NationStates Jolt Archive

Should necrophilia (in practice) be illegal?
Why?

Thread prompted by this post in another thread...
And I want you to admit that your putting the rights of dead people ahead of the happiness of living ones by banning necrophilia,<SNIP>.

Wouldn't necrophilia count as rape? As the dead body cannot give consent.

I think we must then discuss who owns the death body of a person.

Should necrophilia (in practice) be illegal?
Why?

I think it should be. Besides it being gross, it's disrespectful to the dead. I know they do not feel, granted, but they diserve to be left alone in death.

I'm grossed out!
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/carlapryor/gross.gif

Wouldn't necrophilia count as rape? As the dead body cannot give consent.

It will be more like masturbation...or bestialism... animals can neither give consent. Or are qe going to consider that the death body of a person is the person?

Wouldn't necrophilia count as rape? As the dead body cannot give consent.

Unless the person gave consent before they died??


I'm not getting any more involved in this...

Wouldn't necrophilia count as rape? As the dead body cannot give consent.

Other than the ick factor, how is it really any different than any other sex with an inanimate object?

I don't think necrophylia should be illegal. Considering it's not much different then a vibrator.

The corpse is inanimate. Are you raping a dildo? Ofcourse not.. so how can you rape a dead corpse?

I don't care what someone does to my corpse once I'm dead. Presumably, I'm in a better place, what do I care what happens to my body at that point?

To protect rights to a corpse is ridicules considering we don't even protect rights of a fetus. Which is alive. So bassicaly the dead have more rights then the living. That's pretty fucked up..

The main argument against necrophylia is it's peverse, and unsanitary.

That isn't harmful in and of itself, it only hurts the participant. Suicidal tendencies should not be a crime. That's natural selection taking it's course.

It's concerning because of the possible health hazard, although I'm not entirely sure what kinds of dangers there would be. I don't really care so much, as long as people aren't like stealing bodies or something I suppose. I can't really say I understand the desire to do it, but I don't know how it would always cause a problem either (aside from taking things that aren't yours and possible icky bacteria stuff)

I think we can talk morality for as long as we want but when it comes down to it, would any of you honestly vote for a politician who wanted to legalise necrophilia?

It could also be considered illegal because it's HAVING SEX WITH DEAD BODIES. Seriously, do we have to say anything more than that?

I think we can talk morality for as long as we want but when it comes down to it, would any of you honestly vote for a politician who wanted to legalise necrophilia?

I probably would. Depends on what else he wanted to legalize.

It will be more like masturbation...or bestialism... animals can neither give consent. Or are qe going to consider that the death body of a person is the person?
Sure as héll other species can give consent. Really, we know what kind of sound dogs make when in pain (for example), if that isn't enough I don't know what is.
Anyway, necrophilia really is an odd case, I think the family "owns" the dead body, so it would rather fall under something like vandalism.

I think we can talk morality for as long as we want but when it comes down to it, would any of you honestly vote for a politician who wanted to legalise necrophilia?

Dear gods, now I can't stop thinking about the South Park kids stealing Kyle's grandmother and those 2 geeks describing how a necrophiliac would make the body sound being penetrated by pushing a fist inside a jar of mayo.

http://www.avtalk.co.uk/forum/images/smiley_icons/puke.gif

It could also be considered illegal because it's HAVING SEX WITH DEAD BODIES. Seriously, do we have to say anything more than that?

Yes, you gave no reason for it to be illegal...

It could also be considered illegal because it's HAVING SEX WITH DEAD BODIES. Seriously, do we have to say anything more than that?

yes.

I think we can talk morality for as long as we want but when it comes down to it, would any of you honestly vote for a politician who wanted to legalise necrophilia?I probably would. Depends on what else he wanted to legalize.

As Smunkee said, it depends upon what his other intended actions were.

Yes, you gave no reason for it to be illegal...

There are plenty of morality laws on the books. They don't have specific reasons, but the fact that someone would have to be worried about what happens to their dead bodies after they die, and consequently their reputation, is certainly a reason to put this sort of law on the books. Plus, and I know this is a secondary point which doesn't really have to do with the first, but people who are doing this probably have other problems that need to be worked out too, and knowing where they are so they can get that help isn't a bad thing.

There are plenty of morality laws on the books. They don't have specific reasons, but the fact that someone would have to be worried about what happens to their dead bodies after they die, and consequently their reputation, is certainly a reason to put this sort of law on the books. Plus, and I know this is a secondary point which doesn't really have to do with the first, but people who are doing this probably have other problems that need to be worked out too, and knowing where they are so they can get that help isn't a bad thing.

Ditto. Besides, the dead deserve some respect and the allowance to be let be. Come on people, they're dead!:rolleyes:

It could also be considered illegal because it's HAVING SEX WITH DEAD BODIES. Seriously, do we have to say anything more than that?

Yes, we do...because the ick factor alone is not enough to criminalise something. Else all manner of stupid things would be illegal. Like that terrible shirt you're wearing.

Ditto. Besides, the dead deserve some respect and the allowance to be let be. Come on people, they're dead!:rolleyes:

Apparently that argument doesn't work. I tried it.

Yes, we do...because the ick factor alone is not enough to criminalise something. Else all manner of stupid things would be illegal. Like that terrible shirt you're wearing.

Well, it is enough to criminalize something if the society/community believes it is. That's the basis of all laws.

Alright...well if it were a property issue...who would own the body? The estate of the deceased? Would there be a rebuttable presumption that the deceased would not have willed such a thing to happen to his or her corpse?

Alright...well if it were a property issue...who would own the body? The estate of the deceased? Would there be a rebuttable presumption that the deceased would not have willed such a thing to happen to his or her corpse?
I'd hope my wife would own my body.

I'd hope she uses it as a sex toy too LOL!

Apparently that argument doesn't work. I tried it.

I see that. But for me, that's the only reason why necrophilia should be outlawed. The dead deserve respect and allowing them to be used for sexual pleasure is just... wrong.

Well, it is enough to criminalize something if the society/community believes it is. That's the basis of all laws.

Nonetheless, we go to great pains to justify our laws with more than 'eww, gross!'. A system of laws cannot work if they make no sense.

So dig deeper. What exactly is the crime? Is it a crime against property (like trespass?), is it a crime against a person (battery? how could it be if a dead person, by definition, is no longer a person?). Is it a health issue?

There are plenty of morality laws on the books. They don't have specific reasons, but the fact that someone would have to be worried about what happens to their dead bodies after they die, and consequently their reputation, is certainly a reason to put this sort of law on the books. Plus, and I know this is a secondary point which doesn't really have to do with the first, but people who are doing this probably have other problems that need to be worked out too, and knowing where they are so they can get that help isn't a bad thing.

When I'm dead I won't be worrying about what happens to my body, because...

wait for it...

wait for it...

I'll be dead.

I see that. But for me, that's the only reason why necrophilia should be outlawed. The dead deserve respect and allowing them to be used for sexual pleasure is just... wrong.

What about cutting them up and harvesting their organs?

What about using their cremated remains as fertilizer for my garden?

What about embalming them and displaying them in my living room?

Ok...

First a persons body belongs to them, even after death. So if they didnt wanted to have their body used like that, they should be respected.

But what if the person is willing and sings a paper?

It reminds me of that german guy qho autorized another wako to eat him after his death.

Ok...

First a persons body belongs to them, even after death. How can you own something if you no longer exist?

THis makes me want to vomit.

Who cares as long as the dead person(being a woman) recieves child maintenence for her dead babies:fluffle:

It should absolutely be illegal. It's desecration of the dead and pretty much deplorable. The dead body was a person and should not be objectified just because that person died, ok? The body is final remains of an individual and it deserves to be treated with a certain amount of respect. That would mean not using the remains as a sex toy for your exclusive pleasure.

This very question is one of the reasons why I want my remains to be cremated. So no one can violate my body when I'm gone and so nobody can dig me up in a few hundred years to stuff me into some museum for kids to gawk at.

How can you own something if you no longer exist?
My thoughts exactly...
THis makes me want to vomit.
What makes you want to vomit?

The body is final remains of an individual and it deserves to be treated with a certain amount of respect.

Why?

What about cutting them up and harvesting their organs?

Organ harvesting and donation is done voluntarily or by consent of the family. I'm an organ donor.

What about using their cremated remains as fertilizer for my garden?

The cremated remains should be kept or disposed according to the will of the deceased.

So, if someone wants to be used as a sexual tool after death, well, said person should leave it on a will or something.

What about embalming them and displaying them in my living room?

Once again, embalming and displaying is by the will of the deceased. Of course, I belive your dead family members are not taxidermist's works of "art" and displaying them in your living room would display a total lack of respect of them on your part. Plus, I think doing that, unless you think you're the reincarnation of a pharaoe, is illegal if not downright ridiculous.

Link to be provided soon.

Dead bodies are just that, dead bodies. They're inanimate objects, and thus it is no more or less vandalism/rape/whatever to have sex with them than to do so with a cucumber, pumpkin, or reinforced concrete wall (but ouch). People may argue it is immoral all they want, but morals by definition are entirely subjective and thus cannot be mingled with politics. (My personal opinion of morals not withstanding)
The health hazards may definitely be an issue, but like with teenage pregnancies, there is not much I can think of that can be done about it besides education campaigns, even if it sounds a little silly to tell people you can get sick from having sex with corpses.
The consent/property question rises an interesting issue. Much like with coma patients, you cannot determine wether the deceased would have been willing (to be had sex with rather than killed in this case, but the issue and qustions that arie are very similar). Who owns the dead body? I am not aware of any existing regulations on this, wether in my country or anywhere else, but I would be inclined to say 'nobody'.
As for the voting question, I would not necessarily vote them, but I would not count legalization/illegalization of necrophilia against said politician when deciding who to vote.

Why?
Because it is all that remains of them on Earth in the end. It represents that person. Why shouldn't we respect the bodies of the dead? People have done it for thousands upon thousands of years. Beyond the simple assumption that when someone has died, their remains should be allowed to rest undisturbed, what about the family of the deceased? How would they feel if someone dug up their loved one and made with the sexy time? It is highly disrespectful and in extremely bad taste. Just because someone is dead does not mean their body is open to anyone who wants it. If it is, how long should we wait before fucking the body? Five minutes? A day? A month? As soon as Grandma Smith kicks the bucket should we all be dropping our pants before we toss her into a ditch?

If they legalized necrophilia but required the necrophiliac to properly sterilize the body before getting it on, it could turn into some corpse industry which could encourage the murder of more hot girls.

Because it is all that remains of them on Earth in the end. It represents that person. Why shouldn't we respect the bodies of the dead?
And what if, as has been already suggested, the person in question wished to be used as a sexual object after death, and made that clear in his or her will?

If they legalized necrophilia but required the necrophiliac to properly sterilize the body before getting it on, it could turn into some corpse industry which could encourage the murder of more hot girls.

Wow now THAT is one silly slipperly slope argument I hadn't even fathomed might be made.

Should necrophilia (in practice) be illegal?
Why?

Thread prompted by this post in another thread...

Of course it should be illegal.

Furthermore, necrophilacs should be beaten regularly for being sick fucks.

Of course it should be illegal.

Furthermore, necrophilacs should be beaten regularly for being sick fucks.

Your logic, as always, is stupefying in its complexity.

At the very least, necrophilia is extreme offensive vandalism.

At the very least, necrophilia is extreme offensive vandalism.

Who owns the property being vandalised?

And what if, as has been already suggested, the person in question wished to be used as a sexual object after death, and made that clear in his or her will?
Then by using their body as a sexual object, you are fulfilling their final wish and thus are not disrespecting that person's memory, but honoring it.

I still think it's really gross, but if that was his or her final wish then who am I to judge?

Who owns the property being vandalised?

The family, or, depending whether they have a will that talks about the body after death or not, the person.

How can you own something if you no longer exist?

Well maybe owning your dead body wasnt the correct expression. But I think of it very much in the same way of a will. You no longer own your house when you die, but you can leave a paper saying that the property of your house goes to your aunt or something.

I think in the same way you can state that you dont want your body raped.

Who owns the property being vandalised?

The family or the cemetery maybe, depends. I could possibly support necrophilia only if it the person consented to being raped after death before his death, though I doubt anyone would truly consent to it seeing as they wouldn't be around to find pleasure from it.

But necrophilia is a very brutal, cruel and obscene form of vandalism that can bring much distress to the family or even the people living near the grave yard who get freaked out.

Who owns the property being vandalised?
It is disrespectful to refer to someone's body as property in the first place. It is still the body of the deceased. No one should be able to own it or violate it. The living should follow the will of the deceased or lacking a will, give the deceased a simple burial or cremation or whatever is customary for the culture.

How can you own something if you no longer exist?

A will? I'm sure there are some legal precedents protecting the body of the deceased in almost all circumstances. Otherwise, grave robbing would be perfectly legal; now, if somebody wanted to have their corpse used for sex after death, I don't really know. Chances are, there would be no grounds to allow it simply out of health concerns.

I think we can all agree that some sort of consent has to go into necrophilia if it is not completely outlawed. At that point, it would come down to who could consent. Did the person have to do so before they died? Can their next-of-kin consent after the fact? That sort of thing. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that we should do away with laws against grave robbing or allow coroners or morticians to just do as they like with the bodies.

There are really only two arguments I could see for an outright ban. One is a matter of health and safety. While I'm not certain that there is enough of an issue here to present a clear government interest, the argument at least would make sense.

The other, which I'm even less sure of, would be the idea of it being an action that goes "beyond the pale" - that invokes a very strong and visceral reaction in most people and may represent a disruption to society because of that. There is precedent for use of that standard in legal matters. It makes me nervous, though, as it's one of those moving targets that could easily be misused.

Well it depends on the where the dead body is, I suppose. If its already in the grave, then it is already illegal, because I believe its illegal to dig up bodies without some sort of authority consenting to it first, like family. Also, it probably would have to be like the organ donation ordeal. If you sign off for it before you die, and have witnesses sign it as well, then i guess it could be legal. Sick as crap, but legal if that is the case.

Its really disgusting to think about either way. I can understand using an inanimate object which never had life, like a sex toy, but a dead person? :eek:

The family or the cemetery maybe, depends. I could possibly support necrophilia only if it the person consented to being raped after death before his death, though I doubt anyone would truly consent to it seeing as they wouldn't be around to find pleasure from it.

But necrophilia is a very brutal, cruel and obscene form of vandalism that can bring much distress to the family or even the people living near the grave yard who get freaked out.

1) You can't consent to rape, by definition.
2) Should the well-being of the family outweigh the finals wishes of the deceased when it comes to the disposal of his or her body, in your opinon?

In the case of this German dude who left written and I think also recorded proof that he wanted to be eaten after dying... the cannibal who eat him still got prosecuted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm

He was prosecuted for manslaughter, not cannibalism since it wasnt illegal at that time in Germany.

1) You can't consent to rape, by definition.

You know what I mean.


2) Should the well-being of the family outweigh the finals wishes of the deceased when it comes to the disposal of his or her body, in your opinon?

Not sure, depends on the age and mental health maybe.

A will? I'm sure there are some legal precedents protecting the body of the deceased in almost all circumstances. Otherwise, grave robbing would be perfectly legal; now, if somebody wanted to have their corpse used for sex after death, I don't really know. Chances are, there would be no grounds to allow it simply out of health concerns.

A will is an instrument of the last desires of the deceased...it doesn't confer property rights to the body.

If we look at this from a property perspective, we'd have to nail down who has property rights to a corpse. It can't be the deceased his or herself, because you cannot own property if you are no longer living.

But as Dem pointed out, most likely way to approach the issue is the somewhat nebulous and expansive policy issue of disruption to society, which is essentially a moral argument.

2) Should the well-being of the family outweigh the finals wishes of the deceased when it comes to the disposal of his or her body, in your opinon?

Maybe yes. Since for the family the emotional trauma would be very deep. Maybe its the family the one who should decide the fate of one of his loved ones.... and that brings the trouble of who will have the final authority if different family members disagree...

We will have trials over the custody of death bodies :eek:

You know what I mean. Yes, but I despise such inaccuracies...it's like a tic.

These:


It is disrespectful to refer to someone's body as property in the first place. It is still the body of the deceased. No one should be able to own it or violate it. The living should follow the will of the deceased or lacking a will, give the deceased a simple burial or cremation or whatever is customary for the culture.

A will? I'm sure there are some legal precedents protecting the body of the deceased in almost all circumstances. Otherwise, grave robbing would be perfectly legal; now, if somebody wanted to have their corpse used for sex after death, I don't really know. Chances are, there would be no grounds to allow it simply out of health concerns.

Furthermore, necrophilia is absolutely disgusting. Anyone who would want to fuck a corpse should receive

a: phyciatric help
b: beaten
c: a and b

Despite the violation and desecration of the corpse, there is the health aspect to it.

I don't think the question here is wether necrophilia should be illegal or not, but coming from NSGeneralites, the question should be if anyone here would engage in it and why?

Maybe yes. Since for the family the emotional trauma would be very deep. Maybe its the family the one who should decide the fate of one of his loved ones.... and that brings the trouble of who will have the final authority if different family members disagree...

We will have trials over the custody of death bodies :eek:

We already have those. Spouses disagreeing with parents of the deceased as to where said corpse should be buried, etc.

Yes, but I despise such inaccuracies...it's like a tick.

Trick?

I don't think the question here is wether necrophilia should be illegal or not, but coming from NSGeneralites, the question should be if anyone here would engage in it and why?

If it was a really hot, fresh, stiff corpse....and no one would ever know..... well you'd never know, now would you?

Yes, but I despise such inaccuracies...it's like a tick.

Sorry, that's how I role. Any kind of sex I don't like is rape to me. :p

Furthermore, necrophilia is absolutely disgusting. Anyone who would want to fuck a corpse should receive

a: phyciatric help
b: beaten
c: a and b



Because thats what matters. Whether Trollgaard finds it icky or not.

When I'm dead I won't be worrying about what happens to my body, because...

wait for it...

wait for it...

I'll be dead.

But many people do worry about what happens to their body, as do the ones they leave behind in this world. If any consent were to be made, I would believe it would have to come from both the person before they died and all those who care about their memory.

And I just want to get this off my chest. HWY IS THIS BEING DISCUSSED IN THE FIRST PLACE??? WHAT KIND OF SICK MIND DO YOU HAVE TO EVEN BRING THIS QUESTION UP?!?!?

:headbang:

/rant over

Trick?

Actually, tic.

Wanting to engage in necrphillia is so unnatural and biologically counter-productive, and so repellant to most people's natural instincts, that it must be considered a form or symptom of mental illness. Also, its practitioners often turn to the most despicable acts of violence to fulfiltheir desires.

If that's not reason enough, remember that most people are appalled at the idea, and that once they are dead, they are indeed unable to give consent.

I can't believe this is even being debated. Just trying to give a reason for something so self-evident makes me feel dirty.

These:






Furthermore, necrophilia is absolutely disgusting. Anyone who would want to fuck a corpse should receive

a: phyciatric help
b: beaten
c: a and b

Despite the violation and desecration of the corpse, there is the health aspect to it.

Why beaten? What will that achieve? Even in a practical way?

If it was a really hot, fresh, stiff corpse....and no one would ever know..... well you'd never know, now would you?

Neesika, dear, stop grossing people out.;)

Wanting to engage in necrphillia is so unnatural and biologically counter-productive, and so repellant to most people's natural instincts, that it must be considered a form or symptom of mental illness. Also, its practitioners often turn to the most despicable acts of violence to fulfiltheir desires.

If that's not reason enough, remember that most people are appalled at the idea, and that once they are dead, they are indeed unable to give consent.

I can't believe this is even being debated. Just trying to give a reason for something so self-evident makes me feel dirty.



Funny thing though, we shouldnt base our laws off what people find icky.

No, I do not think it should be illegal.

After all, it is safe to say that when we die, we lose all of our rights and freedoms. Personally, if I am dead, I don't care what happens to my body. Use me for landfill, I don't care, i'm DEAD.

Funny thing though, we shouldnt base our laws off what people find icky.

Funny thing also is that I've seen that exact argument you're making for sex with consenting children.

I gave a lot more than "because people find it icky." I also gave a much more thought out responce than you did, thogh I'll own that's not saying much. Why don't you try posting a real rebuttal some time?

Oh well, we've all used some pointless one-liners in our day, so no hard feelings.;)

Funny thing though, we shouldnt base our laws off what people find icky.

Why the hell should necrophilia be legal?

It is rape, desecration, filthy (morally and physically), and is a health risk.

Why should it be legal?

At they very worst it's vandalism.

If consent is given from whoever owns the corpse, then go nuts. It's essentially masturbation with private property.

An example I could see occurring is a person offering their body to their spouse after they die. I assume the rights of the body go over to the spouse in that case, so it's just masturbation with a privately owned object.

The main argument against necrophilia, to me, is that it traumatizes the living, those being the relatives the deceased person. Naturally, this only applies if they find out. I would be pissed if someone violated my dead relative that way. Maybe enough to kill the offending necrophiliac.

I agree with it being illegal. The health and safety issue is compelling to me.

Furthermore, necrophilia is absolutely disgusting. Anyone who would want to fuck a corpse should receive

a: psychiatric help
b: beaten
c: a and b

Despite the violation and desecration of the corpse, there is the health aspect to it.

I've got to second you there, Trollgaard. The health aspect I think is the strongest basis for opposing necrophilia on objective grounds; I personally feel it's disgusting and utterly debases the last remnant of that person on Earth, but I imagine such arguments wouldn't hold up on legal grounds.

If it was a really hot, fresh, stiff corpse....and no one would ever know..... well you'd never know, now would you?

if its dead....it CANT be hot. Unless it was just died very recently.... and if someone just died in front of you.... maybe there are other things you should be thinking instead of sex.

Funny thing also is that I've seen that exact argument your making for sex with consenting children.

There are other reasons that is illegal. Mainly that we as a society say Children cannot consent because they cannot truely understand what they are agreeing with.

Why the hell should necrophilia be legal?

It is rape, desecration, filthy (morally and physically), and is a health risk.

Why should it be legal?

I dont think it should be legal. I just would like to see real reasons, rather than "Its iky!"

I've got to second you there, Trollgaard. The health aspect I think is the strongest basis for opposing necrophilia on objective grounds; I personally feel it's disgusting and utterly debases the last remnant of that person on Earth, but I imagine such arguments wouldn't hold up on legal grounds.

Do you second the idea that the necrophile should be beaten?

if its dead....it CANT be hot. Unless it was just died very recently.... and if someone just died in front of you.... maybe there are other things you should be thinking instead of sex.

Not to mention they almost certainly evacuated their bowels, although I imagine that's a plus for some people...

Not to mention they almost certainly evacuated their bowels, although I imagine that's a plus for some people...

Ok... thats it... I cant stomach this discussion any more. Bye.

OK so everyones Stated "The health risk this, the health risk that" is there any proof that there is more of a health risk from the dead body than their is a living body? Because as far as i see it the dead person is just no longer breathing or whatever and new virus's / sicknesses / bacteria don't just sprout up as soon as you die. This argument is of course assuming this is pre-burial because i think we've decided that graverobbing is infact illegeal.

new virus's / sicknesses / bacteria don't just sprout up as soon as you die.

Well actually they tend to depending on how long you've left the body to decay for, remember the immune system has shut off.

My 2 cents:

1. Ew.
2. Maybe (just MAYBE) if the deceased said they wanted to in their will before they died.

Do you second the idea that the necrophile should be beaten?

Beaten? No. Condemned and vilified for their wanton disrespect for the dead? Absolutely.

OK so everyones Stated "The health risk this, the health risk that" is there any proof that there is more of a health risk from the dead body than their is a living body? Because as far as i see it the dead person is just no longer breathing or whatever and new virus's / sicknesses / bacteria don't just sprout up as soon as you die. This argument is of course assuming this is pre-burial because i think we've decided that graverobbing is infact illegeal.

Decomposing bodies of both animals and people carry the anthrax bacteria. If that bacteria isn't highly lethal and transmisible, I don't know what else to say.

Well, I guess it should only be legal if the person signs some kind of consent form before they die. Like donating their body to science, only more like donating their body to perversion.

if its dead....it CANT be hot. Unless it was just died very recently.... and if someone just died in front of you.... maybe there are other things you should be thinking instead of sex.

Not hot tempertaure wise, hot aesthetically.

Like a Greek statue, cold and chiseled. Laying down and at the ready. Like in a morgue (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116783/).

I don't know about you, but I would rather someone masturbate with my corpse, than cut it up and put it on display at a body exhibit.

If you're allowed to put the mutilated dead in funny positions, and people constantly sign up their bodies to be put on these displays, then I don't see why necrophilia is any different. Dead bodies are already granted almost no respect, they get cut up and modified in so many ways. The body displays are just extreme examples.

Just the usual, because it involves sex it's seen as so much worse than it actually is.

Decomposing bodies of both animals and people carry the anthrax bacteria. If that bacteria isn't highly lethal and transmisible, I don't know what else to say.

Wear a condom? Being allowed to have unprotected sex with someone who has aids?

These are a few things that come to mind.

remember the immune system has shut off.


Yes but that of the living person hasn't. So those bacteria that are living in the dead person should be killed when they get to the living person without affecting him/her.

Yes but that of the living person hasn't. So those bacteria that are living in the dead person should be killed when they get to the living person without affecting him/her.

It's not the body's natural flora that are usually the cause of illness. It's the bacteria involved in decomposition that are the ones to worry about (although plague victims and others killed by disease are probably still carrying lethal quantities of the pathogen for a while after death).

I think we must then discuss who owns the death body of a person.That would be my first instinct as well; resolve it as a property issue. Whoever inherited the claim to the body (or the grave it is buried in) gets to decide who gets to do what with it (or in the case of a grave gets to dig it up or not).

Why shouldn't we respect the bodies of the dead? People have done it for thousands upon thousands of years.Yeah, in some cultures they respect a body by eating it. And you shouldn't play with your food, so no sex.

Beyond the simple assumption that when someone has died, their remains should be allowed to rest undisturbed, what about the family of the deceased? How would they feel if someone dug up their loved one and made with the sexy time? It is highly disrespectful and in extremely bad taste. In our culture, and quite possibly every culture that existed to date, yes. But whether it's a natural inevitability that every culture should value the dead is open to discussion.
It's kind of flattering to think even after dead I might still be appealing to people.

Has anyone made the "Over my dead body" joke yet?

Has anyone made the "Over my dead body" joke yet?

You just did? Maybe?

Decomposing bodies of both animals and people carry the anthrax bacteria. That sounds implausible. Where would those anthrax bacteria have come from?

That sounds implausible. Where would those anthrax bacteria have come from?

Anthrax is a natural inhabitant of the soil. That's one of the many reasons why you shouldn't eat dirt...

Anthrax is a natural inhabitant of the soil. That's one of the many reasons why you shouldn't eat dirt...

Just an off topic quick question, is there actually any threat at all from getting anthrax from eating dirt?

Just an off topic quick question, is there actually any threat at all from getting anthrax from eating dirt?

I don't think it's very likely, honestly. You'd probably need to be exposed to significantly more spores than those naturally present in most soil in order to be at risk of infection. Of course, in a decomposing corpse, the environment is much more beneficial to the reproduction of those bacteria and the risk is drastically increased.

Of course, there are plenty of other things that are present in soil that should be more than enough reason not to eat it, but anthrax is a pretty low risk.

That sounds implausible. Where would those anthrax bacteria have come from?

Anthrax is known to contaminate the soil for over 70 years or more after burial of contaminated animals and people. The anthrax spores can lie dormant for an inordinate amount of time if there's no food or collapse of the host's body. If there's a new host nearby who comes into contact with the dormant spores on the air, from the hide of animals or wool or other contaminated corpses, this bacteria can infect or reinfect the organisms in question.

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/anthrax.jsp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax

So use a condom.

So use a condom.

From now on, upon burial, every corpse shall have a sign pinned to it reading "No glove, no love".

The true question here is whether or not you can warm the body first, not whether it is right or wrong.

So use a condom.

You'd have to cover your entire body as well as most likely wear a gas mask in order to prevent exposure via inhalation. That's not to say you'd get anthrax from not doing so, but the risk is always present.

Because it is all that remains of them on Earth in the end. It represents that person. Why shouldn't we respect the bodies of the dead? People have done it for thousands upon thousands of years. Beyond the simple assumption that when someone has died, their remains should be allowed to rest undisturbed, what about the family of the deceased? How would they feel if someone dug up their loved one and made with the sexy time? It is highly disrespectful and in extremely bad taste. Just because someone is dead does not mean their body is open to anyone who wants it. If it is, how long should we wait before fucking the body? Five minutes? A day? A month? As soon as Grandma Smith kicks the bucket should we all be dropping our pants before we toss her into a ditch?

Why is a dead body deserving of respect?

Of course it should be illegal.

Why?

Why?

His reasoning is "It grosses me out!"


Or maybe some variation of it being a sign of weakness or something.

Why is a dead body deserving of respect?

Dyakovo, you're the last person I would've expected to be asking this question. Why do you think the body of the dead deserve respect? For example, a cancer patient. Don't you think that a person that died of cancer suffered enough in life to also be subject to be a sexual object in death?

Would you be all for someone digging the grave of one of your loved ones just to enjoy a fuck? Seriously.

You'd have to cover your entire body as well as most likely wear a gas mask in order to prevent exposure via inhalation. That's not to say you'd get anthrax from not doing so, but the risk is always present.

Meh, there is risk in everything.

Why is a dead body deserving of respect?

Why is anybody deserving of respect?

The true question here is whether or not you can warm the body first, not whether it is right or wrong.

I think it'd be kind of fun cold. Also probably more hygenic.

But many people do worry about what happens to their body, as do the ones they leave behind in this world. If any consent were to be made, I would believe it would have to come from both the person before they died and all those who care about their memory.
Once they're dead they no longer worry about it...
And I just want to get this off my chest. HWY IS THIS BEING DISCUSSED IN THE FIRST PLACE??? WHAT KIND OF SICK MIND DO YOU HAVE TO EVEN BRING THIS QUESTION UP?!?!?
Did you even read the OP? That explains why it is being discussed.

Why is a dead body deserving of respect?

Exactly! Corpses have to EARN respect, like anyone else, and what have corpses done for us lately!? Huh? Nothing, that's what!

In the case of this German dude who left written and I think also recorded proof that he wanted to be eaten after dying... the cannibal who eat him still got prosecuted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm

He was prosecuted for manslaughter, not cannibalism since it wasnt illegal at that time in Germany.

For a moment there I thought you were hinting that necrophiliacs should be eaten.. ?

His reasoning is "It grosses me out!"


Or maybe some variation of it being a sign of weakness or something.

Yeah, I got that after reading farther...

so if its legal anna nicole is still a slut even after dying?

Dyakovo, you're the last person I would've expected to be asking this question.
Why wouldn't I ask this?
Why do you think the body of the dead deserve respect?
I don't think dead bodies 'deserve' respect.
For example, a cancer patient. Don't you think that a person that died of cancer suffered enough in life to also be subject to be a sexual object in death?
Maybe they wanted to be used as a sex object?
Would you be all for someone digging the grave of one of your loved ones just to enjoy a fuck? Seriously.
No, I wouldn't. My reasoning however is not about respecting the dead body or a matter of ownership.
The reasons why I wouldn't want this being done are:
1. The ick factor
2. A matter of respecting the memory of the deceased.

I think it'd be kind of fun cold. Also probably more hygenic.

I love you. *Sigged* In which sense would it be more hygenic? My proposal never stated how they would be "warmed" or to what temperature...

I think I just reached my level of tolerance with necrophilia allowance and all these silly arguments. I'll retire now.

Agur!

Exactly! Corpses have to EARN respect, like anyone else, and what have corpses done for us lately!? Huh? Nothing, that's what!

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/super_smilies007.gif

*sits down with popcorn*

Please, continue.

*munches loudly*

*sits down with popcorn*

Please, continue.

*munches loudly*

Shhh! I'm trying to get jiggy with a corpse, you're distracting me.

I love you. *Sigged* In which sense would it be more hygenic? My proposal never stated how they would be "warmed" or to what temperature...

Only that they'd be less likely to be decomposing if kept nicely cool in the morgue. Also conveniently arrayed on a table for your poking pleasure.

Only that they'd be less likely to be decomposing if kept nicely cool in the morgue. Also conveniently arrayed on a table for your poking pleasure.

What if you froze them, then defrosted every time you wanted a quickie by using a giant microwave.

I would of said oven but that could be controversial.

I don't believe necros should just be able to pick a body and rape it...

That being said I believe that an individual, if they chose in life, to give their body to a necro.

Like an organ donor... you can put it on your license ;).

What if you froze them, then defrosted every time you wanted a quickie by using a giant microwave.

I would of said over but that could be controversial.

Ok... i said I didnt had the stomach... but since I thru up I think I can continue now that my stomach is empty...

What if we froze them.... defrosted them for a quickie....then we found a way to reanimate them (ala frankenstein)... and they sue us for rape!?

Ok... i said I didnt had the stomach... but since I thru up I think I can continue now that my stomach is empty...

What if we froze them.... defrosted them for a quickie....then we found a way to reanimate them (ala frankenstein)... and they sue us for rape!?

Obviously you don't reanimate them frankenstein style, you just attach strings and get a friend to control them like a puppet, then you switch places so to speak, you and the friend not the body...

Yes. Here in Brasil it is, if I'm not mistaken. Everyone deserves respect dead or not.

Less think that you win the property Jessica Alba's dead body. :D

Then... after all those hideous acts qe have spoke here.... some scientist finds a way to resurrect people... Would the court then force to to give the body to resurrect her? Will she be able to sue you?

Yes. Here in Brasil it is, if I'm not mistaken. Everyone deserves respect dead or not.

Why do dead bodies deserve respect?

Why do dead bodies deserve respect?

Why do they NOT deserve respect?

What person living or dead deserves respect? In the end everyone's opinion on that is different, so why should it be affected by the person not living?

I do think it should be illegal, because I think the relatives deserve respect by not letting their dead relatives be used as sex objects. It's just not appropriate towards the remaining family and friends.

Other than that it's also really really disgusting. I can't understand why anyone would want to have sex with a dead body. I had to dissect some, and there are really not many things less sexy than a corpse.

Why do they NOT deserve respect?

Do you respect dirt? How about a piece of chicken? An acorn?

But what about the living people who loved and cared for the dead person when he was alive???

Dont they deserve respect? I think that having sex with the dead body of their family would be pretty traumatic.

"I did your mom last night"
"My mom is death asshole"
"oh..so thats why she didnt moved much?"

Why do dead bodies deserve respect?

I said this earlier, I'll say it again. Why does anyone 'deserve' respect? Point being, if you're this pedantic you can basically justify rape.

I do think it should be illegal, because I think the relatives deserve respect by not letting their dead relatives be used as sex objects. It's just not appropriate towards the remaining family and friends.

Other than that it's also really really disgusting. I can't understand why anyone would want to have sex with a dead body. I had to dissect some, and there are really not many things less sexy than a corpse.

I disagree, for example Ron Jeremy: http://insidestl.com/morningafter/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ron_jeremy_captured.jpg

"I did your mom last night"
"My mom is dead asshole"
"oh..so thats why she didnt moved much?"

LOL

Look, anyone that finds a corpse sexy clearly needs mental help, and a large amount of necrophiliacs also become murderers.


Yes this is an old point but, having sex with a decaying maggoty corpse, its just weird.

I disagree, for example Ron Jeremy: http://insidestl.com/morningafter/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ron_jeremy_captured.jpg

Isid did say not many things...

I said this earlier, I'll say it again. Why does anyone 'deserve' respect? Point being, if you're this pedantic you can basically justify rape.

Theoretically a living person has done something to earn respect...

I, personally, am not in the habit of respecting inanimate objects, mainly because they are, in fact inanimate and thusly are incapable of doing anything to earn respect.

Why do dead bodies deserve respect?

Why wouldn't they deserve? They are human being, dead but human. No one likes being violated. What make you think they would want to be used?

Girl please! <<< It's not that hard to get laid. There are a lot of people, alive, that are as horny as you. So let 'em dead people be and try to get some real action.

I agree that anyone who wants to have sex with a dead body should recive mental treatment... but why should they also be prosecuted?

if its a crime, we need a victim. I dont think dead people can be victims. But their families can...and maybe society as a whole too.

Isid did say not many things...
Quick search reveals these:
Hawt? (http://photos10.flickr.com/15475332_cdb50397f8.jpg)
Hawter? (http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c302/babyvenus111/ugly%20people/ugly.jpg)
Hawter than that? (http://cdbaby.name/w/a/waxonthemic_small.jpg)
Ok we have a winner... (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u92/Jenny867_5309/ugly.jpg)
WTF?! (http://www.boingboing.net/mog.jpg)
BBQ? (http://nivel13.blogsome.com/images/ugly_dog_perro_feo_4.jpg)

Mind you I'm guessing someone will say "but what about one of them dead?" and ruin my point...

Quick search reveals these:
Hawt? (http://photos10.flickr.com/15475332_cdb50397f8.jpg)
Hawter? (http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c302/babyvenus111/ugly%20people/ugly.jpg)
Hawter than that? (http://cdbaby.name/w/a/waxonthemic_small.jpg)
Ok we have a winner... (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u92/Jenny867_5309/ugly.jpg)
WTF?! (http://www.boingboing.net/mog.jpg)
BBQ? (http://nivel13.blogsome.com/images/ugly_dog_perro_feo_4.jpg)

Mind you I'm guessing someone will say "but what about one of them dead?" and ruin my point...

per your request...
But what about one of them dead?

per your request...
But what about one of them dead?

That just reaches beyond the level of the hawt scale onto super-mega-uber-hawtness. Mmmmm.

(1)Why wouldn't they deserve? (2)They are human being, dead but human. (3)No one likes being violated. (4)What make you think they would want to be used?
1. Because a corpse is an inanimate object.
2. It used to be a human being, now it is a rotting piece of meat.
3. Has no bearing on the discussion of why dead bodies deserve respect.
4. I think that a corpse is an inanimate object and thusly has no wants or desires...
Girl please! <<< It's not that hard to get laid. There are a lot of people, alive, that are as horny as you. So let 'em dead people be and try to get some real action.
How did you get it into your head that I was asking this because I wanted to be able to bang some corpse?

I'm not in favor of sex with the dead.

But sex with the Undead...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/female.jpg

Uh... Maybe not! No.

Quick search reveals these:
Hawt? (http://photos10.flickr.com/15475332_cdb50397f8.jpg)
Hawter? (http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c302/babyvenus111/ugly%20people/ugly.jpg)
Hawter than that? (http://cdbaby.name/w/a/waxonthemic_small.jpg)
Ok we have a winner... (http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u92/Jenny867_5309/ugly.jpg)
WTF?! (http://www.boingboing.net/mog.jpg)
BBQ? (http://nivel13.blogsome.com/images/ugly_dog_perro_feo_4.jpg)

Mind you I'm guessing someone will say "but what about one of them dead?" and ruin my point...

except the last two I would all prefer them over a corpse

(the corpses I'm thinking of are all of people who are a least 70 years or something, they have been dead for quite a while and aren't kept in freezers (the room in which they are is about 15°C I think, maybe a little bit colder) and have been there for at least two weeks now and they're all cut open. I can't wait untill tomorrow to continue the dissections, especially since it's the first time in months in which the weather is extremely nice and I have to do other, more important work).

1. Because a corpse is an inanimate object.
2. It used to be a human being, now it is a rotting piece of meat.
3. Has no bearing on the discussion of why dead bodies deserve respect.
4. I think that a corpse is an inanimate object and thusly has no wants or desires...

How did you get it into your head that I was asking this because I wanted to be able to bang some corpse?

You said it right. YOU think they don't deserve but most of society do and like me they think about the corpse as the person it once was. Not as the rotting piece of meat it is.

The last part wasn't directed to you but to everyone that might be reading the thread and feels like banging a corpse.

Wouldn't necrophilia count as rape? As the dead body cannot give consent.

Only if using a dildo counts as the dildo being raped. A corpse is after all an inanimate object.

There are plenty of morality laws on the books.

Most of which should be repealed.

It is illegal - in the UK

You said it right. YOU think they don't deserve but most of society do and like me they think about the corpse as the person it once was. Not as the rotting piece of meat it is.

The last part wasn't directed to you but to everyone that might be reading the thread and feels like banging a corpse.

Well said. I agree with you.

Only if using a dildo counts as the dildo being raped. A corpse is after all an inanimate object.

Except a corpse used to be a person. The deceased family probably wouldn't want a sick bastard fucking their loved one's corpse, and I doubt anyone seriously wants their corpse to be fucked by freaks once they die.

Most of which should be repealed.

Which ones?

It is illegal - in the UK

Good!

The family, or, depending whether they have a will that talks about the body after death or not, the person.

So if it's a family member it's ok because they own the body?

You can contract all sorts of nasty diseases from dead bodies. Do you really want to take that risk?

You can contract all sorts of nasty diseases from dead bodies. Do you really want to take that risk?

You can contract all sort of nasty diseases from living bodies too. And I think it has been proved that people do take that risk.

Why should it be illegal?

I see people resorting to the ick factor, which is totally irrelevant. I'm sure there are a lot of things you enjoy that someone would consider 'ick'.

Then their are the cries that it is inherently unhealthy - how so? Surely digging a decomposing body out of the ground is potentially hazardous, but what about a fresh corpse? How about one that has been sterilized? And why don't we ban regular sex, as you can catch fatal illnesses from that too.

Then there is the most absurd - necrophiliacs become murderers!
Seriously... I'm just going to lump that in with 'teh gays want to rape little boys!', and hope you have the sense to feel abashed.

Vandalism is already a crime, so that covers desecrating a grave or corpse without permission of the owner. So where exactly is the crime?

Funny thing also is that I've seen that exact argument you're making for sex with consenting children.

Children are not capable of providing informed consent. Unlike a child a corpse is an inanimate object and doesn't need to provide consent anymore than a dildo does.

Why should it be illegal?

I see people resorting to the ick factor, which is totally irrelevant. I'm sure there are a lot of things you enjoy that someone would consider 'ick'.

Then their are the cries that it is inherently unhealthy - how so? Surely digging a decomposing body out of the ground is potentially hazardous, but what about a fresh corpse? How about one that has been sterilized? And why don't we ban regular sex, as you can catch fatal illnesses from that too.

Then there is the most absurd - necrophiliacs become murderers!
Seriously... I'm just going to lump that in with 'teh gays want to rape little boys!', and hope you have the sense to feel abashed.

Vandalism is already a crime, so that covers desecrating a grave or corpse without permission of the owner. So where exactly is the crime?

It is desecrating the corpse, dishonoring the memory of the deceased, and traumatic to the family.


I honestly can't believe anyone is arguing FOR necrophilia...

I guess this is the internet, so I should have expected it, I guess.

edit: Name some reasons why necrophilia SHOULD be legal. Anyone.

Except a corpse used to be a person.

Key phrase bolded and underlined. They no longer are.


Which ones?

Which laws do you consider to be based solely on morality? I would start the list with "blue laws" that prevent the sale of certain items on a Sunday . . .

You said it right. YOU think they don't deserve but most of society do and like me they think about the corpse as the person it once was. Not as the rotting piece of meat it is.

The last part wasn't directed to you but to everyone that might be reading the thread and feels like banging a corpse.

So you think that inanimate objects should be respected?

Except a corpse used to be a person. The deceased family probably wouldn't want a sick bastard fucking their loved one's corpse, and I doubt anyone seriously wants their corpse to be fucked by freaks once they die.

If I'm reading this correctly, what you are saying is that you shouldn't get your rocks off with dead bodies out of respect to the family members.

Along with its icky and you could get funky diseases.

So you think that inanimate objects should be respected?

Dyakovo, these inanimate ¨objects¨ you´re referring to were once living beings. If solely for that they deserve respect after being laid to rest.

It is desecrating the corpse, dishonoring the memory of the deceased, and traumatic to the family.
Finally, some non-ick reasons...
I honestly can't believe anyone is arguing FOR necrophilia...
Why not? I'm not about to go out and do it, but it is an interesting (if gross) topic of discussion.
I guess this is the internet, so I should have expected it, I guess.
Yes, you should have...
edit: Name some reasons why necrophilia SHOULD be legal. Anyone.
Well, if nothing else, people are allowed to fuck other inanimate objects.

Key phrase bolded and underlined. They no longer are.


That's not how the society sees it. Try to understand that most of us are capable to respect a corpse by the person it used to be. It doesn't matter if it's dead, if it's rotting, for most of us see it is person and it does deserve respect.

Dyakovo, these inanimate ¨objects¨ you´re referring to were once living beings. If solely for that they deserve respect after being laid to rest.

I disagree, to me a corpse is just a piece of rotting meat. Now I can agree with they should be left alone out of respect for the feelings of the family.
I just don't see how any inanimate object deserves respect.

That's not how the society sees it. Try to understand that most of us are capable to respect a corpse by the person it used to be. It doesn't matter if it's dead, if it's rotting, for most of us see it is person and it does deserve respect.

It, however, is not a person.

I disagree, to me a corpse is just a piece of rotting meat. Now I can agree with they should be left alone out of respect for the feelings of the family.
I just don't see how any inanimate object deserves respect.

Once again, these pieces of ¨rotting meat¨ were, at one point, alive and had feelings. Even if they´re inanimate in this stage, and I´m not trying to impose my views on you, I think they deserve to be respected and left alone in death. It´s no longer the ¨ick¨ factor, but of respect.

Key phrase bolded and underlined. They no longer are.

So what?

Shouldn't their memory still be honored? And why should more heartache be placed upon the family of the deceased?

Just because it is a corpse means it is fair game to fucked?




Which laws do you consider to be based solely on morality? I would start the list with "blue laws" that prevent the sale of certain items on a Sunday . . .

Hmm...well that seems okay then...

Once again, these pieces of ¨rotting meat¨ were, at one point, alive and had feelings. Even if they´re inanimate in this stage, and I´m not trying to impose my views on you, I think they deserve to be respected and left alone in death. It´s no longer the ¨ick¨ factor, but of respect.

Fair enough.

"Ew" definitely comes to mind, but knowing someone that used to work for a morgue I am aware that there are people out there willing to pay good money to do this.

I think it's horrible honestly. I wouldn't want someone to do that to my corpse. I don't care if I can't feel it or if I am completely unaware of the act. It's my body and I don't want anyone doing something to it without my permission. I have the donor sticker, they can take out my organs and use them to save someone's life. I don't have a necro sticker. Period. Although maybe that's not a bad idea to implement... stickers on your I.D. or Driver's License that say it's perfectly dandy for a necrophiliac to get it on with your corpse once you pass on. Then it's consentual.

Fair enough.

:)

:)

What the heck, we agree that the body should be left alone...

You: Out of respect for the deceased person
Me: Out of respect to the deceased person's family (although I don't doubt that you agree with me on this part).

Oh, Dyakovo, what have you done ...?

The only person (live person, with feelings) who could possibly be harmed by a necrophile act is a living relative or loved one, of the deceased.

If it's OK with the surviving relatives (not that it would be, often) or they never find out about it, I don't see a problem.

If permission was specifically written into the dead person's will, that their corpse could be used that way, pimp it out at the discretion of executor of the will.

What the heck, we agree that the body should be left alone...

You: Out of respect for the deceased person
Me: Out of respect to the deceased person's family (although I don't doubt that you agree with me on this part).

Yes, we do agree in one thing there. We should let the dead be out of respect for the deceased person´s family.

It is desecrating the corpse, dishonoring the memory of the deceased, and traumatic to the family.

I honestly can't believe anyone is arguing FOR necrophilia...

I guess this is the internet, so I should have expected it, I guess.

edit: Name some reasons why necrophilia SHOULD be legal. Anyone.
Who determines what is desecration of a corpse? As I stated before, if the owners object then it is a clear case of vandalism, otherwise there is no crime. If those who own the corpse do not object, by what right can you use force to impose your views on others?

I am not arguing for necrophilia, I am arguing that it should not be illegal. Much as I would argue that homosexuality, eating meat on Fridays, keeping pets, worshiping the twin gods of Dogar and Kazon, or any other activity not directly harming others should not be illegal.

As to reasons why it should be legal, that comes down to your view of law and freedom. Should everything be illegal unless proven that it should be legal, or should the presumption be for freedom?

Personally, I choose a free society where people do not have to justify every action to an overlord. If you can demonstrate clear harm to others, then you may have a case for prohibiting certain behavior, but you have no right to declare things illegal just because you do not like them.

Oh, Dyakovo, what have you done ...?

I've started a lively discussion.

edit: Name some reasons why necrophilia SHOULD be legal. Anyone.

The person's body (when they no longer animate it) is just like their property, and what is done with it after death should be done according to their living will, just like any other property.

Organ donation has been mentioned. It's the exact same thing, except that only certain organs are "used" and they are "used" differently.

Who determines what is desecration of a corpse? As I stated before, if the owners object then it is a clear case of vandalism, otherwise there is no crime. If those who own the corpse do not object, by what right can you use force to impose your views on others?

I am not arguing for necrophilia, I am arguing that it should not be illegal. Much as I would argue that homosexuality, eating meat on Fridays, keeping pets, worshiping the twin gods of Dogar and Kazon, or any other activity not directly harming others should not be illegal.

As to reasons why it should be legal, that comes down to your view of law and freedom. Should everything be illegal unless proven that it should be legal, or should the presumption be for freedom?

Personally, I choose a free society where people do not have to justify every action to an overlord. If you can demonstrate clear harm to others, then you may have a case for prohibiting certain behavior, but you have no right to declare things illegal just because you do not like them.

People can do a lot of things. But society has said that necrophilia isn't one of them.

Get over it. Prove why it should be legal.

There have been plenty of points saying why it should be illegal, I'll recap for you:

1. The enormous ick factor necrophilia creates in most people.
2. Respect for the dead.
3. Respect for the family of the dead.
4. The health risk.
5. Vandalism/graverobbing etc

So you think that inanimate objects should be respected?

I think it's more along the lines of "I place value on this particular inanimate object because of the attachment I had to the person before they died. Therefore people should respect me by not desecrating it."

But I really don't think anyone is questioning whether or not going out and finding random corpses for necrophilia should be legal. I think the discussion is more along the lines of whether or not it should be legal when there is some form of consent - either from the person before they died or from the people now responsible for the body (ie. the family).


Get over it. Prove why it should be legal.

Legal is the default. The onus is on those who wish to make something illegal to justify imposing their views upon others.

There have been plenty of points saying why it should be illegal, I'll recap for you:

1. The enormous ick factor necrophilia creates in most people.

Should an ick factor really be enough to make something illegal?

2. Respect for the dead.

Even if the person wanted this after their death?

3. Respect for the family of the dead.

Even if they're ok with it?

4. The health risk.

This one could be an argument. We'd first have to determine exactly what health risk was present and whether or not it presented enough of a threat to others to justify restricting the action.

5. Vandalism/graverobbing etc

That isn't a necessary part of necrophilia.

People can do a lot of things. But society has said that necrophilia isn't one of them.

Boooring. You always resort to "it should be that way because it is that way."

Get over it. Prove why it should be legal.

There have been plenty of points saying why it should be illegal, I'll recap for you:

1. The enormous ick factor necrophilia creates in most people.
2. Respect for the dead.
3. Respect for the family of the dead.
4. The health risk.
5. Vandalism/graverobbing etc

1. They don't have to watch. No, seriously, it's not the business of people at large.
2. IS having sex with a living person "disrespectful" to them?
3. This I agree with. It is difficult for people to detach their knowledge of the living person, from the body that WAS that person.
However, the living will of that person (their intentions for the body after their death) over-rides any claim that family or loved ones may have on what is done with or to the body.
4. The necrophile's problem. We do not, nor should we, dictate what someone must do for their own health, IT'S THEIR BODY.
5. Crimes. Guilt by association: exactly like persecuting pedophiles because child-molestors are pedophiles.

Now, the reason it should be legal (WITH constraints): The person's body after death is exactly like any of their property. It can be disposed however they chose, within law, and those laws should be written only to prevent actual harm to some person (other than the transgressor,) or to the environment.

If a person gave no instructions allowing the use of their body, the exact same rule would apply as when someone leaves no will for their property: a public executor either appoints as executor someone close to the deceased, or determines their priority of claim over the deceased's property. If (which seems unlikely to me) the deceased's nearest and dearest have no objection, the body should be made available to any necrophile they approve.

Law prohibits dumping a dead body on the street, because it poses a health risk to people at large. Likewise, law would prohibit you taking your dead girlfriend to a nice restaurant. That would pose a threat to people at large.

And, this bears repeating:

that comes down to your view of law and freedom. Should everything be illegal unless proven that it should be legal, or should the presumption be for freedom?

I think Trollgaard is done.

But just to really make him throw a piston, how about this:

Should the body of a dead child be made available to a pedophile necrophiliac, if the legal guardians of that child approve?

I am Hobos, death of threads.

Look apon my works, ye mighty, and despair.

I am Hobos, death of threads.

Look apon my works, ye mighty, and despair.

You are aware that in the poem that is supposed to be ironic, right?

Yes, you gave no reason for it to be illegal...

I think he used the "eww" factor as a reason, which isn't much of a reason at all.


I think it should be illegal because a dead body can't consent, and it's morally wrong because the person should still be given respect, and having sex with them simply isn't respectful.

I think he used the "eww" factor as a reason, which isn't much of a reason at all.


I think it should be illegal because a dead body can't consent, and it's morally wrong because the person should still be given respect, and having sex with them simply isn't respectful.

Neither can a dildo...

I am Hobos, death of threads.

Look apon my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Nobel Hobos iz in ur thredz, desparing ye mightyz.
I think it should be illegal because a dead body can't consent, and it's morally wrong because the person should still be given respect, and having sex with them simply isn't respectful.

To clarify, by that line of thought: inanimate objects are to be granted the ability to consent (this is different than a will being executed, keep in mind) and sex is an inherently disrespectful act (also implicit in this is that "respect" is a legally quantifiable thing).

I think it's more along the lines of "I place value on this particular inanimate object because of the attachment I had to the person before they died. Therefore people should respect me by not desecrating it."

But I really don't think anyone is questioning whether or not going out and finding random corpses for necrophilia should be legal. I think the discussion is more along the lines of whether or not it should be legal when there is some form of consent - either from the person before they died or from the people now responsible for the body (ie. the family).

If that is the case then I guess it would be fine, but the world is in a pretty fucking sad state when anyone would consent to their body being used as a fuck toy once they're dead.



Legal is the default. The onus is on those who wish to make something illegal to justify imposing their views upon others. There have been plenty of reasons saying why it should be legal. Now counter saying why it should be legal.

And as far as I know it already is illegal, so tell me why it should be changed.



Should an ick factor really be enough to make something illegal? It should play a part.



Even if the person wanted this after their death? Who the fuck would do that?



Even if they're ok with it? Again, who the fuck would consent to that?



This one could be an argument. We'd first have to determine exactly what health risk was present and whether or not it presented enough of a threat to others to justify restricting the action. Possibly.



That isn't a necessary part of necrophilia. Whatever.

Boooring. You always resort to "it should be that way because it is that way."

So what? Why change something if there is no reason to? Fuck change for the sake of change.



1. They don't have to watch. No, seriously, it's not the business of people at large.
2. Is having sex with a living person disrespecting them?
3. This I agree with. It is difficult for people to detach their knowledge of the living person, from the body that WAS that person.
However, the living will of that person (their intentions for the body after their death) over-rides any claim that family or loved ones may have on what is done with or to the body.
4. The necrophile's problem. We do not, nor should we, dictate what someone must do for their own health, IT'S THEIR BODY.
5. Crimes. Guilt by association: exactly like persecuting pedophiles because child-molestors are pedophiles.


1. That has nothing to do with it. The fact that it would be condoned anywhere is worrisome.
2. Not unless its rape.
3. IF it is in the will (that is presuming it is legal to do) then okay, I guess, but who the fuck would put that in their will?
4. True, I guess. Unless they get sick and spread it to other people.
5. ??? Pedophiles and child-molestors are the same thing...the rape kids...


Now, the reason it should be legal (WITH constraints): The person's body after death is exactly like any of their property. It can be disposed however they chose, within law, and those laws should be written only to prevent actual harm to some person (other than the transgressor,) or to the environment.

Sounds reasonable, but I don't see how anyone would consent to their body being a fuck toy after death. I can't see why anyone would condone this behavior. I can't see how anyone COULD condone this behavior.


If a person gave no instructions allowing the use of their body, the exact same rule would apply as when someone leaves no will for their property: a public executor either appoints as executor someone close to the deceased, or determines their priority of claim over the deceased's property. If (which seems unlikely to me) the deceased's nearest and dearest have no objection, the body should be made available to any necrophile they approve.

So a body with no will should be made available to necrophiliacs? FUCK NO! That is horrible!

[/QUOTE]

Sounds reasonable, but I don't see how anyone would consent to their body being a fuck toy after death.

I would.

Hell, I wouldn't need it... why not put it to productive use?

When I'm dead I won't be worrying about what happens to my body, because...

wait for it...

wait for it...

I'll be dead.

Wait, so along with your dying, your name and reputation are going to be totally removed from the minds of the people who know you? Your family's name won't be brought out and looked at from this context because of someone violating your dead body? I know that your body will be dead, but it's not like you're passing through life having no affect on anybody, somebody will notice and be affected by this act.

Laws are artificial and arbitrary.

Therefore the basic state of being is legality, until someone comes along to ruin it for everybody. ;)

Wait, so along with your dying, your name and reputation are going to be totally removed from the minds of the people who know you? Your family's name won't be brought out and looked at from this context because of someone violating your dead body? I know that your body will be dead, but it's not like you're passing through life having no affect on anybody, somebody will notice and be affected by this act.

You mean... people will be condemning his corpse for having sex with a living being?

Nonetheless, we go to great pains to justify our laws with more than 'eww, gross!'. A system of laws cannot work if they make no sense.

So dig deeper. What exactly is the crime? Is it a crime against property (like trespass?), is it a crime against a person (battery? how could it be if a dead person, by definition, is no longer a person?). Is it a health issue?

Health issue's fairly important, and then there's that whole problem of, where's the corpse coming from? Mortuaries? Graveyards? That's criminal trespass. Freshly dead people? That might be considered interfering with possible crime scenes.

Okay, this thread is just sick.

To those of you who think this sickness should be legal, you're either perverts, or you're just not thinking strait about what it is you are suggesting.

Honestly, I'm suprised this thread hasn't been censored by the mods(not that I would agree with such a descision, as free speech trumps almost everything for me).

Health issue's fairly important, and then there's that whole problem of, where's the corpse coming from? Mortuaries? Graveyards? That's criminal trespass. Freshly dead people? That might be considered interfering with possible crime scenes.

Wouldn't all of those, you know, be covered under their own crimes, as you imply in your very own post?

To those of you who think this sickness should be legal, you're either perverts,

:rolleyes:

or you're just not thinking strait about what it is you are suggesting.

I'm pretty sure we are.

So, do you actually have a good reason why it should be illegal?

Honestly, I'm suprised this thread hasn't been censored by the mods

Why? It's not remotely offensive.

I gave a number of resons why necrophillia should be illegal, as have others.

Reasons to outlaw necrophillia:

1. It poses a risk of spreading disease.

2. It is sex without any possibllity of consent.

3. It is a behavior which is so abnormal and so biologically counterproductive that it should be taken as a clear sign of severe mental illness. This is perhaps born out by the necrophilliacs who escallate their crimes to the next level, ie, killing people to fulfill their fetish.

Because of the third point, I would actually agree that we shouldn't generally jail necrophilliacs. Rather, we should give them a one-way ticket to a mental hospital.

Maybe you have already responded to these points when raised by others, Ill admit I haven't read the whole thread post-by-post. But if so, then say that. Don't just reply with a vaugely worded question.

By the way, I wonder if you can actually say "there's nothing offensive about this topic" with a strait face. Though personally, its the tasteless attempts at humore that offend me more than the discussion itself.

I gave a number of resons why necrophillia should be illegal, as have others.

Reasons to outlaw necrophillia:

1. It poses a risk of spreading disease.

2. It is sex without any possibllity of consent.

3. It is a behavior which is so abnormal and so biologically counterproductive that it should be taken as a clear sign of severe mental illness. This is perhaps born out by the necrophilliacs who escallate their crimes to the next level, ie, killing people to fulfill their fetish.

Because of the third point, I would actually agree that we shouldn't generally jail necrophilliacs. Rather, we should give them a one-way ticket to a mental hospital.

Maybe you have already responded to these points when raised by others, Ill admit I haven't read the whole thread post-by-post. But if so, then say that. Don't just reply with a vaugely worded question.

By the way, I wonder if you can actually say "there's nothing offensive about this topic" with a strait face. Though personally, its the tasteless attempts at humore that offend me more than the discussion itself.

1) I'd be intrigued by the actual risk of spreading disease, but, anyway, whatever disease it may spread, I can't imagine it becoming something communicable between the living. I'm guessing there's heightened chance for bacterial infections, at worst.

2) This has been addressed in various ways but I'll do with two quick ones: First, the dead body is an inanimate object, objects do not consent; at best, it is now a piece of property. Second, if you do not accept the previous counter (which I'd like to see a valid counter against), what if consent is given by the surviving estate or through a will? Consent obviously is possible.

3) Homosexual behavior is biologically "counter-productive" but it's been determined legally acceptable behavior. Abnormality also is not, in and of itself, a validation of legal rulings. People perform a lot of abnormal sexual acts upon each other that we do not outlaw, and for good reason.

Dyakovo, these inanimate ¨objects¨ you´re referring to were once living beings. If solely for that they deserve respect after being laid to rest.

As I pointed out to Trollguard, once is the key word there. They are no longer a living being.

I gave a number of resons why necrophillia should be illegal, as have others.

Reasons to outlaw necrophillia:

1. It poses a risk of spreading disease.

So does sex with a living person.

2. It is sex without any possibllity of consent.

As has been stated many times in this thread, in exactly the same way that using a dildo or a blow up doll is "sex without any possibility of consent".

3. It is a behavior which is so abnormal and so biologically counterproductive that it should be taken as a clear sign of severe mental illness.

Abnormal I'll give you, although abnormality should not be a reason for something to be illegal (being a red head is abnormal for example). How is it more "biologically counterproductive" than other means of non-procreative sexual gratification?

This is perhaps born out by the necrophilliacs who escallate their crimes to the next level, ie, killing people to fulfill their fetish.

Stats to back your claim?

If that is the case then I guess it would be fine, but the world is in a pretty fucking sad state when anyone would consent to their body being used as a fuck toy once they're dead.

I would.

What would it take for me to write such a thing into my will ?

Cash.

It really wouldn't matter to me. If my parents were deceased (neither is) I'd be quite happy to have my body used any old way, for a cash advance while still living.

That said, it wouldn't be valid in my will where I live, on account of necrophilia being illegal. (2 years penalty, btw.)

However, it would appear that most US states have no law specifically against it. It was legal in Britain until 2003. The general trend seems to be towards criminalizing it (eg California is proposing to increase the penalty from 3 to 8 years.)

Depending where exactly you live, it may well be legal.

So a body with no will should be made available to necrophiliacs? FUCK NO! That is horrible!

I don't think I said that. I was covering an extremely remote possibility, that some person with close ties to the deceased wanted to have sex with the corpse, there was no will allowing that, but all the other relatives had no problem with it.

One more thing: if I had a primary physical attraction to corpses myself, I'd be seeing a psychiatrist for that. It DOES kind of creep me out, but I don't think "we should not condone it because it's icky" is a basis for law. Allowing something is not endorsing it, nor encouraging it.

1. It poses a risk of spreading disease.

Perhaps. So does sex in general. So? I'd guess that there are available means, or could be available means, to reduce this risk sharply. In any case, it's the person's choice.

2. It is sex without any possibllity of consent.

Of course there's the possibility of consent, even granting that we should have control of our bodies after death (which is questionable.) Before death, I am asked if I want my body to be used for necrophilia. I check "yes." I consent.

3. It is a behavior which is so abnormal and so biologically counterproductive that it should be taken as a clear sign of severe mental illness.

Um, that's not the standard for mental illness. If it were, we should not be particularly concerned for mental illness. There's nothing wrong with "abnormal" or "biologically counterproductive" behavior.

(Incidentally, a lot of the things people describe in such terms--like beastiality--actually appear to be surprisingly common. Human sexuality is weird. Let's not impose our rigid assumptions upon it.)

Maybe you have already responded to these points when raised by others,

Not me. Others, multiple times. They really aren't very convincing. It's pretty clear that people against necrophilia are searching for whatever reasons they can find to support their prejudice, however poor they are.

By the way, I wonder if you can actually say "there's nothing offensive about this topic" with a strait face.

Um, yes? Because there isn't.

What would it take for me to write such a thing into my will ?

Cash.

Not me. I'd do it for nothing, at least if there weren't more socially beneficial alternatives. I really couldn't care less about my body after death, and I don't see what the big problem people have with necrophilia is anyway.

I am so not going to touch this one (no pun intended).

2. It is sex without any possibllity of consent.

So then anyone who has used a dildo or other sex toy is guilty of raping it? Since they can't give consent.

Not me. I'd do it for nothing, at least if there weren't more socially beneficial alternatives. I really couldn't care less about my body after death, and I don't see what the big problem people have with necrophilia is anyway.

I get it now! You can't be an organ donor AND leave your necro friend an intact body. Someone would have to pay to have your corpse stitched back up, and it's still not going to look good naked.

Is good argument against.

If we're going to argue about this, I suggest a coin toss for sides. ;)

Wouldn't all of those, you know, be covered under their own crimes, as you imply in your very own post?

Right, so unless there's a legitimate way of acquiring corpses specifically for necrophilia, which insofar as I know, doesn't exist short of a last will and testament specifically donating the body for that purpose, which may not even pass under public health hazard concerns, what need is there to outlaw it specifically?

Should necrophilia (in practice) be illegal?
Why?

Thread prompted by this post in another thread...

I used to be into necrophilia until some rotten c%&t split on me. :p

I am so not going to touch this one (no pun intended).

In Stalinist Russia, corpse touches you!.

Strangely, this isn't even the oddest argument I've ever seen on NSG. It might crack the top ten - #7 or 8.

Entertaining, all the same, though.

*watches intently*

Should necrophilia (in practice) be illegal?
Why?

Thread prompted by this post in another thread...

With any random body, yes, it should be.

But if a person establishes a pre-mortem contract stating that their body can be used for such a purpose (by anyone or only a specific person), then no.

If someone actually consents that their body be used for sex after they die, I see no reason why not.

I used to be into necrophilia until some rotten c%&t split on me. :p

You win the thread.

In fact, it sounds like a viable small business. Free funerals!

We do wills, too.

I'm thinking, "I don't care enough about necrophilia to even let it enter into the realm of criminal law."

Which translates to: "Sure, I'd vote for a politician who wants to legalize necrophilia, because I just don't give a damn. It's a non-issue for me. I'd be more concerned about just about anything but that.

Having personally done my own morgue duty rotations (no, that's not a euphemism...it was my job at the hospital to log corpses in and out of the morgue from floors and to the mortuaries and medical examiner), dead bodies lost their "totally ick" factor long ago.

Now that I'm in paramedicine, and as part of my training have had to have at least one cadaver lab with a real, dissected corpse for examination and education, I shrug my shoulders and say, "Hey dude, if ya wanna go at it with THAT...sure, whatever. Not my cup of tea but I don't really care."

I mean, I'd PREFER if the person "donated their body to the sexual fetish club" or some such written consent, but I don't even see it as a necessity as it is a formality for all those nervous nellies who consider it "disrespecting the dead."

I mean, I just KNOW there are a few porn stars who'd sign their bodies over to being sex fetish toys instead of "to science." C'mon...John Holmes...Ron Jeremy? Probably not Peter North, because he wouldn't be able to squirt out his famous copious cumshots...but still...

I'm just sayin', from a strictly clinical standpoint...I just don't care.

GP

This could really add to the profitability of my chain of suicide vending machines, too.

I'll put it in even smaller print on the door, below the clause about pets.

I'm thinking, "I don't care enough about necrophilia to even let it enter into the realm of criminal law."

Which translates to: "Sure, I'd vote for a politician who wants to legalize necrophilia, because I just don't give a damn. It's a non-issue for me. I'd be more concerned about just about anything but that.

The politician would need to be pushing a pretty radical platform, for "legalize necrophilia" to go unnoticed. You'd get a few questions from the press, I should think ;)

Having personally done my own morgue duty rotations (no, that's not a euphemism...it was my job at the hospital to log corpses in and out of the morgue from floors and to the mortuaries and medical examiner), dead bodies lost their "totally ick" factor long ago.

Now that I'm in paramedicine, and as part of my training have had to have at least one cadaver lab with a real, dissected corpse for examination and education, I shrug my shoulders and say, "Hey dude, if ya wanna go at it with THAT...sure, whatever. Not my cup of tea but I don't really care."

OK

I mean, I'd PREFER if the person "donated their body to the sexual fetish club" or some such written consent, but I don't even see it as a necessity as it is a formality for all those nervous nellies who consider it "disrespecting the dead."

Huh? Under what conditions would you allow bodies to be used without written consent? People who are impossible to identify, perhaps?
I don't think people should have to opt OUT of having their bodies used. What about people who avoid all the government paperwork they can?
Even if you mean "relatives should have to give consent" ... you'd still want that in writing.

I mean, I just KNOW there are a few porn stars who'd sign their bodies over to being sex fetish toys instead of "to science." C'mon...John Holmes...Ron Jeremy? Probably not Peter North, because he wouldn't be able to squirt out his famous copious cumshots...but still...


Google search results have taught me more than I want to know about inducing erections in the dead.

Out of respect to those who knew the deceased, and to their memory, it is wrong. If those factors were somehow out of the equation, then it is unhealthy mentally and physically. Necrophilia is just wrong.

If that is the case then I guess it would be fine, but the world is in a pretty fucking sad state when anyone would consent to their body being used as a fuck toy once they're dead.

People consent to all sorts of pretty disturbing things - even when they're alive. I see no reason to assume that they wouldn't consent to have things done that would gross most of us out after they're dead.

There have been plenty of reasons saying why it should be legal. Now counter saying why it should be legal.

There has only been one or two possible valid reason sbrought forth, and neither are very clear.

And as far as I know it already is illegal, so tell me why it should be changed.

Nothing should be illegal without valid justification. Freedoms should only be restricted when they need to be.

It should play a part.

In that case, I suppose we should make all sorts of sex play illegal, because lots of people do things that gross me out.

Who the fuck would do that?

Again, who the fuck would consent to that?

You underestimate just how different people can be.

There are people who consent to - and even enjoy - being defectated upon. The very idea disgusts me to the point of nausea, but I don't advocate making it illegal.

1) I'd be intrigued by the actual risk of spreading disease, but, anyway, whatever disease it may spread, I can't imagine it becoming something communicable between the living. I'm guessing there's heightened chance for bacterial infections, at worst.

To be fair, I believe the prevailing theory on a lot of STDs is that they were originally brought into the human species by non-standard sexual practices like bestiality. It isn't outrageous to think that the same thing could happen with necrophilia. Of course, there are also precautions that could be taken to avoid that.

To be fair, I believe the prevailing theory on a lot of STDs is that they were originally brought into the human species by non-standard sexual practices like bestiality. It isn't outrageous to think that the same thing could happen with necrophilia. Of course, there are also precautions that could be taken to avoid that.

So someone screwed a monkey and voila, HIV? I thought the prevailing theory (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/monkeys.aid/) on that particular issue was eating of infected meat, not of mating with it?

Then again, if you're classifying it as a sexually trasmitted infection then by definition, we skip the eating infected meat part, and focus on the sexual transmission so hmm:p

It's illegal? Well time to her it back into the ground.

Really I don't know why but I feel it should illegal, like it just should, its so nasty who wants to fuck dead bodies?? (Thinks of Ted Bundy)

Wouldn't necrophilia count as rape? As the dead body cannot give consent.

aside from the obvious depraved and disgusting aspects, this was the first thing I thought of as well.

Should necrophilia (in practice) be illegal?
Why?

Thread prompted by this post in another thread...


....ewwww....

So someone screwed a monkey and voila, HIV?

No. I was thinking more along the lines of things like syphillis.

I thought the prevailing theory (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/06/13/monkeys.aid/) on that particular issue was eating of infected meat, not of mating with it?

Actually, as I recall, it was acquiring the meat that was the problem. Skinning an animal and getting it ready for consumption is a pretty bloody process and hunting it in the first place doesn't exactly make for unbroken skin. Since HIV (and SIV - it's simian counterpart) can both be passed through the blood, that was likely the way that it made the jump to humans.

Note: I'm not being terribly irrational I hope, but I want to stake out some middle ground, wherein necro practise is possible, but not assumed to be permitted on every corpse.

People consent to all sorts of pretty disturbing things - even when they're alive. I see no reason to assume that they wouldn't consent to have things done that would gross most of us out after they're dead.

If by "assume" you mean an opt-out system, where people have given consent by default, no way.

People are entitled to faith while they are living, that their bodies will be treated with respect after they are dead.

That should be the default state. Balancing the "right" of a necrophile to enjoy a corpse, against the "right" of a living person to expect respect for their own corpse ... how could we come down on the side of such a tiny minority?

If ten percent of the population were necrophiles, we might be getting into the range where those rights would contend with each other. I think it's a LOT less than that.

There have been plenty of reasons saying why it should be legal. Now counter saying why it should be legal.There has only been one or two possible valid reason sbrought forth, and neither are very clear.

Huh?

Nothing should be illegal without valid justification. Freedoms should only be restricted when they need to be.

Absolutely. And while it might seem absurd to be defending such a little-needed right as the use of a dead human body, the same principle applies across the whole spectrum of law: "who is harmed, and can that be proved to a legal standard?"

That the person harms themselves in an act we would make criminal, is a rather special case that I don't have my head around yet. There are consequences for others, in self-harm /vs./ the self-interest of the individual is intrinsically their business. (This heads massively off-topic)

You underestimate just how different people can be.

There are people who consent to - and even enjoy - being defectated upon. The very idea disgusts me to the point of nausea, but I don't advocate making it illegal.

Yes. "Who is harmed?"

It should be clear that we both disagree with Trollgaard. But there is room enough in the liberal position (liberty by default) that we could politely disagree about the level of consent required ... and perhaps ponder the special case of consent (or intent) which straddles the divide between life and death.

Yeah, probably ONE too many bongs there.

If by "assume" you mean an opt-out system, where people have given consent by default, no way.

I wasn't talking about a system at all. And I don't think anyone is arguing for a system in which no level of consent whatsoever is given. It seems that pretty much everyone agrees that consent should either have been given before the death (ie. in a will) or, at the very least, given by those who control his estate.

The question I was answering was something along the lines of "Who the hell would agree to that?!" The person I was responding to was clearly assuming that, because he is disgusted by the idea of having his body used as a sex toy after he's dead, no one would.

I simply pointed out that it's silly to make assumptions like that. Most people are disgusted by the idea of being defecated on, but an assumption that nobody would want it would be wrong. I'm fairly certain that assuming nobody would ever agree to have their body used by a necrophiliac after death would be wrong as well.

Wait, so along with your dying, your name and reputation are going to be totally removed from the minds of the people who know you? Your family's name won't be brought out and looked at from this context because of someone violating your dead body? I know that your body will be dead, but it's not like you're passing through life having no affect on anybody, somebody will notice and be affected by this act.

And I will be dead, and thusly past caring...

aside from the obvious depraved and disgusting aspects, this was the first thing I thought of as well.

As has been said numerous times already, neither can a dildo or blow-up doll, should sex with them be illegal also?

As far as I recall, necrophilia is often a means to an end, bypassing consent by abusing the body of a person not able to object anymore.
In that instance it should be illegal, as circumvents the question of consent and objectifies the body of the deceased.
And then there is the potential damage to the relatives and loved ones of the deceased. Just because the deceased may not object anymore (and given the fact, that we can neither prove nor totally object to a possible afterlife), the state of his body still concerns the people he left behind and may also be part of his testament or will.

Honestly, I would feel honored knowing that someone would want to copulate with my dead body. Sort of like if some medical students cut me open and learn about my organs. As long as somebody finds a use for my corpse. I just don't want to be a waste of space like all those idiots that get buried.

As far as I recall, necrophilia is often a means to an end, bypassing consent by abusing the body of a person not able to object anymore.
In that instance it should be illegal, as circumvents the question of consent and objectifies the body of the deceased.
And then there is the potential damage to the relatives and loved ones of the deceased. Just because the deceased may not object anymore (and given the fact, that we can neither prove nor totally object to a possible afterlife), the state of his body still concerns the people he left behind and may also be part of his testament or will.

dude, the body of a deceased is an object. The person is no more, gone, kaput yavole? Now, I can see how having sex with a dead body without the body's owners (the immediate family) consent can constitute as vandalism, but if the dead person consents in their will that they can be used as a sex toy after death, then its okay.

dude, the body of a deceased is an object. The person is no more, gone, kaput yavole? Now, I can see how having sex with a dead body without the body's owners (the immediate family) consent can constitute as vandalism, but if the dead person consents in their will that they can be used as a sex toy after death, then its okay.

I have to object to that, at least partly. With that notion you are tromping over the beliefs of a lot of people, among them (Orthodox) Jews and other people who require the body to be in a more or less suitable state for the afterlife. So it gets a bit complicated if the body is an object or still the person.
The part of the family being the owners of the body, I guess that depends on the laws of the state you are in. But I guess they really inherit it. But there are special laws about defiling the bodies of deceased in some countries.
If the deceased consents in their will there is not much to discuss about.

I wasn't talking about a system at all. And I don't think anyone is arguing for a system in which no level of consent whatsoever is given. It seems that pretty much everyone agrees that consent should either have been given before the death (ie. in a will) or, at the very least, given by those who control his estate.

Or, more likely, HER estate.

Yeah, yeah, I know.

*flagellates self with soppy, warm, wet fuzzy thing.*

The question I was answering was something along the lines of "Who the hell would agree to that?!" The person I was responding to was clearly assuming that, because he is disgusted by the idea of having his body used as a sex toy after he's dead, no one would.

Yeah, we both disagree with Trollgaard. Far more than we disagree with each other.

I simply pointed out that it's silly to make assumptions like that. Most people are disgusted by the idea of being defecated on, but an assumption that nobody would want it would be wrong. I'm fairly certain that assuming nobody would ever agree to have their body used by a necrophiliac after death would be wrong as well.

Quite so. I've said already that I'd consider it for my own body.

I'd have to weigh it up against the feeling of my parents (and any other significant people in my life, of whom there are very few at present.) It's not out of the question that I could be in a sexual relationship with someone, who was interested in fucking my corpse, and "gift" them my corpse even against the sensibilities of my parents.

Both my parents are quite broadminded, and I think I could probably persuade them to "gifting" my corpse to a friend or lover, rather than just turning it into CO2 with "respect." BUT, I'd have to believe that myself. At present, I'm thinking that only love or money would make me do that.

And I repeat Soheran's so-subtle point: weigh this use of a corpse against it's other potential uses, eg, surgery practice for med students, or extraction of organs for transplant.

It's a weird kind of "respect" for a corpse, to destroy it, eg by burial or cremation. If it has uses to the living, let it serve the living!

A second lease of life. OK, a one-night motel stay of life : D

means to an end

Google that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

To be fair, I believe the prevailing theory on a lot of STDs is that they were originally brought into the human species by non-standard sexual practices like bestiality. It isn't outrageous to think that the same thing could happen with necrophilia. Of course, there are also precautions that could be taken to avoid that.
Well, can a corpse carry a virus? My understanding of virology may be off (what an incredible surprise that would :rolleyes:) but I thought a virus needs living tissue to survive for any extended period of time. On the other hand, if it results in a bacterial infection, it would most likely be treatable, wouldn't it? And...the upside is that this may create a zombie apocalypse, so reading Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z will finally pay off!

People are entitled to faith while they are living, that their bodies will be treated with respect after they are dead.

That should be the default state. Balancing the "right" of a necrophile to enjoy a corpse, against the "right" of a living person to expect respect for their own corpse ... how could we come down on the side of such a tiny minority?
It's not even about picking sides, it's about maintaining consistency in the law. We already grant private property rights. It makes a good deal of sense to say that while a corpse is no longer a person, it is the remaining private property of the deceased and thus part of his estate. As such, why should anyone be able to make use of it without consent of the deceased owner (through will) or the current holders of the estate? This is just coming down on the side of the law and, thankfully, it results in a logical "compromise". The size of the necrophillic minority is irrelevant in this case.
As far as I recall, necrophilia is often a means to an end, bypassing consent by abusing the body of a person not able to object anymore.
In that instance it should be illegal, as circumvents the question of consent and objectifies the body of the deceased.
And then there is the potential damage to the relatives and loved ones of the deceased. Just because the deceased may not object anymore (and given the fact, that we can neither prove nor totally object to a possible afterlife), the state of his body still concerns the people he left behind and may also be part of his testament or will.

The state of his body is only of legal concern to those who are in control of his remaining estate. No one is arguing that necrophilliacs should be given a free pass at corpse-fucking any corpse they please, but it is being argued that it's inconsistent with both the law and the spirit of the law to expressly prohibit such distasteful behavior. And, yea, the objectification of a corpse is a weird criticism to levy. It's a corpse....do you wrap up personal identity in severed limbs?

Google that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

After reading freedictionary.com (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/means+to+an+end) I'm rather sure it means what I thought it meant.
What exactly did you think I meant?
The problem I can see with my argumentative structure is that I failed to clearly distinguish between necrophilia as a form of paraphilia (in this case being sexually attracted to (decomposing) corpses) and necrophilia as a means to an end (having sex with a corpse because it is available as a means of fulfilling sexual desires, not because it is a corpse and turns you on). Hope that makes my argument a bit more transparent.

dude, the body of a deceased is an object.

But not all objects are the same.

Examine the provenance of this object. Did it come from a factory? Did it grow on a tree? Was it a figment of someone's imagination?

This object was ... once ... a person. Without their body, that person is just a memory. Yet, the body was their base, their indispensable part.

Of course our bodies are precious to us. But we should recognize WHY, and thence see that the lifeless body is like autumn leaves, just waste to be recycled by some third party.

And I repeat Soheran's so-subtle point: weigh this use of a corpse against it's other potential uses, eg, surgery practice for med students, or extraction of organs for transplant.

It's a weird kind of "respect" for a corpse, to destroy it, eg by burial or cremation. If it has uses to the living, let it serve the living!

That's kind of how I look at it. I fully expect my corpse to be used to its fullest extent to help people. I want all transplantable organs used for transplants. After that, I figure science can take its pick of whatever's left.

If there's actually anything left to dispose of after that, cremation is probably the way to go. No sense taking up space in a graveyard.


Well, can a corpse carry a virus? My understanding of virology may be off (what an incredible surprise that would ) but I thought a virus needs living tissue to survive for any extended period of time.

Depends on the virus, really. Some are more robust than others. It is rare for a virus to survive very long without living tissue.

Of course, there is also a varying level to which a virus could infect more than one species. It would be possible for a virus to make the jump from an organism feeding on the body to the necrophiliac if it mutated in such a way as to be able to infect human beings.

On the other hand, if it results in a bacterial infection, it would most likely be treatable, wouldn't it?

Most likely, but some bacteria are easier to kill than others. And they also mutate at a much higher rate than larger organisms.

Although, even if treatable, there could be the possibility of introducing a new disease into the populace. That would be a health threat even if it were treatable.


Also, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of prion infection. I don't know of any prion related diseases that have been passed by sexual transmission, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it ever happening.

It's not even about picking sides, it's about maintaining consistency in the law.

I recognize that. In fact, I put it above in more ideal terms: any case must be decided by law, in a way consistent with the intent of law: to prevent harm.

We already grant private property rights. It makes a good deal of sense to say that while a corpse is no longer a person, it is the remaining private property of the deceased and thus part of his estate.

So I have argued from my first post.
But rather than sheet this case of disposal of estate to the Right to Property (a weaker right, for mine), I have mentioned from the start, a sovereign right to one's own body. The body is the fundamental property, without which one has no other claim. Not citizen, not human, not even a living being.

The Body is the fundamental Property. Clearly, that excess bong hasn't worn off yet; )

As such, why should anyone be able to make use of it without consent of the deceased owner (through will) or the current holders of the estate? This is just coming down on the side of the law and, thankfully, it results in a logical "compromise". The size of the necrophillic minority is irrelevant in this case.

It must be in some sense. If the size, or imaginable size of the community was ZERO, why would we ask any sentimental fool to give up their idea that their child, lover or parent is somehow still "inside that body which looks like my child, etc"

Who is harmed?


No one is arguing that necrophilliacs should be given a free pass at corpse-fucking any corpse they please,

And once more: we agree on that. We're a big warm fuzzy love-in on that one.

but it is being argued that it's inconsistent with both the law and the spirit of the law to expressly prohibit such distasteful behavior. And, yea, the objectification of a corpse is a weird criticism to levy. It's a corpse....do you wrap up personal identity in severed limbs?

Perhaps you do ... if your loved one was last seen clenched in the teeth of a shark, and the arm was the only bit you were left with.

Apropos of nothing. At the last funeral I attended, the young man's guitar was up on a stand beside the casket. That guitar had more of his life in it, than his poor lost body.

Being a funeral, they did not read out the will. You don't mention a person's property as you lay their body to rest. But if he had a will, I'm sure it would have disposed of his guitar with much more care than it disposed of his body.

To be fair, I believe the prevailing theory on a lot of STDs is that they were originally brought into the human species by non-standard sexual practices like bestiality. It isn't outrageous to think that the same thing could happen with necrophilia. Of course, there are also precautions that could be taken to avoid that.
Ok, I thought the 'necrophiliacs are going to murder people' was the most ridiculous argument, but I stand corrected. Necrophilia will bring about the zombie apocalypse is now the most fantastic anti-necrophilia argument I've ever heard. ;)

Viruses can go dormant for a while, so it is theoretically possible for a virus to be transmitted from a corpse to a living host. This is both highly unlikely, and fairly irrelevant, as that virus is something that was in the corpse while it was alive (no, god will not create a virus out of nothing to smite heathen necrophiliacs). Bacteria are possible, but sexual contact with a corpse is no more likely to bring about a new plague than eating a piece of meat (actually less so).

Unless you are banning all contact with dead flesh whatsoever, your disease argument is entirely spurious.

If by "assume" you mean an opt-out system, where people have given consent by default, no way. Nobody has stated that all corpses should be fair game for anyone to fuck at anytime they want. The question is why is it illegal if consent has been given.

If ten percent of the population were necrophiles, we might be getting into the range where those rights would contend with each other. I think it's a LOT less than that.
Ah, and here we have it. If you are a minority constitution less than 10% of the population, you have no rights. I happen to strongly disagree with that view (and I'm sure that is not what you were intending to say), as I think everyone has rights, even a single individual.

And then there is the potential damage to the relatives and loved ones of the deceased. Just because the deceased may not object anymore (and given the fact, that we can neither prove nor totally object to a possible afterlife), the state of his body still concerns the people he left behind and may also be part of his testament or will.
If the inheritor who now has legal ownership of the body consents, that is all that is needed. Saying the family might feel otherwise based on their belief in the afterlife, is basically the argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to have any sexual contact because their relatives believe homosexuality is a sin, and are upset by it. The moment you think a person's behavior should be legally restricted based upon the religious feelings of relatives, you really need to step back and take a more rational look at what you are saying.

Ok, I thought the 'necrophiliacs are going to murder people' was the most ridiculous argument, but I stand corrected. Necrophilia will bring about the zombie apocalypse is now the most fantastic anti-necrophilia argument I've ever heard.

Are you under the impression that I made such an argument? Or that I was arguing for necrophilia to be illegal in the first place?

Unless you are banning all contact with dead flesh whatsoever, your disease argument is entirely spurious.

Ah, you apparently are under the impression that I was making that argument, despite the fact that nothing I said implied it.

Meanwhile, most contact with dead flesh is heavily regulated. So there is likely an argument for legally regulating actions associated with necrophilia. We could, for instance, require the same sorts of precautions to be taken as we do with any other handling of a corpse.

Are you under the impression that I made such an argument? Or that I was arguing for necrophilia to be illegal in the first place?I've now added a winky smiley to that line in an attempt to alleviate confusion - I did not consider you to in any way be proposing that sex with a corpse would bring about the zombie apocalypse, that line was rather tongue in cheek. I just found the mental image amusing and was envisioning a new porn/zombie movie (speaking of which, I'm annoyed I didn't get to see zombie strippers).

It really says a lot about this forum that when someone mentions "the zombie apocalypse", they are not assumed to be taking the piss.

Ah, you apparently are under the impression that I was making that argument, despite the fact that nothing I said implied it.
stating that STDs arose from non-standard sex, and "it is not outrageous to think the same thing could happen with necrophilia", is stating that you consider necrophilia creating new STDs a reasonable position. That may not have been your intention, but it is a fair reading of what you wrote.

Meanwhile, most contact with dead flesh is heavily regulated. So there is likely an argument for legally regulating actions associated with necrophilia. We could, for instance, require the same sorts of precautions to be taken as we do with any other handling of a corpse.
Contact with dead flesh is usually regulated on a basis of sale - ensuring that the product a customer receives meets a standard of sanitation (as in reducing e coli outbreaks from meat packing) . I really can't wait to see the first job posting for government inspectors of sex corpses.

I've now added a winky smiley to that line in an attempt to alleviate confusion - I did not consider you to in any way be proposing that sex with a corpse would bring about the zombie apocalypse, that line was rather tongue in cheek. I just found the mental image amusing and was envisioning a new porn/zombie movie (speaking of which, I'm annoyed I didn't get to see zombie strippers).

Reminds me of a weird video I saw at a rental place. Zombie Nazi porn....I shit you not. I'd google it for a link but I'm at my relatives' house and the last thing I want to hear from my Jewish cousins is, "So...why were you looking up 'zombie nazi porn' on google?" It'd just be awkward.

Depends who owns the body. I'd declare that the body is owned by the next of kin, or the state of no next of kin can be found. If the person gave consent before they died, then it should be OK.

stating that STDs arose from non-standard sex, and "it is not outrageous to think the same thing could happen with necrophilia", is stating that you consider necrophilia creating new STDs a reasonable position. That may not have been your intention, but it is a fair reading of what you wrote.

I think it's possible, yes. I didn't say that it was likely or that it was a reason to ban the practice, however.

Contact with dead flesh is usually regulated on a basis of sale - ensuring that the product a customer receives meets a standard of sanitation (as in reducing e coli outbreaks from meat packing) . I really can't wait to see the first job posting for government inspectors of sex corpses.

I'm not even talking about dead flesh outside of human corpses. The transport and handling of human corpses is heavily regulated. I would assume that necrophiliacs would be held to similar regulations.