NationStates Jolt Archive

No, seriously. It's reproductively unnatural, but it doesn't harm anyone. We should legalize necrophilia!

No, seriously. It's reproductively unnatural, but it doesn't harm anyone. We should legalize necrophilia!

It should be an option, like donating your body to science. *washes hands of this thread/issue*

No, seriously. It's reproductively unnatural, but it doesn't harm anyone. We should legalize necrophilia!

Parody threads are not looked upon kindly

Besides that it is a public health issue

What the fuck? Are you talking about only if the person who's dead consents to you fucking them when they are dead? (which they would never do)

If so then, although it's still obviously wrong, it's not the worst thing in the world.

Think about it; all those ugly people who couldn't get laid in real life, would get it in death... :D

What the fuck? Are you talking about only if the person who's dead consents to you fucking them when they are dead? (which they would never do)

If so then, although it's still obviously wrong, it's not the worst thing in the world.

I'm saying check it on your drivers liscense like organ donation. I'll be dead, what the frak would I care?

NS has been getting slightly perverse lately. Why is everyone obsessed with illicit sex? :rolleyes:

Whatever. Who cares? What about combining weird taboos. How about having sex with a same-sex dead child who's related to you and inviting your dog to join in? Now that's a thread starter.

I'm saying check it on your drivers liscense like organ donation. I'll be dead, what the frak would I care?

Most people would want their body to lie in dignity. And not be abused.

I figure as long as life-sized sex dolls are legal...

Of course, grave digging, not so much.

Most people would want their body to lie in dignity. And not be abused.

But some wouldn't care.

NS has been getting slightly perverse lately. Why is everyone obsessed with illicit sex? :rolleyes:

Nothing is new...

Most people would want their body to lie in dignity. And not be abused.

Funny how that sentence uses the word 'most' as opposed to 'all'.

Its only worth having sex w/ people who have been dead for less than two days. Anything more they just get all cold and rotten. At that point it becomes like fucking a peice of fruit.

If the dead person consents before they die, then it's probably fine - however, if they don't, then it does harm people: religious families for starters (who may consider the human body to be sacred), and even non-religious families when they find out someone's being doing sick shit to their loved one, and the spirit of the dead body may be pretty pissed off too.

Whatever. Who cares? What about combining weird taboos. How about having sex with a same-sex dead child who's related to you and inviting your dog to join in? Now that's a thread starter.


Homonecropedobeastial incest?

What the fuck? Are you talking about only if the person who's dead consents to you fucking them when they are dead? (which they would never do)


No one needs to consent, because sex with a corpse only involves 1 sentient human being. It's actually just sex with an inanimate object. No harm there.

Funny how that sentence uses the word 'most' as opposed to 'all'.
Well... people do become cadavars...

But some wouldn't care.

A large number of their family would, think how distraught the family would be to know that their sons corpse is getting abused every saturday night in somebodys basement.

Funny how that sentence uses the word 'most' as opposed to 'all'.

I wouldn't care. So what if some guy's sodomising the empty shell of my body? Whoopty damn do.

No one needs to consent, because sex with a corpse only involves 1 sentient human being. It's actually just sex with an inanimate object. No harm there.

Some people find the body sacred. The person must consent before they die. I won't budge on that.

A large number of their family would, think how distraught the family would be to know that their sons corpse is getting abused every saturday night in somebodys basement.

Feh. You never have to tell them, put down a "Confidentiality" clause and tell them you're being creamated. :p

I wouldn't care. So what if some guy's sodomising the empty shell of my body? Whoopty damn do.

That's my point. He said most instead of all, meaning there are some who wouldn't care. It's the same as your post but said differently.

I could take a pound of ground beef and use it as a sex toy, there is no real difference between that and corpses. Just that human corpses are worth a bit less, because you'll find that the market for human meat is much smaller and less profitable.
Really, people, the dead are dead. How about trying to apply some of that "respect" to people while they're alive?

I could take a pound of ground beef and use it as a sex toy, there is no real difference between that and corpses. Just that human corpses are worth a bit less, because you'll find that the market for human meat is much smaller and less profitable.
Really, people, the dead are dead. How about trying to apply some of that "respect" to people while they're alive?

Hear, hear!

Not to mention the sad fact that cemetaries mean dead people can afford plots of land (apparently for eternity), land which adds up to vast tracts throughout the world, whereas many living people can't even afford homes.

And there is an inverse relationship between available land and land prices - that means that cemetaries increase the cost of land, meaning some people who might otherwise be able to afford living space, can't.

All because the "body is sacred."

No, seriously. It's reproductively unnatural, but it doesn't harm anyone. We should legalize necrophilia!There is no consent by the other partner, and since they were born with the capacity to have their consent respected, you'd basically raping them by engaging in necrophilia.

There is no consent by the other partner, and since they were born with the capacity to have their consent respected, you'd basically raping them by engaging in necrophilia.

All that seems to imply "they" are involved. They aren't! Corpses don't have human rights, that's why they can't vote ([insert political party of your choice humor here]) or, well, do anything that living, animate humans can.

If I'm dead, I effectively no longer exist as far as consent goes. I can't say yes, no, and in fact no matter what you do to my body at that point, I won't give a damn.

Corpses don't have human rights, that's why they can't vote

They can in Chicago.

There is nothing wrong with necrophilia.

Waste is waste, whether it is broken cars or expired bodies. Corpse is an inanimate object and no consent is needed. There is only one person engaged in necrophilia - it's a form of masturbation.

However, in some nations with full inheritance rights human corpse may be the property of its former inhabitant. As so, he should have some rights to decide what to do with it - maybe strongly religious persons could demand that their corpse is not used for spare parts, or demand it to be buried, provided they pay all expenses and buy the land (in nations where it is sold).
This is true only for nations which do not outlaw religions. Others do not even need the term "necrophilia" to leave medical institutions.

Pressing nations via UN is plain totalitarism.

As long as future necro-fuckdolls have to give their expressed permission, and somebody invents some sort of necro-healthcode, I don't see the problem.

My remains will be used as spare parts & research material for medical science. When it happens, I won't exist & pt. I can think of no more noble a use for a body than that. If some twisted **** decides to have a ride while my remains are in the morgue, what is it to me? As long as it's still possible to use it for something more important than stress relief, I don't give a toss.

If my soul objects, then I suggest it makes itself observable. If not, then it can sod off.

Hear, hear!

Not to mention the sad fact that cemetaries mean dead people can afford plots of land (apparently for eternity), land which adds up to vast tracts throughout the world, whereas many living people can't even afford homes.

And there is an inverse relationship between available land and land prices - that means that cemetaries increase the cost of land, meaning some people who might otherwise be able to afford living space, can't.

All because the "body is sacred."Why not just confiscate the land of people who have recently died and give it to people who can't afford any?

Why not just confiscate the land of people who have recently died and give it to people who can't afford any?

It's against peoples beliefs. Violate those, and I'll be forced to F***ING KILL YOU (TM) (F***ING KILL YOU is a trademark of Steve Balmer and Microsoft Inc., I claim no legal ownership of the term, and would rather Steve Balmer's lawyers not F***ING KILL me.)

Why not just confiscate the land of people who have recently died and give it to people who can't afford any?

Because that's communist. That's a slope we don't need to be going down. Then it's just "confiscate the land of people who are wealthy," or "confiscate the land of people I don't think are patriotic enough."

Because that's communist. That's a slope we don't need to be going down. Then it's just "confiscate the land of people who are wealthy," or "confiscate the land of people I don't think are patriotic enough."Well, you begin to go down that slope by confiscating the bodies of people who have recently died and giving them to people who can't get any.

Why not just confiscate the land of people who have recently died and give it to people who can't afford any?
Because there already exists a system whereby their land is handed off to other people who shall make use of it in some way or another.
The system of inheritence serves a logical purpose, that of encouraging people to build a farm, business, etc that will last long enough to supply for their children, whereas the current system of devoting land, time and legal protection to hunks of rancid meat does not.

Because there already exists a system whereby their land is handed off to other people who shall make use of it in some way or another.
The system of inheritence serves a logical purpose, that of encouraging people to build a farm, business, etc that will last long enough to supply for their children, whereas the current system of devoting land, time and legal protection to hunks of rancid meat does not.

Fine, creamate those who don't have to be burried according to their religion.

Well, you begin to go down that slope by confiscating the bodies of people who have recently died and giving them to people who can't get any.
The "Slippery Slope" is the last resort of a man who knows he has no real reason to justify his actions (or lack thereof), but is refusing to change anyway. It was no more valid an excuse deny blacks the right to vote, than it is to deny gay marriage or to prop up your own argument.

Well, you begin to go down that slope by confiscating the bodies of people who have recently died and giving them to people who can't get any.

Hold on, where did I say bodies should be 'confiscated' and 'given' to anyone in particular? I'm only questioning the morality of 'necrophilia is wrong.'

The "Slippery Slope" is the last resort of a man who knows he has no real reason to justify his actions (or lack thereof), but is refusing to change anyway. It was no more valid an excuse deny blacks the right to vote, than it is to deny gay marriage or to prop up your own argument.

I don't see anything wrong with the slopes of the others. And anyway, religious rights. If a person's religion requires them to be buried, then bury them.

Hold on, where did I say bodies should be 'confiscated' and 'given' to anyone in particular? I'm only questioning the morality of 'necrophilia is wrong.'

Heh. He's right. *gives trots a cookie*

1. Hey, they're dead, they're not going to care either way
2. If they're fresh, its really not that dirty
3. You shouldn't be so picky. Some people have a really hard time getting laid.
4. It's not rape, they can't tell you no.
5. Like a fine wine, some people look better with age.
6. A little spit can go a long way.
7. A shovel works better than diamonds (and cheaper too.)
8. You can hang out that extra few days.
9. No one gets hurt in the end.
and finally
10. Think of that special someone. They wouldn't give you the time of day, so you can give them that time of night.:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

10. Think of that special someone. They wouldn't give you the time of day, so you can give them that time of night.:flaffle: :floffle: :fliffle:

Oh that's just disturbing... now I can't get it out of my head! EWWW!!!!!

If a person's religion requires them to be buried, then bury them.
And if my religion (or lack thereof) doesn't care in the slightest what happens to the vacant meat after I've left it, what business is it of anyone elses what happens to it?

Codifying religion into laws that apply to everyone makes no sense. You want protection for your corpse because of your religion? Talk to your priest or rabbi or imam. Leave my legislators out of it.

And if my religion (or lack thereof) doesn't care in the slightest what happens to the vacant meat after I've left it, what business is it of anyone elses what happens to it?

Codifying religion into laws that apply to everyone makes no sense. You want protection for your corpse because of your religion? Talk to your priest or rabbi or imam, but leave my legislators out of it.

I just want to make sure not getting... used... is an option. If you check the box to be used, more power to you, hell I'd do it.

It's just too gross, too gross. Of course, if I where to justify my opinion it would be I don't like necrophelia because it spreads diseases and is a major health/sanitation issue.

Hold on, where did I say bodies should be 'confiscated' and 'given' to anyone in particular? I'm only questioning the morality of 'necrophilia is wrong.'Right there:

No one needs to consent, because sex with a corpse only involves 1 sentient human being. It's actually just sex with an inanimate object. No harm there.If nobody needs to consent, then the logical consequence of this is that anyone can have sex with the body.

Because there already exists a system whereby their land is handed off to other people who shall make use of it in some way or another.
The system of inheritence serves a logical purpose, that of encouraging people to build a farm, business, etc that will last long enough to supply for their children, whereas the current system of devoting land, time and legal protection to hunks of rancid meat does not.And likewise, the disposal of a body should fall in line with the system of inheritance; if nobody needs to consent to the disposal of their body, then they needn't consent to the disposal of their land and belongings, either.

Right there:

If nobody needs to consent, then the logical consequence of this is that anyone can have sex with the body.

Nonsense. There can be rules, just as there are rules governing many aspects of life. Just because a corpse is an inanimate object doesn't mean it's the People's Corpse and will be hung in the town square for everyone to have a go at. ;)

I am not trying to argue for the specifics of HOW necrophilia could be made legal, I am arguing that it is not immoral.

Nonsense. There can be rules, just as there are rules governing many aspects of life. Just because a corpse is an inanimate object doesn't mean it's the People's Corpse and will be hung in the town square for everyone to have a go at. ;)

I am not trying to argue for the specifics of HOW necrophilia could be made legal, I am arguing that it is not immoral.It's immoral if you're having sex with the body of a person who hasn't consented to your having sex with it. If they have consented to it, then it's not immoral.

It's immoral if you're having sex with the body of a person who hasn't consented to your having sex with it. If they have consented to it, then it's not immoral.

How can it be immoral when no matter what they consented to during life, they're DEAD? They're not going to be hurt by it. Or offended. Nor will they ever object. Or know about it. And there's a strong argument to be made about whether a dead person truly owns their own body at all.

And likewise, the disposal of a body should fall in line with the system of inheritance; if nobody needs to consent to the disposal of their body, then they needn't consent to the disposal of their land and belongings, either.
Did you not read what I said? There is a logical reason for land and belongings to fall under the system of inheritence: it encourages people to invest in the economy over the long term, even when they might not see the full fruits of their labors.
Taboos regarding the handling of the dead, however, serve no practical purpose, and, so, shouldn't be honored by the law.

it spreads diseases and is a major health/sanitation issue.
I don't buy it. Show me statistics that prove that screwing a corpse is in any way more of a disease vector than screwing a cow ... or a rump roast of similar age. Most transmittable diseases require a living host. If it's dead, you'd run the same risk when masturbating with rotten meat. (yes, high 'eww' factor there too, sorry)

Sounds to me like somebody took an 'ewww' factor and manufactured reasons to make it a law. I know that I've never heard of any 'major health/sanitation issues' from corpse desecration. The only time it pops up is when some sexual deviant gets a job in a funeral parlor just for the opportunity, and somebody tips the cops.

Dollars to donuts you can't turn up any reliable statistics to back this up. It's all 'ewww' factor and religion.


.

Did you not read what I said? There is a logical reason for land and belongings to fall under the system of inheritence: it encourages people to invest in the economy over the long term, even when they might not see the full fruits of their labors.
Taboos regarding the handling of the dead, however, serve no practical purpose, and, so, shouldn't be honored by the law.

Unless the person chooses that they should.

How can it be immoral when no matter what they consented to during life, they're DEAD? They're not going to be hurt by it. Or offended. Nor will they ever object. Or know about it. And there's a strong argument to be made about whether a dead person truly owns their own body at all.There's absolutely no difference between the morality of this and the morality of confiscating the land of dead people. They're not going to be hurt, offended, or object to that, either.
Certainly an argument can be made about whether a dead person truly owns their own body as well, but the same argument applies to whether they truly own the possessions they had.

Did you not read what I said? There is a logical reason for land and belongings to fall under the system of inheritence: it encourages people to invest in the economy over the long term, even when they might not see the full fruits of their labors.
Taboos regarding the handling of the dead, however, serve no practical purpose, and, so, shouldn't be honored by the law.Yes, I read what you said; I ignored it because practicality is irrelevant in this instance. Inheritance rights don't exist because of the practicality of inheritance, they exist as a logical extension of property rights.

There's absolutely no difference between the morality of this and the morality of confiscating the land of dead people. They're not going to be hurt, offended, or object to that, either.
Certainly an argument can be made about whether a dead person truly owns their own body as well, but the same argument applies to whether they truly own the possessions they had.

Yes, I read what you said; I ignored it because practicality is irrelevant in this instance. Inheritance rights don't exist because of the practicality of inheritance, they exist as a logical extension of property rights.
I'm going to push religious freedom again. If a person objects, they shouldn't have to give it up after death.

Yes, I read what you said; I ignored it because practicality is irrelevant in this instance. Inheritance rights don't exist because of the practicality of inheritance, they exist as a logical extension of property rights.
One can't own things post-mortem, to imply that they could would mean that someone who died without a will would continue to own all their possessions.
Since ownership terminates at death, then inheritence of property has to be based on one of two ideas:
1) Practicallity. I've already laid out how this argument can't apply.
2) Their belongings are legally transferred at the very moment of death. However, the corpse doesn't exist until after the moment of death, and, therefore, can't be passed on to another at this point.

However, even assuming that we take your argument, a person still doesn't have the right to give or deny consent for anything to be done with their corpse. Instead, the corpse would become property of whomever they willed it to, and it would be that person's choice whether the corpse is to be buggered, experimented on, or chopped up for the meat department in his local Wal-Mart.

I'm going to push religious freedom again. If a person objects, they shouldn't have to give it up after death.I agree, though I would carry it further; a person would have to specifically consent to it in order for it to be moral.

One can't own things post-mortem, to imply that they could would mean that someone who died without a will would continue to own all their possessions.
Since ownership terminates at death, then inheritence of property has to be based on one of two ideas:
1) Practicallity. I've already laid out how this argument can't apply.
2) Their belongings are legally transferred at the very moment of death. However, the corpse doesn't exist until after the moment of death, and, therefore, can't be passed on to another at this point.

However, even assuming that we take your argument, a person still doesn't have the right to give or deny consent for anything to be done with their corpse. Instead, the corpse would become property of whomever they willed it to, and it would be that person's choice whether the corpse is to be buggered, experimented on, or chopped up for the meat department in his local Wal-Mart.It's feasible that inheritance can be made conditional; if the inheritor of the body doesn't dispose of it the way the person wished, they would lose the inheritance.

I agree, though I would carry it further; a person would have to specifically consent to it in order for it to be moral.

I'm not good in legal talk. That's my position. You said it better.

There's absolutely no difference between the morality of this and the morality of confiscating the land of dead people. They're not going to be hurt, offended, or object to that, either.

Yes, there is, because a state that "confiscates" land is different from simply stating that necrophilia is not immoral. One is a political issue, the other is not. One is irrelevant to this discussion, too.

You advocate allowing people to be intimate with rotting flesh?

http://manandmollusc.net/links_index_files/mr-yuk.gif

Yes, there is, because a state that "confiscates" land is different from simply stating that necrophilia is not immoral. One is a political issue, the other is not. One is irrelevant to this discussion, too.If you're saying that someone should be able to sign something that says that their body can be given to someone else to have sex with, that's fine, I don't have a problem with the statement.
However, to say that the person shouldn't have a say in the decision of how their body is disposed of is the equivalent of saying that a person shouldn't have a say in how their property is disposed of after death.

The dead do not have rights. Go ahead.

Though I guess it might be a little disrespectful to the person's relatives. Perhaps it should only be permissible for corpses more than a century old?

If you're saying that someone should be able to sign something that says that their body can be given to someone else to have sex with, that's fine, I don't have a problem with the statement.

I'm saying necrophilia isn't wrong.


However, to say that the person shouldn't have a say in the decision of how their body is disposed of is the equivalent of saying that a person shouldn't have a say in how their property is disposed of after death.

Disposal is different then intercourse. And what I'm saying with regards to consent is, the fact is, a dead man can't give or refuse consent. That's just how it is, not how it "should" be.

I'm saying necrophilia isn't wrong.And I'm disagreeing with you, in most cases it is.

Disposal is different then intercourse. And what I'm saying with regards to consent is, the fact is, a dead man can't give or refuse consent. That's just how it is, not how it "should" be.I disagree; if a person can decide how they want to dispose of their property, then they can decide how they want their body to be disposed of. While it is true that disposal is different than intercourse, you can't have intercourse with a body without it being part of the disposal of the body. A body that is embalmed is disposed of differently from a body that is fucked and then embalmed, or embalmed and then fucked.
As far as consent goes, if you're having sex with someone who doesn't consent, it's rape.

No, seriously. It's reproductively unnatural, but it doesn't harm anyone. We should legalize necrophilia!

Hell no.

Even I draw a line there.

I disagree; if a person can decide how they want to dispose of their property, then they can decide how they want their body to be disposed of.

Yes, that's how it works currently in the world of law.

And that's why we have useless superstitious nonsense like cemetaries taking up huge tracts of land.

It's not nearly the same as inheritance laws allowing one's wealth to be passed on to one's children, now, is it? No.

As far as consent goes, if you're having sex with someone who doesn't consent, it's rape.

A corpse is a something, not a someone.

Is it rape if I have sex with a dildo? The dildo didn't consent.

No, seriously. It's reproductively unnatural, but it doesn't harm anyone. We should legalize necrophilia!

If you dont think that necrophilia hurts anyone or steps on anyone else's rights the you have not spoken with enough cannibals You don't see cannibals romancing anything you are about to eat do you? You never will either. Cannibals are far to civilised for that. They dont try to force their sexuality down your throats like you do to them. So keep your genitalia away from the poor cannibals' dinner plate and go back to making your girlfriend wear blue lipstick and soaking in ice water and laying very very still please.

Even I draw a line there.

Why? You said in the anarcho-capitalist thread that you were a utilitarian; if it makes the person happy, why ban it?

Yes, that's how it works currently in the world of law.

And that's why we have useless superstitious nonsense like cemetaries taking up huge tracts of land.

It's not nearly the same as inheritance laws allowing one's wealth to be passed on to one's children, now, is it? Yes, it's exactly the same.

A corpse is a something, not a someone.

Is it rape if I have sex with a dildo? The dildo didn't consent.A human corpse is a someone, not a something.

Yes, it's exactly the same.

Nonsense. One is passing wealth on to one's children - it's the goal most parents have in life, ensuring their children can profit from their work. The other is adhering to ancient superstition about the "sacred" body by making sure it decomposes in an underground box.


A human corpse is a someone, not a something.

Ridiculous. It's a corpse. It's no more a person than a hamburger is a cow.

One can't own things post-mortem, to imply that they could would mean that someone who died without a will would continue to own all their possessions.
Since ownership terminates at death, then inheritence of property has to be based on one of two ideas:
1) Practicallity. I've already laid out how this argument can't apply.
2) Their belongings are legally transferred at the very moment of death. However, the corpse doesn't exist until after the moment of death, and, therefore, can't be passed on to another at this point.

However, even assuming that we take your argument, a person still doesn't have the right to give or deny consent for anything to be done with their corpse. Instead, the corpse would become property of whomever they willed it to, and it would be that person's choice whether the corpse is to be buggered, experimented on, or chopped up for the meat department in his local Wal-Mart.

So the instant a person is legally dead they become a corpse which loses any rights to body and property always and forever ? Whether they were actually dead or not? A death certificate is a powerful thing and quite a hindrance to living the good life innit?

Nonsense. One is passing wealth on to one's children - it's the goal most parents have in life, ensuring their children can profit from their work. The other is adhering to ancient superstition about the "sacred" body by making sure it decomposes in an underground box. While it is true that necrophilia being a taboo is because of religion, religion isn't the only reason to oppose necrophilia.

Ridiculous. It's a corpse. It's no more a person than a hamburger is a cow.I disagree, but it doesn't matter either way; if it's a thing, then it's a thing that belonged to the living person whose body it is, and as such, they should get to decide what happens to it.

Ridiculous. It's a corpse. It's no more a person than a hamburger is a cow.

He said a corpse is a someone. It is. Corpses are regularly identified . It distresses those in the justice system when they find a fresh one and cannot identify it.

Wait. Necrophilia is wrong?

I disagree, but it doesn't matter either way; if it's a thing, then it's a thing that belonged to the living person whose body it is, and as such, they should get to decide what happens to it.

Shouldn't property rights expire after death?

Shouldn't property rights expire after death?If someone was to make that argument, that would be fine, but it would also apply to the property of the deceased other than the body.

Wait. Necrophilia is wrong?

Need help out from under your rock?

He said a corpse is a someone. It is. Corpses are regularly identified . It distresses those in the justice system when they find a fresh one and cannot identify it.

They're identified as once being someones. Slightly different from still being a someone. (Hence all the grief and crying and stuff.)

But if you really think a corpse is a person, how come we put them in coffins and keep them imprisoned for eternity? That seems to me cruel.

While it is true that necrophilia being a taboo is because of religion, religion isn't the only reason to oppose necrophilia.

Okay, so what are some other reasons.

I disagree, but it doesn't matter either way; if it's a thing, then it's a thing that belonged to the living person whose body it is, and as such, they should get to decide what happens to it.

If that's the case, why can't I decide to put my feces into coffins and have them occupy perfectly good land space for ... eternity? I mean, it's a thing that once belonged to me. I don't want it flushed into some sewer system, that violates my spiritual beliefs. I want it preserved, cared for, and given LOTS of land all to its own!

Need help out from under your rock?

No I need help from unlodging myself from this corpse. Riggimortis has just set in and its like a chinese fingertrap now.

Yes, it's exactly the same.

A human corpse is a someone, not a something.

And a hamburger is a cow.

Theocratic nations may introduce their own laws. No pork-eating, no tree-harming, at least five crosses per home, property rights of the dead, daily worship to platypus - whatever they can come with.
But others should decide for themselves.

We in Vault 10 use cybernetic replacement parts for anything wherever needed, as a part of public-funded medical care. Why should one have property rights to a bunch of plastic, metal and silicon, provided to him by the public?

They're identified as once being someones. Slightly different from still being a someone. (Hence all the grief and crying and stuff.)

But if you really think a corpse is a person, how come we put them in coffins and keep them imprisoned for eternity? That seems to me cruel.

I allowed as to how they were a someone and not a person. It has identity and hence it's a someone. That's the reason why the people seem to cry and show grief for a given corpse rather than all corpses. It is this emotional attachment these very same people have to a corpse which makes necrophilia such a very bad idea. Whereas someone who digs necrophilia can only hope at best for a short giddy time with a corpse, many in the grieving family would have their grief lengthened and worsened considerably if they were to learn of the corpse being romanced, Likely to the point of psychiatric issues as problematic as say necrophilia.

I allowed as to how they were a someone and not a person. It has identity and hence it's a somepne. That's the reason why the people seem to cry and show grief for a given corpse rather than all corpses.

They cry and show grief at the memory of the person they lost. Not for the sake of a chunk of rotting flesh.

And if anything with identity is a someone, well. That makes my left testicle a someone too, cuz I named it Bob.

It is this emotional attachment these very same people to a corpse wwhich makes necrophilia such a very bad idea. Whereas someone who digs necrophilia can only hope at best for a short giddy time with a corpse, many in the grieving family would have their grief lengthened and worsened considerably if they were to learn of the corpse being romanced, Likely to the point of psychiatric problems as problematic as say necrophilia.

People getting upset about it isn't much of a convincing argument for me. People might grieve if I said "fuck 9/11!" or they might even get angry and call me a terroristliberalshitbag, but that doesn't mean my right to say so should be taken away. Even if it's so insensitive that some people get psychiatric problems.

No I need help from unlodging myself from this corpse. Riggimortis has just set in and its like a chinese fingertrap now.
Need some KY Jelly?

Okay, so what are some other reasons.I gave one: the extension of property rights. I (presumably) wouldn't want someone to fuck my couch, I should have the right to decide what happens to my corpse.

If that's the case, why can't I decide to put my feces into coffins and have them occupy perfectly good land space for ... eternity? I mean, it's a thing that once belonged to me. I don't want it flushed into some sewer system, that violates my spiritual beliefs. I want it preserved, cared for, and given LOTS of land all to its own!I wasn't aware that you couldn't.

They cry and show grief at the memory of the person they lost. Not for the sake of a chunk of rotting flesh.

And if anything with identity is a someone, well. That makes my left testicle a someone too, cuz I named it Bob.



People getting upset about it isn't much of a convincing argument for me. People might grieve if I said "fuck 9/11!" or they might even get angry and call me a terroristliberalshitbag, but that doesn't mean my right to say so should be taken away. Even if it's so insensitive that some people get psychiatric problems.

You dont need to strike someone or shoot them to give them medical problems. If most people would suffer great stress and mental disorders if necrophiliacs were given authority to have sex with their dead grandmas then it is obviously not for the general good to allow necrophiliacs have sex with anyone they dig up. If it is merely a question of proper education and training for someone to learn to live with things that are distressing to them then it would be far easier and cheaper and fairer to educate and train the few necrophiliacs to live with the distress of not having sex with the dead than it would be to educate and train the masses that corpse humpers are no cause for distress.

You dont need to strike someone or shoot them to give them medical problems. If most people would suffer great stress and mental disorders if necrophiliacs were given authority to have sex with their dead grandmas then it is obviously not for the general good to allow necrophiliacs have sex with anyone they dig up.
How do you know they would?

And it is more productive to educate masses not to have stress and mental disorders because of everything, rather than go outlawing anything that can hurt anyone's religious beliefs.

Not even speaking about countries w/o them.

So the instant a person is legally dead they become a corpse which loses any rights to body and property always and forever ? Whether they were actually dead or not? A death certificate is a powerful thing and quite a hindrance to living the good life innit?
If death doesn't nullify property rights, and the dead are unable to contact the living in a legally recognized form, then we have a system in a house could remain forever owned by its former occupant. Depriving anyone else of access to the house (as such would be trespassing).
Worse, even, would be an apartment complex owned by a dead landlord. Who, then, would be responsible for the maintenance of the building?

And, in response to a later post of yours, some people find the though of gay sex to be distressing, so should we simply reprogram all the gays? What you're advocating is mob rule based on popular prejudice, and that is neither a fun nor happy place to be.

How about the fact that there is no consent from the deceased to eff her corpse when she dies.

Enough with the consent crap! Honestly, the only areas where consent is relevant is when dealing with living, sapient individuals. A corpse is, as has been mentioned, an inanimate object. It was a person, now it's fertilizer.

Why does no one bring up consent when deciding to burn the corpse to ashes (i.e. in the absence of instructions from the up-until-recently living)?

The risk of disease, property destruction (by grave digging), and emotional trauma to living family members are relevant arguments against necrophilia. Consent of the corpse is most definitely not.

Enough with the consent crap! Honestly, the only areas where consent is relevant is when dealing with living, sapient individuals. A corpse is, as has been mentioned, an inanimate object. It was a person, now it's fertilizer.

Why does no one bring up consent when deciding to burn the corpse to ashes (i.e. in the absence of instructions from the up-until-recently living)?

If you don't care about it enough to leave instructions, then I s'pose it's fine.

Enough with the consent crap! Honestly, the only areas where consent is relevant is when dealing with living, sapient individuals. A corpse is, as has been mentioned, an inanimate object. It was a person, now it's fertilizer.

Why does no one bring up consent when deciding to burn the corpse to ashes (i.e. in the absence of instructions from the up-until-recently living)?

The risk of disease, property destruction (by grave digging), and emotional trauma to living family members are relevant arguments against necrophilia. Consent of the corpse is most definitely not.


Last time I heard that exposing yourself to disease was not a crime. You can have the corpse delivered to your front door in a bag of ice if need be, And What if the person who died had no family! It is all about the consent!

This happened last year in Milan (Italy).

A necrophile had managed to get a job at the morgue. In came the body of a beautiful girl, declared dead some hours before, and the necrophile necrophore started to have sex with the beautiful dead... only to discover she wasn't! The doctors were wrong, she wasn't dead, it was a case of apparent death. The thing is, the girl recovered from the coma while the necrophile was fucking her, and started (obviously) screaming like crazy. So, in the end, the necrophile saved the girl from being buried (or incinerated) alive, and got jailed for rape. Oh, and he's lost his job, too.

If you don't care about it enough to leave instructions, then I s'pose it's fine.

It doesn't have to be that you don't care. If you die a sudden death (like in an accident) at a young age or some such...

No one needs to consent, because sex with a corpse only involves 1 sentient human being. It's actually just sex with an inanimate object. No harm there.You can't fuck my TV without permission either. Just because it's inanimate doesn't mean there is no one that needs to give consent for it.

Last time I heard that exposing yourself to disease was not a crime. You can have the corpse delivered to your front door in a bag of ice if need be, And What if the person who died had no family! It is all about the consent!

I wasn't making the arguments I stated, I merely said that they could be used as relevant in the debate. Still, I might as well play devil's advocate and defend them...

No, exposing yourself to disease risk isn't a crime. In this sense outlawing necrophilia would be more of a public health issue (which could raise the issue of allowing it under controlled, sterile conditions. Hmm...)

Even without family, the person probably had friends or other persons that cared about him/her.

And you didn't adress the destruction of property argument at all (though I admit it is only relevant to corpses already buried).

Your conclusion is a logical fallacy, btw. Rebuking the other arguments does not automatically make yours true.

This happened last year in Milan (Italy).

A necrophile had managed to get a job at the morgue. In came the body of a beautiful girl, declared dead some hours before, and the necrophile necrophore started to have sex with the beautiful dead... only to discover she wasn't! The doctors were wrong, she wasn't dead, it was a case of apparent death. The thing is, the girl recovered from the coma while the necrophile was fucking her, and started (obviously) screaming like crazy. So, in the end, the necrophile saved the girl from being buried (or incinerated) alive, and got jailed for rape. Oh, and he's lost his job, too.I have a feeling I would've preferred not waking up...

About the consent thing; it isn't crap. There's a multitude of things corpses can be used for. Some of which neither the former owner of the body nor relatives would want to happen. Since no impartial body distribution institution exists & since there's no logical reason for why the former owner shouldn't have the same rights over his or her body as over his or her other possessions upon death, it's only fair to let the deceased specify what he or she wants the remains used for. If my dog can inheret my belongings, why shouldn't I be able to specify that my body be used as a fuck-toy for some creepy wanker somewhere?

You can't fuck my TV without permission either. Just because it's inanimate doesn't mean there is no one that needs to give consent for it.

Ah, but then we get into the issue of who 'owns' a corpse. By treating the corpse as property you're opening a whole other can of worms.

If someone wants to have sex with my corpse, they're welcome to. All I ask is to be allowed to sell tickets to the event before I die.

If someone wants to have sex with my corpse, they're welcome to. All I ask is to be allowed to sell tickets to the event before I die.What if someone wants to hold some big fucked up Catholic burial ceremony for your remains?

- I know I wouldn't want my poor remains abused like that.

What if someone wants to hold some big fucked up Catholic burial ceremony for your remains?

- I know I wouldn't want my poor remains abused like that.

I won't be there so Why would I give two shits?

NS has been getting slightly perverse lately. Why is everyone obsessed with illicit sex? :rolleyes:

its the time of year....

people wear less clothing.... gets the mind working....

along all avenues it appears...

I won't be there so Why would I give two shits?If your remains can be used to further something you'd rather see stopped in life, wouldn't you rather prefer to be able to specify what you want done (or not done) to your body when you're through with it?

I rather like the idea of having my remains put to use to help increase human knowledge and/or ease suffering. I very much dislike the idea of my remains being used by a religious group as part of their superstitious shit. For one thing, their superstitions horrify me & their behaviour nauseate me. For another, it deprives rational people of the opportunity to do something constructive with it.

At some point, someone has to judge what is the better use of our remains, and I fail to see how anyone can do that better than the former occupant. The alternative is that some people will have to blow themselves to peices or take an acid bath, to avoid having their remains used to propagate something they're dead set against (hehe).

Ah, but then we get into the issue of who 'owns' a corpse. By treating the corpse as property you're opening a whole other can of worms.I'm not suggesting it should be treated as property. Just that inanimacy does not necessarily imply consent is unnecessary.

No, seriously. It's reproductively unnatural, but it doesn't harm anyone. We should legalize necrophilia!

to me, the wrong thing about necrophilia.. is that I probably would like a cuddle afterwards...

then again, for all the participation she'll do... I might as well order a RealDoll tm.. they'll last longer too.

I'm not suggesting it should be treated as property. Just that inanimacy does not necessarily imply consent is unnecessary.

Doesn't it? When is consent ever needed for inanimate objects other than where property rights are concerned?

Since this is largely a moral issue, it would make sense to involve some ethical framework. I propose social contract theory.
Irrational or not, most people do prefer their (former) body not be 'violated' after death. So for their own peace of mind, they engage an implicit social contract to deter necrophilia. The 'good' of this is that they can live in greater happiness knowing their corpse will be safe after they're done with it. Which is why such a social rule should be enforced (otherwise people can't benefit from it themselves).
Willing what your body can or cannot be used for after your death is a further sophistication of such a social contract. It makes things slightly more complicated, but making it necessary to indicate when you want to deviate from the default (no necrophilia and burying), people can still rest assured their corpse won't be mistreated (putting to rest irrational fears on the subject and thus increasing wellbeing).

So basicly, the reason why necrophilia without prior consent is wrong, is because it decreases the wellbeing of the living that are squeamish that it might otherwise happen to them after their deaths. (Which however also implies that once you can convince everyone that they shouldn't worry about what happens after their death, it becomes a non-issue; and it will become amoral (neither moral nor immoral).
Furthermore, if you can convince them it would be a good thing, e.g. you create some religious framework where necrophilia implies the spirit from the corps goes straight to heaven, it would become immoral not to practice necrophilia.)

Doesn't it? When is consent ever needed for inanimate objects other than where property rights are concerned?When it's a danger to society. Don't fuck around with nukes. ;)
And there are other possible instances. Cultural heritage might be one, it could damage important cultural artifacts (and the reasons would go beyond the fact it someone's, or public, property).

Besides which, consent even for animate objects can be disputed; or could be (people'll bite your head off if you try these days). It's really just a matter of what moral and judicial system you deal with. Afaik, necrophilia in most countries is considered illegal and immoral with or without consent. Unless it's by accident and the person died during sex and you went on (hey, it happens.. accidental necrophilia).

People can state what they want done with their body in their will, I don't see why being fucked by anyone who wants some shouldn't be an option.

When it's a danger to society. Don't fuck around with nukes. ;)
And there are other possible instances. Cultural heritage might be one, it could damage important cultural artifacts (and the reasons would go beyond the fact it someone's, or public, property).

Perhaps, except that in both cases it's for the benefit of living individuals, and are cases of consent from living people. The objects themselves don't consent, people do, which is why I said that emotional trauma to living friends/relatives is a relevant argument against necrophilia. This still doesn't rebuke the fact that (lack of) consent of the corpse is irrelevant in the necrophilia debate.


Unless it's by accident and the person died during sex and you went on (hey, it happens.. accidental necrophilia).

"Not again! I'm gonna be a virgin forever!

...or am I?"

*squeak* *squeak* *squeak*

:D

This still doesn't rebuke the fact that (lack of) consent of the corpse is irrelevant in the necrophilia debate.It depends slightly on what you mean. Certainly as a corpse the corpse cannot consent. But the person that ends up as a corpse can (or can choose not to, more likely). Do people have any authority post-mortem? Clearly they do according to some, otherwise why are there wills?

Anyway, I have adressed one avenue to how the corpse-to-be's consent can be relevant in post #107.

"Not again! I'm gonna be a virgin forever!

...or am I?"

*squeak* *squeak* *squeak*

:D
you know... it's thoughts like this that really make me pity Rouge (X-Men)

It depends slightly on what you mean. Certainly as a corpse the corpse cannot consent. But the person that ends up as a corpse can (or can choose not to, more likely). Do people have any authority post-mortem? Clearly they do according to some, otherwise why are there wills?

Anyway, I have adressed one avenue to how the corpse-to-be's consent can be relevant in post #107.

another avenue...

"Your honor, I looked at her and told her 'hey, if you want me to stop... then tell me and I'll stop.'"

"She didn't tell me to stop, so it was consentual."

;)

...
Willing what your body can or cannot be used for after your death is a further sophistication of such a social contract. It makes things slightly more complicated, but making it necessary to indicate when you want to deviate from the default (no necrophilia and burying), people can still rest assured their corpse won't be mistreated (putting to rest irrational fears on the subject and thus increasing wellbeing).
...

So it's kinda like deciding whether or not you want to donate your organs after death? Sure, I'll buy that. But for the sake of fairness, rather than having a 'default' setting, let's make all citizens fill out a post-mortem work order to avoid confusion:

1.) I want my corpse to be (check one):
[] Buried
[] Cremated
[] Frozen
[] Fed to mountain lions
[] Other, please specify: _____________

2.) My organs may be harvested for donation.
[] Sure, I won't be needing them. Slice and dice, baby!
[] No! They're mine! You go to hell and you die!
[] Only take some organs: ________________

3.) I want my body donated to science and/or med-schools.
[] Yes. Med-school students are hot!
[] No! I've seen Frankenstein! I know what scientists do to corpses!

4.) My body may be used for sexual gratification.
[] Hell yeah! I'll take all the sex I can get!
[] Eww! No! You stay away from me you pervert!

5.) In the event of resurrection as a zombie, I wish to be sent back to the grave by a:
[] Handgun
[] Shotgun
[] Chainsaw
[] Golf club
[] Lawnmower
[] Nuclear warhead
[] Other: ______________

It depends slightly on what you mean. Certainly as a corpse the corpse cannot consent. But the person that ends up as a corpse can (or can choose not to, more likely). Do people have any authority post-mortem? Clearly they do according to some, otherwise why are there wills?

Anyway, I have adressed one avenue to how the corpse-to-be's consent can be relevant in post #107.

Fair enough. Wills I can respect. I just wanted to shut up the ones saying: "OMG! corpses cant consent so its RAPE!!!11" (slightly paraphrased)

So it's kinda like deciding whether or not you want to donate your organs after death? Sure, I'll buy that. But for the sake of fairness, rather than having a 'default' setting, let's make all citizens fill out a post-mortem work order to avoid confusion:
You win the thread.

1.) I want my corpse to be (check one):
[] Buried
[] Cremated
[] Frozen
[] Fed to mountain lions
[X] Other, please specify: Stuffed and mounted in a public place

2.) My organs may be harvested for donation.
[X] Sure, I won't be needing them. Slice and dice, baby!
[] No! They're mine! You go to hell and you die!
[] Only take some organs: ________________

3.) I want my body donated to science and/or med-schools.
[X] Yes. Med-school students are hot!
[] No! I've seen Frankenstein! I know what scientists do to corpses!

4.) My body may be used for sexual gratification.
[X] Hell yeah! I'll take all the sex I can get!
[] Eww! No! You stay away from me you pervert!

5.) In the event of resurrection as a zombie, I wish to be sent back to the grave by a:
[] Handgun
[] Shotgun
[] Chainsaw
[] Golf club
[] Lawnmower
[] Nuclear warhead
[X] Other: Trebuchet

So it's kinda like deciding whether or not you want to donate your organs after death? Sure, I'll buy that. But for the sake of fairness, rather than having a 'default' setting, let's make all citizens fill out a post-mortem work order to avoid confusionI think it's better to have the default. It may be less fair, but I think people would be generally happier for it. Most people don't like to dwell on their mortality and prefer the implicit way things are done.
If you compare it with organ donation; I don't feel like donating my organs, but for some reason I'm not comfortable committing to that in writing. I much prefer that it simply won't be done unless I give consent in writing. Opt-in vs opt-out. I suppose it might be worth discussing that with a psychologist one day, but I don't think I'm the only one.

*sits back and watches this thread in amusement*

i think i like this board.
It's rare to find a place where the majority of people actually think for themselves, and this thread is a perfect example of just that.

Personally?
i think necrophilia = big eww factor, for sure, but as for the moral issue...it's probably only immoral if there's a significant risk of the deceased's loved ones finding out.
i know i'd be livid if i discovered that someone was defiling the recently vacated corpse of someone i was still grieving over ...it would feel like they were utterly trivialising the pain i was in, and having no respect for the fact that this empty vessel very recently housed a person i cared deeply for.

However, from a more objective point of view, i don't see anything immoral about the act itself, so long as there's no risk that anyone will be emotionally wounded by the act.

So it's kinda like deciding whether or not you want to donate your organs after death? Sure, I'll buy that. But for the sake of fairness, rather than having a 'default' setting, let's make all citizens fill out a post-mortem work order to avoid confusion:

1.) I want my corpse to be (check one):
[] Buried
[X] Cremated
[] Frozen
[] Fed to mountain lions
[] Other, please specify: _____________

2.) My organs may be harvested for donation.
[X] Sure, I won't be needing them. Slice and dice, baby!
[] No! They're mine! You go to hell and you die!
[] Only take some organs: ________________

3.) I want my body donated to science and/or med-schools.
[] Yes. Med-school students are hot!
[X] No! I've seen Frankenstein! I know what scientists do to corpses!

4.) My body may be used for sexual gratification.
[] Hell yeah! I'll take all the sex I can get!
[X] Eww! No! You stay away from me you pervert!

5.) In the event of resurrection as a zombie, I wish to be sent back to the grave by a:
[] Handgun
[X] Shotgun
[] Chainsaw
[] Golf club
[] Lawnmower
[] Nuclear warhead
[] Other: ______________

That's my take on it. :p

Nothing, its just ridiculous.

its just illegal as its desecration

So it's kinda like deciding whether or not you want to donate your organs after death? Sure, I'll buy that. But for the sake of fairness, rather than having a 'default' setting, let's make all citizens fill out a post-mortem work order to avoid confusion:

1.) I want my corpse to be (check one):
[] Buried
[] Cremated
[] Frozen
[] Fed to mountain lions
[] Other, please specify: _____________

2.) My organs may be harvested for donation.
[] Sure, I won't be needing them. Slice and dice, baby!
[] No! They're mine! You go to hell and you die!
[] Only take some organs: ________________

3.) I want my body donated to science and/or med-schools.
[] Yes. Med-school students are hot!
[] No! I've seen Frankenstein! I know what scientists do to corpses!

4.) My body may be used for sexual gratification.
[] Hell yeah! I'll take all the sex I can get!
[] Eww! No! You stay away from me you pervert!

5.) In the event of resurrection as a zombie, I wish to be sent back to the grave by a:
[] Handgun
[] Shotgun
[] Chainsaw
[] Golf club
[] Lawnmower
[] Nuclear warhead
[] Other: ______________

Not only would that fix the necrophilia-consent issue, it would also be of great use when the zombie apocalypse hits! Excellent work.

So it's kinda like deciding whether or not you want to donate your organs after death? Sure, I'll buy that. But for the sake of fairness, rather than having a 'default' setting, let's make all citizens fill out a post-mortem work order to avoid confusion:


1.) I want my corpse to be (check one):
[ ] Buried
[ ] Cremated
[ ] Frozen
[ ] Fed to mountain lions
[x] Other, please specify: fully reused

2.) My organs may be harvested for donation.
[ ] Sure, I won't be needing them. Slice and dice, baby!
[ ] No! They're mine! You go to hell and you die!
[x] Only take some organs: Take them all, but don't forget the brains, and... hey, who are you... yes, don't forget Mr.Dick.

3.) I want my body donated to science and/or med-schools.
[x] Yes. Med-school students are hot! - and don't forget the dick!
[ ] No! I've seen Frankenstein! I know what scientists do to corpses!

4.) My body may be used for sexual gratification.
[x] Hell yeah! I'll take all the sex I can get!
[ ] Eww! No! You stay away from me you pervert!

5.) In the event of resurrection as a zombie, I wish to be sent back to the grave by a:
[ ] Handgun
[ ] Shotgun
[ ] Chainsaw
[ ] Golf club
[ ] Lawnmower
[x] Nuclear warhead
[ ] Other: ______________


Signed, The Vault Dweller.

What's wrong? The person being dead is what might be wrong...

1.) I want my corpse to be (check one):
[] Other, please specify: dressed in a Batman costume and sent to space

2.) My organs may be harvested for donation.
[] Only take some organs: hairs and spleen

3.) I want my body donated to science and/or med-schools.
[] Only to beautiful, female med undergraduates.

4.) My body may be used for sexual gratification.
[] See above and guess.

5.) In the event of resurrection as a zombie, I wish to be sent back to the grave by a:
[] Other: Gorgeous Scantly-Clad Zombie Queen.

Oh my what a pervert I am.

I wonder how many people have had someone close to them die recently.

Needless to say, the fact that a lot of people on this thread seem to think that necrophilia should be allowed whether or not the person whose corpse it is thought that was such a great idea in life is greatly disturbing to me.

I can tell you right now that it would be an incredibly traumatic thing for me to find out that someone was using the corpse of someone I love in that way.


So basically, in my opinion, unless the person says you can, you can't. I know it's irrational. Fuck rationality, I don't care. I have emotions, dammit.