Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    EDIT: Well this thread has attracted enough attention now that I feel like I should have done a better introduction post, so here it is.

    after looking through many posts I can see there are several objections to which people usually draw upon. Therefore it's my plan to tackle these objections now so that future first time posters can be more or less caught up with the general argument.

    My position:

    Necrophilia is not inherently immoral. I don't agree that consent is necessary because consent is something that can only benefit the living, since the subject in question is merely a piece of meat and not a person, I would suggest that consent is the wrong way to look at it. Secondly I don't think an argument from 'respect of the dead' holds much water either. Quite simply, 'disrespect' and 'immoral' are not interchangable terms. I could call Queen Elizabeth II 'Lizzy' upon greeting her which in most circles could be seen as disrespectful but that does not make it immoral. Other people try to argue from emotional responses by saying things such as "How would you feel if your mother was siezed by a necrophiliac?" to which I say I would be horrified. This is because I too am a child born of this era which directly followed by one in which religious morality was the dominant force within the world. Morality has a way of slinking its way into our lives without us really knowing it especcialy when the roots of this morality stem back much further back than even our grandparents time. If someone feels as though they've been wronged about knowing a loved one was a 'victim' of a necrophiliac then all that serves to show is that people are against it or that there is a general consenus against it, but that in no way justifies the belief that it is immoral.

    Consider this scenario:

    A man or woman is dead, 100% no question about it. They have no family, friends or even anyone who is aware of their existence. A necrophiliac has sex with their freshly dead corpse. I would say that this scenario proves that necrophilia is not inherently immoral because nothing bad comes from the necrophiliac having his way with the corpse.

    Feel free to tackle my responses to the usual responses. I look forward to it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You can't assume consent, so yes it is wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's fine, as long as you're so good that you reanimate them.
    • Offline

      2
      OP why did you **** a dead person? :facepalm2:
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      But why would you want to? :confused:
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Consent? There is nothing to consent about, it's dead body ffs.

      From a utilitarian point of view, it seems unlikely to be classed as immoral. The only exception I can think of is if friends/family of the victim find out and it emotionally traumatizes them.

      That doesn't mean it isn't a vile act that should be condemned because frankly it is disturbing.. but immoral? I think not.
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      Why are you asking this> Trying to justify something?
      Offline

      9
      ReputationRep:
      Would you be comfortable knowing that when you were dead someone would gain sexual satisfaction from using your body as a sex object? It's disrespectful to that person in so many ways and just horrible.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Is necrophilia immoral?

      Does a bear take a dump in the woods?
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by alharrison4)
      Would you be comfortable knowing that when you were dead someone would gain sexual satisfaction from using your body as a sex object? It's disrespectful to that person in so many ways and just horrible.
      I'll be dead, I think I can safely say I won't care. There's no damage whatsoever done to anyone. Especially if no one close to the dead person finds out. It basically is akin to a sex toy, no reason to differentiate between the two because the consciousness is now absent.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Netsky)
      Does a bear take a dump in the woods?
      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.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      If the person had no family members still alive who could find out, and you reburied them properly (grass ontop and all) then I don't see why it's immoral.

      With practise I'm sure you'll be the best necrophile ever OP!
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by G8D)
      You can't assume consent, so yes it is wrong.
      There's nothing to consent, they're dead. Consent is only required for the living because without it you may be in danger of causing emotional trauma. Since there are no emotions to traumatise, I fail to see how consent is applicable.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      When I'm dead, I want my body to be "disposed" of somewhere where I can rest in peace. I am not an object, so I don't belong to anyone; so what I want done with my body is my choice.

      Secondly, I see Necrophilia along the same sort of lines as rape. A rapist has sex with someone who doesn't want it and is forced to. I think a necrophiliac is likely to be having sex with the body for the same sort of reasons as a rapist does; to pleasure him/her and not the person they're having it with, this is what masturbation is for.

      btw I see sex as a strong connection between two lovers (or meaningless between people who both want to have fun). Either way, the two people agree to it.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Rogercbinboy)
      If the person had no family members still alive who could find out, and you reburied them properly (grass ontop and all) then I don't see why it's immoral.

      With practise I'm sure you'll be the best necrophile ever OP!
      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.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Well, would you consider feeling up a sleeping girl immoral? No one would find out...
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whythehellnot)
      There's nothing to consent, they're dead. Consent is only required for the living because without it you may be in danger of causing emotional trauma. Since there are no emotions to traumatise, I fail to see how consent is applicable.
      It is still someone else's body regardless of whether they are out of capacity to have a say so in it's use.
      And since you can't consent in advance or assume silence as consent... Yeah it's wrong.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      It is not wrong. Basically you use an unanimate object.
      Its just against the law, offends most people and is (for most people, including myself) disgusting.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by jharrington93)
      When I'm dead, I want my body to be "disposed" of somewhere where I can rest in peace. I am not an object, so I don't belong to anyone; so what I want done with my body is my choice.

      Secondly, I see Necrophilia along the same sort of lines as rape. A rapist has sex with someone who doesn't want it and is forced to. I think a necrophiliac is likely to be having sex with the body for the same sort of reasons as a rapist does; to pleasure him/her and not the person they're having it with, this is what masturbation is for.

      btw I see sex as a strong connection between two lovers (or meaningless between people who both want to have fun). Either way, the two people agree to it.
      Pretty sure you wouldn't say using a peice of meat connected to a dead cow carcass would be immoral. Maybe disgusting and not to your taste, but not wrong. After all, we eat cows and so treating their dead with respect is hardly at the top of human priorities. What's the difference? You seem to be fine with masturbation and so presumably, sex toys too.

      We're talking about a slab of meat with no emotions, no rationality or consciousness. So what's the real problem?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      I think consent should be gained, just as it is for people who donate their organs or their body to science. This would principally be as a mark of respect to the person (they are gifting their body, after all).Perhaps we should do what David Mitchell suggests: have a system where people can chose to donate their bodies to necrophilia.
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  3. 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.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.