I'm curious as to what the arguments for or against this might be.
We know that when one dies, they cease to exist as a conscious entity and become a lump of matter, much like a leaf or that tissue you use to clean up after a wank. Mind you, culturally speaking a body of a formerly living creature is seen as different; somehow sacred or at least a step above simple matter such as dirt or water, but when we remove such influences it ceases to be a viable statement.
I want to hear people's opinion on this, as it occurred to me after reading through the thread on incest. Is there a line that needs to be drawn? If so, where do we draw that line? Do we draw it with consent? If so, one might argue that masturbation with any object is objectionably. A body is after all no more than an object when the individual is dead.
So yes, tell me what you think of the matter.
Post edited by: MooYak, at: 2008/03/03 23:08 "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves." - Carl Sagan
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Necrophilia
Date: 2008/03/04 01:34
By: Kanae
Status:
Frankly, the very premice is revolting. As a person who believes that society needs a number of cultural values to survive (as in, taboos that have nothing to do with ethics), I think this is one of those essencial taboos that we need to have to remain civilised. Besides, think of the hygine issues. If we all kept our rotting lovers in our bedrooms, then a number of diseases and illness will not be far around the corner. And the corpse deserves respect, even if you don't believe in an afterlife. It's just being polite: it would distress the friends and family and possibly the previous owner, if s/he knew.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Necrophilia
Date: 2008/03/04 03:34
By: BravoLima
Status:
Ugh, you're right Kanae. I miss the days we could lock up homos without having to explain ourselves. Taboos are for the weak-minded.
MooYak:
It depends on the circumstances, besides, you're being awkwardly vague.
Are you asking if it's okay to be attracted to dead people? (Simply being a necrophile) Or are you asking if necrophilia is justifiable etc.?
At a glance; I would go with the old concept that if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it, 'it doesn't make a sound'. And so, if one was to have sex with a dead body with never being found out, then I would see it as never being 'heard', no negative consequence (despite you perhaps getting something nasty LOL). However, if there were circumstances in which the act could be easily found out; well, within current societal framework this would cause some pretty hostile and hurt feelings from people who knew the person.
I agree with you that a dead body has no conscious, don't even make me laugh with mentions of a 'soul', and is therefore, an object. However, it is a particular object that holds major sentimental value with certain people.
To compare it using your 'masturbation with an object' notion, yeah, it would be similar in idea. However, I'd say it would be more like masturbating all over someone's family photos LOL You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Necrophilia
Date: 2008/03/04 04:05
By: Kanae
Status:
BravoLima wrote: Ugh, you're right Kanae. I miss the days we could lock up homos without having to explain ourselves. Taboos are for the weak-minded.
As I say, taboos with nothing to do with ethics. Things like putting your shoes on the dinner table and shagging corpses. Homophobia actually hurts people.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Necrophilia
Date: 2008/03/04 11:42
By: MooYak
Status:
I'll manage a better post than this once I get over this insomnia... been up for about 72 hours, so I don't even know if what I'm saying is making any sense right now, but I'll give it a shot.
It seems to be an incredibly rare condition, and from what I've looked up in the last 24 hours there doesn't seem to be more than a scattering of studies done on it, but I think it is highly likely that it can be considered as or is linked to a pathology, perhaps as a result of issues related to self esteem or a desire for control.
As for wanking on a photo... well I suppose I can understand that if someone desired to show a profound level of contempt, but doing a corpse just seems to transcends simple disgust and seems to enter into an entirely new realm of perversion. That reaction however is based upon emotion though if I am honest with myself, and I would rather have truth than delusion, so I'll try to find some studies when I wake up. "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves." - Carl Sagan
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Necrophilia
Date: 2008/03/05 03:00
By: BravoLima
Status:
And what of necrophiliacs?
Would they be necrosexuals after emancipation?
Would you be picketing outside their houses, shouting slogans of how God hates 'necros'?
After all, necrophilia is the desire to shag corpses, and homosexuality is the desire to shag people of the same gender, both have ethical terms.
MooYak: 'It seems to be an incredibly rare condition, and from what I've looked up in the last 24 hours there doesn't seem to be more than a scattering of studies done on it, but I think it is highly likely that it can be considered as or is linked to a pathology, perhaps as a result of issues related to self esteem or a desire for control.'
Yes, along with homophilia. 'A paraphilia categorised by a mental affliction where the individual is attracted to those members of the same gender, bought on in most cases by mental trauma, usually childhood abuse'. Well, at least before the 70s. Who is a straight person to know if anyone's really attracted to people of the same gender. Perhaps us homos are all just lacking in self esteem and have a desire for control?
Studies? On necrophilia? I'd be very reserved with what you read. Believe in science, but don't believe in scientists! For a reason why, refer to my ramblings of homosexuality being a paraphilia. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Necrophilia
Date: 2008/03/06 19:49
By: MooYak
Status:
And I would be very reserved before ignoring what little scientific opinions there are.
We can assume that necrophilia is a sexual orientation as much as we like, just as we can assume the same for bestiality or just about anything we may have an opinion on, but to ignore what evidence there is in order to hold on to our beliefs is ludicrous. This is not to say we should not maintain skepticism, we should always perceive the world through doubt, but when there is no evidence supporting necrophelia as an acceptable sexual orientation akin to heterosexuality and homosexuality (both of which are obviously supported by plenty of evidence) we cannot insist on holding on to such beliefs until evidence is presented.
According to one study, roughly 20% (that's rounding down) of the necrophiliacs studied committed homicide in order to obtain the corpses. 20%. That's rather disconcerting to hear about a "normal" sexual orientation. But be that as it may.
In essence I think your argument is flawed in that it desires to ignore current scientific evidence in order to believe (without evidence) that your opinion ought to be right. I'm not making a concrete statement that necrophilia is or is not a paraphilia, because I don't believe we can ever be certain about anything in life, but I acknowledge the fact that current views hold it to be a paraphilia. I do believe more studies should be done though, but I think that about everything.
So I will cast my lot with where the evidence lays, and should it shift sometime in the future, so will my opinion, which is of course the wonderful thing about science in that it is self-correcting, and shifts in position due to further evidence is respected and encouraged. "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves." - Carl Sagan
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Necrophilia
Date: 2008/03/07 05:15
By: BravoLima
Status:
And when did I say to ignore anything? Get of your intellectual 'high-ground' MooYak, it's missing a leg.
'but when there is no evidence supporting necrophelia as an acceptable sexual orientation akin to heterosexuality and homosexuality (both of which are obviously supported by plenty of evidence) we cannot insist on holding on to such beliefs until evidence is presented.'
And now it's the moral high-ground you stand on. ugh. Ok then, tell me. What causes homosexuality? Why is it a valid sexuality, when necrophilia is assumed a disease? Why? Show me the concrete evidence you allude to that supports this? Because there are fewer necros compared to homos? Ok then, that validates that homosexuality is not a legitimate sexual orientation due to the small amount of numbers compared to heterosexuals.
'According to one study, roughly 20% (that's rounding down) of the necrophiliacs studied committed homicide in order to obtain the corpses. 20%. That's rather disconcerting to hear about a "normal" sexual orientation. But be that as it may.'
Where did you get these statistics? Show me.
'In essence I think your argument is flawed in that it desires to ignore current scientific evidence in order to believe (without evidence) that your opinion ought to be right.'
Again, show me your evidence. Then tell me what my arguement is, because as of yet, I haven't really asserted anything myself. All I've said is that you should be doubtful toward what the scientific community would have you believe on such a contraversial topic.
As for what I believe, I will make up my mind when I hear about science that doesn't come from yet another brain-dead 'science-bot' of the industry.
'which is of course the wonderful thing about science in that it is self-correcting, and shifts in position due to further evidence is respected and encouraged.'
Oh puleaze, go wank one off *rollseyes*. On topics like these the scientific community says whatever it can get away with, which generally follows the gentle 'baas' of the herd. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Necrophilia
Date: 2008/03/07 17:56
By: MooYak
Status:
And when did I say to ignore anything? Get of your intellectual 'high-ground' MooYak, it's missing a leg.
Well your right of course. We should not put any trust in those who have studied any given subject. They must be deceiving us. How could I not have seen that?
'but when there is no evidence supporting necrophelia as an acceptable sexual orientation akin to heterosexuality and homosexuality (both of which are obviously supported by plenty of evidence) we cannot insist on holding on to such beliefs until evidence is presented.'
And now it's the moral high-ground you stand on. ugh. Ok then, tell me. What causes homosexuality? Why is it a valid sexuality, when necrophilia is assumed a disease? Why? Show me the concrete evidence you allude to that supports this? Because there are fewer necros compared to homos? Ok then, that validates that homosexuality is not a legitimate sexual orientation due to the small amount of numbers compared to heterosexuals.
What causes heterosexuality? Any sexuality? Who knows, that is after all what the studies are trying to figure out. What determines what a sexuality is? I would think a healthy attraction to a living creature of one's own species capable of giving consent is a valid sexuality. Can we share a relationship with a rock? Only if we are delusional. It seems to me that for a valid sexuality to hold that title, there must be an ability for both involved to feel... something for one another, be it lust, love, or another animal attraction. You can argue that all you like as it is my opinion, but I don't see how any authentic relationship can exist without that small requirement. And did I mention anything regarding numbers determining paraphilia here? Not that I am aware of. I would say that it should be determined more upon behavioral differences. 'According to one study, roughly 20% (that's rounding down) of the necrophiliacs studied committed homicide in order to obtain the corpses. 20%. That's rather disconcerting to hear about a "normal" sexual orientation. But be that as it may.'
Where did you get these statistics? Show me.
Sexual Attraction to Corpses: A Psychiatric Review of Necrophilia by Johnathan P. Rosman, MD; and Philip J. Resnick, MD
As for the study itself I cannot send a link as I found it in a library during a search for some other papers. Look it up, it's interesting.
'In essence I think your argument is flawed in that it desires to ignore current scientific evidence in order to believe (without evidence) that your opinion ought to be right.'
Again, show me your evidence. Then tell me what my arguement is, because as of yet, I haven't really asserted anything myself. All I've said is that you should be doubtful toward what the scientific community would have you believe on such a contraversial topic.
As for what I believe, I will make up my mind when I hear about science that doesn't come from yet another brain-dead 'science-bot' of the industry.
Your right, you have no argument except an attempt to pick at another's. Your objections however carry the idea that you would consider necrophilia to be an alternative sexual orientation. You do not state it, but you imply it. If you do not mean to do so, than for the sake of us ignorant and foolish sheep, please state so.
So what kind of science would you prefer here? Perhaps you ought to explain what kind of science you want to see? Something that doesn't come from a brain-dead 'science-bot' of the industry? How poetic, but perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you mean by this.
'which is of course the wonderful thing about science in that it is self-correcting, and shifts in position due to further evidence is respected and encouraged.'
Oh puleaze, go wank one off *rollseyes*. On topics like these the scientific community says whatever it can get away with, which generally follows the gentle 'baas' of the herd.
Indeed. The golden age of Greece and the scientific ideas that came out of it where only following cultural movement. The enlightenment thinkers where only following the crowd. The scientists that fought against atomic power where only following anti-nuclear sentiments eh? Oh, and those psychologists like Frued, Kinsey, and Hooker where only following the natural course of public sentiment towards homosexuals when they did their research and proposed their theories.
But be all that as it may, do you have an argument to add at all? Just curious, since that is after all why I started this. I'm interested in hearing your actual opinion if you have one. "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves." - Carl Sagan
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Necrophilia
Date: 2008/03/08 04:42
By: BravoLima
Status:
'What causes heterosexuality? Any sexuality? Who knows, that is after all what the studies are trying to figure out.'
And yet you draw the line behind your heels by simply stating that what you are is totally justifiable, but another possible sexual orientation is a simple curse. Christ, this is the '70s all over again.
'Can we share a relationship with a rock? Only if we are delusional. It seems to me that for a valid sexuality to hold that title, there must be an ability for both involved to feel...'
Can we share a relationship with someone of the same gender? Only if we are delusional. It seems to me that for a valid sexuality to hold that title, there must be an ability for both involved to procreate.
This has, at least to some degree, been the mainstream view for so long. Who are you or anyone else to deem what a relationship must consist of, have you learnt nothing from the acceptance of homosexuality?
I checked out the study, and I could not find out where they got there stats from. It states that there were merely 122 cases studied (88 from world literature [where the hell does this come from??] and 34 unpublished cases). What I want to know, is how these people came into contact with the necrophiles. Sadly, a commonly flawed method is to find them through 'the law'. Whether through prisons directly or using necros that the police know about. This is flawed because the results are equivalent to myself making a survey of mental health of the average homosexual by sending a survey through the local prison of all the homosexual inmates. Doesn't work.
'Your right, you have no argument except an attempt to pick at another's. Your objections however carry the idea that you would consider necrophilia to be an alternative sexual orientation. You do not state it, but you imply it. If you do not mean to do so, than for the sake of us ignorant and foolish sheep, please state so.'
I'm sorry, am I not allowed to poke at your arguement? Is that not allowed? Annoying when people don't agree? Yes, my objections do carry that assumption. I'm neutral to this whole subject, mainly due to the way I've seen alternative sexualities evolve over the years in history from 'totally disgusting, you must be a fucking sicko' to 'oh, well, the courts say it's ok, so, yeah, you'd be a stone-aged primate not to accept it.' This is why I tend to operate an 'innocent 'till proven guilty' attitude toward alternative sexualities. Homosexuality once was one, don't forget that.
'So what kind of science would you prefer here? Perhaps you ought to explain what kind of science you want to see? Something that doesn't come from a brain-dead 'science-bot' of the industry? How poetic, but perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you mean by this.'
Enlighten you? Ugh, that's so Buddhist
Firstly, I would like to see some science that at least attempts to question the mainstream view, and I'd like to see it's reasons for doing so. I would like to see surveys that are not flawed in their samples. Heck, I'd like to see more than 122 cases in a study. Unfortunately, due to the taboo area of this, it would be very difficult. Not impossible, just difficult, but that's what I'd like to see. You feel enlightened?
'Indeed. The golden age of Greece and the scientific ideas that came out of it where only following cultural movement. The enlightenment thinkers where only following the crowd. The scientists that fought against atomic power where only following anti-nuclear sentiments eh? Oh, and those psychologists like Frued, Kinsey, and Hooker where only following the natural course of public sentiment towards homosexuals when they did their research and proposed their theories.'
By Christ, learn to read. I said subjects like these. Contraversial subjects. The 'Golden age' of Greece had scientific discoveries that were beyond denial. No one can deny gravity, it's a proven fact. Homosexuality, necrophilia, zoophilia, these are not proven beyond denial. Heck, they're not really even proven. The scientists that fought against atomic power? Yeah, I hardly think they're an extremist minority. There are many a people that would support such sentiments. Again, your reading needs clarification; we're talking about taboo subjects of science; pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. Freud and co. are the minority. In their time, they were strongly opposed, as public opinion swayed, other scientific studies miraculously began to agree with them. Some studies of Freud concerned the natural sexuality in children; that still gets opposed and twisted, the only thing that would change it is public opinion.
Yes, I have my own opinion, I even gave it in the first response. Go back to school. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
