 years ago
#160
(Original post by Stefan1991)
If anything it is less ethically challenging because a dead body does not need to consent.

Why should the two be treated any different?
less ethically challenging?.. its disturbing and unnatural and just plain weird
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! (314)
37.83%
No - but I will (64)
7.71%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.47%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (390)
46.99%

Watched Threads

View All