djrafikie

I'm quite tempted to put "and to be serviced sexually after my demise" in my will, I'll never know if anyone complies with my wishes, but I bet it would make every kooky webpage on the internet...

Matty

i'm with y'all on the ewww factor however i dont see an inherent moral dilemma. Not like you are harming someone. I'd think that depending on how ripe they are might be a big factor in the presence of dodgy pathogens etc but basically, eeewwww.
You may have to use other criteria other than warmth too, presumably there would be some refractory warmth a few days or weeks after death once the bugs and maggots really start to dissolve the organs, just like in a compost heap. And i guess it depends on the type of contact you refer to either I cant imagine at that point, for example, that snogging or oral is a particularly good idea.


Welcome back btw djrafikie, helluva thread to make a return from the dead with. heheh.

Not always, in fact i dont think rights for the dead is a particularly useful idea in any way really. One example in which i'm all for teh wishes of the dead person being ignored or overruled is in the case of organ donation. People should not be allowed to die because someone else finds the idea of being cut up after death, icky. At the end of the day that is the only reason for the no donation stance , there are no social or moral reasons to prefer to let your organs putrefy inside you rather than save lives only hypothetical religious and icky based ones. Following this theme on the other threads i agree with Lorens perspective (and that dont happen too often let me tell ya) that in such cases if people decide they want to actively forbid their organs being used after their death, they carry a card that says so specifically and have then abrogated their right to a transplant should they ever need one.

Sorry for teh derail, back to the corpse fucking.

Nialler

I can conceive(!) of several reasons why it would be considered "sinful" and, I guess, immoral (in the eyes of the Catholic church at least):

The act is not expressly for the purposes of procreation.
Consent could not possibly have been obtained.
Even if permission had been obtained in advance, the act takes place outside the sanctity of marriage (a technicality, since one cannot possibly be married to a cadaver - however much it may sometimes feel that way!).
There is a remote chance of fertilisation, and the zygote will have no chance to develop.
There's probably a bundle of cleanliness things involved too.

Also, under past RC practice (still current in some countries) it is forbidden to partake of meat on a Friday.

Writer@Large

"I like it when they lie still like that."



Sorry, nothing mature to offer, just this bad movie reference.

Which I guess is in itself something to contribute: my first response to necrophilia is that it's funny. Corpse-fucking is no more offensive to me than pie fucking. Though I suppose if the corpse were of someone I love, I might take offense.

--W@L

fast

What about the mental anguish of the distraught father who has just learned that some icky freakzoid has sexually ravaged the decaying remains of his beloved and cherished daughter?

Is that wrong, or should he just get over it as he spends his one week in jail for murder?

PS: ignore the tone; I just talk like that.

djrafikie

So, it's okay as long as her dad never finds out?

Boning the dead seems to be a lot like dating...

Thlayli

Why are so many threads reminding me of T-Shirt Hell shirts today?

fast

I would think that the act was immoral regardless of whether or not the father found out. Do you think he became enraged because it was icky? Do you think perhaps he was just too emotionally involved to recognize this so-called lack of harm everyone speaks of? Do you follow suit in the footsteps of those that believe morality is subjective by chance?

Does anyone here think that something can be wrong absent harm, or does everyone here reduce immorality down to the presence of harm?

If something must be harmful to be wrong, then there's a whole hell of a lot sick and twisted stuff (oops, I meant ickiness) that people can now readily enjoy with the mental delusion of thinking it's perfectly fine. Fuck away at the dead bodies at your leisure--or until you've been stopped.

Um, not you per se -- just talkin' out loud ya know.

Christina Mirabilis

I think that 'wrong' and 'immoral' are somewhat soft and subjective concepts whose definition varies from person to person. I can't think of anything that I would consider immoral that didn't have an aspect of harm to it.

That said, I think that there are vast numbers of behaviors that I don't see as immoral but I do see as being indicative that someone needs professional mental health assistance, including this one.

apatura_iris

Though not a necrophile, I am fascinated by necrophiles.

Necrophiles present an interesting conundrum. While to all appearances, necrophilia would seem to be the ultimate objectification of the human body as a sex object (i.e. in the vein of "I was just a body to him/ he just used me for sex"), if you actually read the narrations of necrophiles, they feel a very explicit and tender bond with the "person" they are having sex with.

In a very roundabout and unscientific way, this could be viewed as an argument for a soul that survives the body. The necrophiliac very clearly senses a sentient being attached to the lifeless body, and were such a being to exist beyond death, it would indicate some kind of existence beyond mortality.

Of course it could be argued that this is all pure delusion on the part of the necrophile, but nevertheless I am fascinated by the fact that this intense delusion exists, and that it dons a sexual cloak.

As far as the morality of the practice, the crux absolutely is concern for the surviving loved one. If you believe in a soul, then there are consent issues.

For your reading pleasure:

The Unrepentant Necrophile