Necrophilia

[infoterror]

Why does a social taboo exists against this? The dead are inanimate, and do not feel. We do not hesitate to burn them, to gut them and embalm them, or to use them as cadavers. What is different about deriving sexual pleasure from them?

It is high time we admit this taboo exists from the pretense of the living, not a care for the dead. If we recognize our taboo against necrophilia has no basis in reality, we should remove it.

 

[OldScratch]

Why does a social taboo exists against this? The dead are inanimate, and do not feel. We do not hesitate to burn them, to gut them and embalm them, or to use them as cadavers. What is different about deriving sexual pleasure from them?

It is high time we admit this taboo exists from the pretense of the living, not a care for the dead. If we recognize our taboo against necrophilia has no basis in reality, we should remove it.

"I feel the urge the growing need to fuck the sinful corpse - My task's complete the bitch's soul lies raped in demonic lust"
Necrophiliac - Slayer/Hell Awaits


I'll have to think on this a good deal more to even attempt a serious response...if one is possible for me.

 

[JColtrane]

As far as necrophilia being a 'good' thing, I think you have to ask: should sex be merely about pleasure, or should it concern something deeper, such as a connection it would be impossible to make with a dead person.

As far as it being against the law, our society places a large emphasis on consent when it comes to sexual acts; if we are to still hold this as valuable, it would seem that necrophilia would necessarily be illegal.

Also, it has been associated with other deviant behavior, like being a serial killer (Dahmer, Bundy)

 

[Silver Incubus]

diseases from doing it to a corpse should be reason enough.

 

[JoeVice]

a friend of mine joked about stuff like this. he also fantasized about killing women and screwing their dead bodies. although, he said he didn't really enjoy killing them, but it had to be done in order to screw their dead bodies.

he's gay now.

we burn, gut, and embalm them because these are things we do to prepare a dead body. there is no harm in fucking a corpse. its a shame that society's standard's can stymie a necro's growth and development.

 

[derbeder]

the number of useless threads is increasing rapidly. please put more effort into thinking about something rather than trying to sound sensational but coming off as childish

 

[Norsemaiden]

One factor is social order - the relatives would presumably want revenge.

You have to question the motives: is it deliberately to be sick and abusive, in which case the perpetrator is insane - or do they like their partner to just lie there and be unresponsive, in which case they would find a lot of women are like that anyway who might be grateful not have to fake enthusiasm.
And there is certainly the disease factor as silver incubus mentioned.

Immoral? I would say so, because it causes more harm than benefit whichever way you consider it.

 

[MetalBooger]

Plus their spirit may or maynot be mad at you for fucking their dead body. And who knows what that can lead to.

 

[CatwomanEarache]

Id love to know how you even thought of this thread but as you have ..my answer would be respect for the dead? Anyone knows this would be wrong morally, also as the person (dead) would have no say in the matter or consent, to me it would similar to rape, and rape to me is an act of violence more than a sexual act.

 

[infoterror]

As far as necrophilia being a 'good' thing, I think you have to ask: should sex be merely about pleasure, or should it concern something deeper, such as a connection it would be impossible to make with a dead person.

That is not the argument.

The argument is, does it make sense to ban it, given our other treatments of the dead?

This argument goes two ways:
1. Necrophilia should not be banned
2. Our other treatments of the dead should be modified

See what you think.

 

[Seditious]

If someone put in their will 'let this person fuck my corpse' then it should be no different to 'let this person harvest my bones and organs', so long as there are health standards in place it's essentially a private matter.

 

[JColtrane]

That is not the argument.

The argument is, does it make sense to ban it, given our other treatments of the dead?

This argument goes two ways:
1. Necrophilia should not be banned
2. Our other treatments of the dead should be modified

See what you think.

I think you're missing something here. Let me give two justifications:
(1)As far as the government is concerned: If something is not considered to be in any way "good," what's the use of arguing for it to be lawful? A simple increase in freedom for something that one would never actually do seems like a rather pointless endeavour.
(2)You argue against necrohphilia being "taboo". Well, it seems as if a majority of people here consider it destructive for one reason or another; one of my reasons is that I consider sex to be about something more than physical pleasure. The reasons given for it being a destructive thing are themselves the argument for it being taboo, so how in all honesty do you say that I am not making an argument?

 

[speed]

Why does a social taboo exists against this? The dead are inanimate, and do not feel. We do not hesitate to burn them, to gut them and embalm them, or to use them as cadavers. What is different about deriving sexual pleasure from them?

It is high time we admit this taboo exists from the pretense of the living, not a care for the dead. If we recognize our taboo against necrophilia has no basis in reality, we should remove it.

I am wondering infoterror, do you practice what you preach? Really, I am wondering how this works. I can see with men, the rigor mortis and all; but how does one do it with the women?

Anyhoo, I say we bring back slavery, fascism, raise the dead, etc, to summon the anti-christ. Only then will society make sense--well, for me at least.

 

[Seditious]

I think you're missing something here. Let me give two justifications:
(1)As far as the government is concerned: If something is not considered to be in any way "good," what's the use of arguing for it to be lawful? A simple increase in freedom for something that one would never actually do seems like a rather pointless endeavour.

never? oneself perhaps, I bet you would never sodomise another man either, but just because it's not "good" to you doesn't mean it may as well be treated as bad rather than just a good which most people don't appreciate, as there obviously is -one- who would actually enjoy that freedom (not the threadstarter, I mean, obviously there have been necrophiliac serial killers, so yea, I'm sure there is more than one of them in a hundred million people). 'it's not important to most of us' is not a valid reason for something being a crime. Where's that J.S. Mill quote about silencing one man when ya need it eh, oh yea, right here, "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." If you're not hurting anyone with an act (such as I say, if someone is willing to donate their corpse for this or that) then it is no more harmful than an opinion you don't want to hear.

 

[infoterror]

So what is damaged by corpse sodomy? Corpse sodomy is more victimless than drug use or liberalism. Give it up. There is no rational reason for banning corpse violation, necrophilia, necrosodomy and morbid anal lust.