Necrophilia

[metropolis_part_one]

Is there any form of necrophilia you would find acceptable, and if so, what is it?

[The Don]

I didn't realise there were different types.

Would inadvertent necrophilia count ?

[DVFinn]

Yeah, Marriage is ok.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by metropolis_part_one
Is there any form of necrophilia you would find acceptable, and if so, what is it? I suppose I would consider imaginary necrophilia to be acceptable.
Edited to add: It'd be weird, but acceptable.

Any other type, how can necrophilia be conscentual?

[daenku32]

Any that doesn't involve me..

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Is this a cue for a Dr Hook song( Freakers' Ball)?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by metropolis_part_one
Is there any form of necrophilia you would find acceptable, and if so, what is it?

If it didn't start out as necrophilia, and you stop, as soon as you realize it is.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes

If it didn't start out as necrophilia, and you stop,as soon as you realize it is. I think there was a Law & Order episode along these lines.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Any other type, how can necrophilia be conscentual?

A person could consent prior to entering the state of necrosis.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jayrev


A person could consent prior to entering the state of necrosis. And a living person can consent prior to engaging in relations, but that person can withdraw conscent at anytime and stop the act. A dead person can not continue to grant conscent. Conscent is not a one time deal, it must be continual.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by jayrev


A person could consent prior to entering the state of necrosis.

What do you mean?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


What do you mean? He means someone can agree to let someone else have sex with their corpse after they die. My point, however, is that this is not sufficent to give consent.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


What do you mean?

Edited because my response was crude and I don't want my reputation sullied.

I just meant that a person could give consent before dying.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Upchurch
He means someone can agree to let someone else have sex with their corpse after they die. My point, however, is that this is not sufficent to give consent.

I asked because in Greece we had a case of a woman that included her" consent" in her Will... of course in case of illegal actions the notion of consent doesn't exist but I wondered if he had something similar in mind.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Upchurch
And a living person can consent prior to engaging in relations, but that person can withdraw conscent at anytime and stop the act. A dead person can not continue to grant conscent. Conscent is not a one time deal, it must be continual.

I disagree. I believe that a person could contractually waive their right to withdraw consent if they so choose. Of course such a contract would not hold up in court where the act of necrophilia is illegal.

As example, I can legally donate my body to science in writing. This consent can obviously not be withdrawn after my death. Why couldn't I instead donate my body for sexual gratification?

(Not that I would want to...ewww.)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by jayrev

Why couldn't I instead donate my body for sexual gratification?


For sanitary reasons. Those plastic dolls are much safer for people's health....

[joyrex]

There was this episode of Sex & the City where one of the girls had sex with an older man, and before the end of their session the man had a cardiac arrest or something. For a while she wasn't aware of the situation.. I wonder if this would count as a borderline case..

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jayrev


I disagree. I believe that a person could contractually waive their right to withdraw consent if they so choose. Of course such a contract would not hold up in court where the act of necrophilia is illegal.Wait a sec. You're saying that someone (living or dead) could be contractually oblegated to have sex with someone and if they choose not to go through with it, the other party could force them to have sex and it wouldn't be rape because of they contractually waived their right to withdraw consent?

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Upchurch
And a living person can consent prior to engaging in relations, but that person can withdraw conscent at anytime and stop the act. A dead person can not continue to grant conscent. Conscent is not a one time deal, it must be continual.

I think one could also argue that consent is implicitly continual until it is withdrawn (the consent, that is, not the...uh...nevermind.) Otherwise a person would be required to continually ask his sexual partner if they still consent to sex instead of assuming so unless consent is withdrawn. That would put a real damper on the mood.

Since a dead person could not withdraw consent, wouldn't continued consent be implied?

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Wait a sec. You're saying that someone (living or dead) could be contractually oblegated to have sex with someone and if they choose not to go through with it, the other party could force them to have sex and it wouldn't be rape because of they contractually waived their right to withdraw consent?

I dunno. I tend to get in trouble when I "play lawyer" in threads like these. Now that you mention it I think there are certain rights that cannot be contractually waived. This would probably apply.

But does a dead person have these rights? If a non-living thing must consent to having sex, then is the use of sex toys immoral because the sex toys are forced to have unconsentual sex?

edited for awkword wording.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jayrev

Since a dead person could not withdraw consent, wouldn't continued consent be implied? Okay, let's test this theory. A drunk co-ed agrees to have sex with you but passes out before the act can begin. Like the dead person, she cannot withdraw her conscent, so is it implied that conscent is still given? I'm not a lawer, but this situation has probably made it to court and we can look up the results.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay, let's test this theory. A drunk co-ed agrees to have sex with you but passes out before the act can begin. Like the dead person, she cannot withdraw her conscent, so is it implied that conscent is still given? I'm not a lawer, but this situation has probably made it to court and we can look up the results.

That isn't quite the same. I would say in the case you offered, consent was probably not given. But, suppose she says, "I'm probably going to pass out, but you can still have sex with me if you want while I'm asleep." That is closer to the hypothetical case I was presenting. Is this a different situation from your example? Would you say consent was given here?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jayrev

But does a dead person have these rights? If a non-living thing must consent to having sex, then is the use of sex toys immoral because the sex toys are forced to have unconsentual sex?I don't think it's an issue of whether the non-living thing must give conscent, but wether the owner of the non-living thing can give conscent. In the case of necrophilia, the owner of the body would be the dead person themself. As they can no longer give or deny conscent, conscent cannot be given.

A possible counter argument would be that it is the family, not the dead person, owns the corpse and they could give conscent, but that's an ambiguous definition of ownership. Cases like this are probably narrowly construed in legal terms and probably wouldn't fly, but I don't know that for certain.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jayrev


That isn't quite the same. I would say in the case you offered, consent was probably not given. But, suppose she says, "I'm probably going to pass out, but you can still have sex with me if you want while I'm asleep." That is closer to the hypothetical case I was presenting. Is this a different situation from your example? Would you say consent was given here? Again, I would still say that conscent was not given because we don't know her oppinion at the time of the act. She can swear up and down before hand that she wants to have sex with you no matter what, but when it comes to the actual moment, one "no" from her is all it takes to completely withdraw conscent.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't think it's an issue of whether the non-living thing must give conscent, but wether the owner of the non-living thing can give conscent. In the case of necrophilia, the owner of the body would be the dead person themself. As they can no longer give or deny conscent, conscent cannot be given.

A possible counter argument would be that it is the family, not the dead person, owns the corpse and they could give conscent, but that's an ambiguous definition of ownership. Cases like this are probably narrowly construed in legal terms and probably wouldn't fly, but I don't know that for certain.

I'm not sure if a dead person has any rights of ownership, but based on your logic, the dead person's will would not be enforceable because they no longer have the ability to change their mind about how their assets should be destributed. Isn't that the same as saying their consent is no longer valid because they cannot withdraw it? Maybe not from a legal standpoint, but from a logical standpoint I think it stands to reason.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jayrev



But does a dead person have these rights?

We need a lawyer..

I don't think a dead person has rights..

I would think their estate and it's executors do; there are laws about mutilating corpses and desecrating graves, but that doesn't seem to be the same as ' the rights of a dead person'..

Hey, they're dead..

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jayrev

Isn't that the same as saying their consent is no longer valid because they cannot withdraw it? Maybe not from a legal standpoint, but from a logical standpoint I think it stands to reason. That's true, actually. I quess have been arguing from a legal standpoint.

But this really isn't a logical question either. It's an ethical/moral one, and from that point of view, don't we put more value on human body and sex than we do possession of material things and therefore hold both to higher standards of proof? (As much as you can use "proof" in a moral argument?)

Ultimately, it is a value judgement going back to "there is no absolute morality." So, in conclusion, I dunno.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Again, I would still say that conscent was not given because we don't know her oppinion at the time of the act. She can swear up and down before hand that she wants to have sex with you no matter what, but when it comes to the actual moment, one "no" from her is all it takes to completely withdraw conscent.

I completely agree that one "no" is all that it takes to withdraw consent. But until she says no, it's a yes. She has already given consent with the knowledge that she would be unable to withdraw consent during the act. I think maybe you are being biased by political correctness. I am not saying that this would be a good idea, I'm just saying that it's logical.

Here's another example. Suppose you ask if you can borrow my car tonight. I say yes, but I'll be asleep when you come to get it. I tell you where the keys are and to come over when you need it and help yourself. When you need the car tonight, do you have my consent to take it? Or has consent not been given because I'm unable to withdraw consent?

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That's true, actually. I quess have been arguing from a legal standpoint.

But this really isn't a logical question either. It's an ethical/moral one, and from that point of view, don't we put more value on human body and sex than we do possession of material things and therefore hold both to higher standards of proof? (As much as you can use "proof" in a moral argument?)

Ultimately, it is a value judgement going back to "there is no absolute morality." So, in conclusion, I dunno.

Agreed. I think I was trying to avoid the legal issues because I considered them to be moot since necrophilia is illegal anyway.

PS - I really enjoy the way you can have a discussion like this without the name calling and personal attacks that happen so often on this board, not just with me but with others as well. More people here should learn from you to disagree without disrespecting the other person.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jayrev


I completely agree that one "no" is all that it takes to withdraw consent. But until she says no, it's a yes. She has already given consent with the knowledge that she would be unable to withdraw consent during the act. I think maybe you are being biased by political correctness. I am not saying that this would be a good idea, I'm just saying that it's logical. Actually, I'm basing this on experience (not personal experience, but human experience). Because there is the chance that she would say no, it is actually more logical, given the consequences of being wrong, to err on the side of caution.
{snip} When you need the car tonight, do you have my consent to take it? Or has consent not been given because I'm unable to withdraw consent? I'll grant you that the situations are similar from a purely analytical point of view, but rape is a deeply emotional and moral issue. It's on this basis that it is treated differently from theft or assault. Again, back to the moral inabsoluteness (is that a real word?) of the universe, eh?

[DVFinn]

And a living person can consent prior to engaging in relations, but that person can withdraw conscent at anytime and stop the act. A dead person can not continue to grant conscent. Conscent is not a one time deal, it must be continual.

I don't think your argument is valid. Take for instance a living will for someone who does not wish to be kept on life support. They are still alive yet cannot withdraw their consent. The consent is still legal. The drunk girl analogy, in a legal sense, is also flawed as i believe that being drunk precludes legal consent. It probably varies state to state, but I am fairly certain that having sex with someone who is drunk, assuming that you are sober, is in many cases considered statutory rape regardless of their consent because they are operating under a diminished capacity. (Disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer and may be speaking out of my ass)

As to necrophilia, there are different questions here. The original one on this thread is "Is there any form of necrophilia you would find acceptable... ." My answer is no, because it's disgusting. We are talking about ___ing the dead here people, and thats pretty damned foul.

Now if the question were instead, "should necrophilia be legal under any circumstances", as a libertarian I answer yes. If there is some type of documented consent, and there is no health risk to anyone other than the consenting party or parties, then there is no need for it to be illegal. I still find it unacceptable and would not associate with a person known for corpse humping.

[MoeFaux]

Consent prior to death seems adequate to me. If there's mutual consent, hey, go for it. Not my thing, but hey, whatever works for you without harming others.

I will interject, though, that under the rules of standard BDSM and being Safe, Sane, and Consensual, necrophelia is always off limits. Of course, being pretty open minded, I will again say that if there is consent (and add, no minors!), then there isn't a big issue in my eyes. (besides the creepy fact that yes, the person is dead)


(and DV, look out there on the language)

[ceo_esq]

A few random observations:

Necrophilia is generally a separate criminal offense in its own right. It is not an activity that would be legal but for a lack of consent.

It is clearly possible, legally speaking, to consent irrevocably to something in a binding manner, and this happens all the time. Sexual intercourse is perhaps one of the few otherwise legal activities where this is impossible.

It is also impossible to give valid consent (irrevocable or otherwise) to an illegal act, of course.

I've never considered the question of irrevocable consent as a defense to, say, rape. Such a defense would never fly, of course, but the possibility occurs to me that part of the traditional common-law definition of rape may actually have evolved to ensure that it couldn't: the twin criteria that the sex be "against [the woman's] will and without her consent". This very old legal phrase always struck me as a little redundant, but upon reflection it expresses a subtle distinction; you could have a situation where consent purporting to be irrevocable had been given, but the sex was nonetheless against the woman's will at the time of the rape.

However, in connection with the foregoing, I'm reminded that at traditional common law, the subject of a rape had to be "a woman not [the defendant's] wife". Clearly, it used to be the case that marriage effectively entailed the woman's irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with her husband during the marriage - but that was the extent of the exception.

To return to the pleasant subject of necrophilia, I don't see any reason to evaluate the issue in terms of consent. Dead people can't consent to anything, naturally, although living people have some (limited) power to direct certain things after their death, such as the disposition of their mortal remains. However, I would submit that the lack of consent isn't what makes necrophilia unacceptable. A dead person is not a person, legally speaking. We have certain legal and other obligations with regard to dead people, but that doesn't equate to a dead person having rights. Even the enforcement of a will arises not from the dead person's present rights, but the previous rights of the living person he used to be.

In the absence of a necrophilia statute (or other law specifically regarding the treatment of human remains), necrophilia would not run afoul of any sexual criminal laws involving consent. No consent would be needed because, from a legal point of view, there is only one party to a necrophiliac act. It would equate to a form of masturbation.

[DVFinn]

Oops. Reread the rules. I was under the mistaken impression that a language filter would take care of my admittedly often foul mouth. I had no intent to offend and edited my post to remove the term in question.

My apologies to all. I'm calling "New Guy" as my excuse.

[Cleopatra]

ceo_esq is there a Law in the States that enforces the respect towards the dead? In Greece "offending the dead" ( necrophilia is included and clearly described as an act that offends the dead) is a criminal offense.
edited to add: maybe I should use the term "disgracing the dead" instead of offending the dead although the literal translation is offense and not disgrace.

[Marc]

"Safe, Sane, and Consensual"

well consensual is possible. Safe, might need some extra protection against disease depending on freshness. Sane? well that is debateable. Still, if some nice woman wants to use my body I am not likely to object... ok I wouldn't be able to object in any case, but its a nice thought that I'd be making up for a skimpy sex life in life.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
ceo_esq is there a Law in the States that enforces the respect towards the dead? In Greece "offending the dead" ( necrophilia is included and clearly described as an act that offends the dead) is a criminal offense.
edited to add: maybe I should use the term "disgracing the dead" instead of offending the dead although the literal translation is offense and not disgrace. These matters are generally dealt with under state, rather than federal, laws. Some states have specifically outlawed necrophilia. For example, in Georgia: A person commits the offense of necrophilia when he performs any sexual act with a dead human body involving the sex organs of the one and the mouth, anus, penis, or vagina of the other.In other states, necrophilia might be prosecuted under more general laws prohibiting the defiling of human remains. For example, in Texas: A person commits an offense if, not authorized by law, he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) disinters, disturbs, removes, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in a seriously offensive manner a human corpse;
(2) conceals a human corpse knowing it to be illegally disinterred;
(3) sells or buys a human corpse or in any way traffics in a human corpse; or
(4) transmits or conveys, or procures to be transmitted or conveyed, a human corpse to a place outside the state.

[scribble]

I'm curious why the word 'consent' comes up so often. Once I'm dead, what care do I have what's done with my remains?

Sure, I may have a vision of having my ashes scattered in the ocean or my corpse lying buried in a cemetary, but if it's not, it alters my experience not at all.

I could see it being an issue if anyone felt they had a claim to my remains, for example, a surviving family member. Outside of that... who cares?

We are talking about corpses here, not people. A corpse can't consent to anything. More importantly to this discussion, it can't OBJECT to anything, either.

It's like having a discussion over the moral implications of having sex with an inflatable doll. If the doll belongs to my friend, he might object, much like someone who is living and feels ownership of the corpse might. But the doll doesn't, can't in fact, have anything to say about it. The very concept of consent here is silly, unless it's the consent of the living of which you are speaking, but I've seen no indication that's the case.

[Cleopatra]

ceo_esq

Since we were talking about rape and consent have a look here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24496&highlight=rape).

There is another issue. You said that "dead people cannot consent in anything". This is true but what about mentally ill people? We know very well that there are cases of people that they cannot give their consent in anything. Why dead people don't have the same rights with them?
Why a sexual intercourse with a mentally ill person isn't considered a form of masturbation?

All I am trying to do is to define from which point a human loses his "rights".

[Garrette]

Well, I'd object pretty strenuosly if a dead person got up and tried to have sex with me... Unless maybe if it's a P-Zombie.

---

I am not of the opinion that the dead have rights, but that their estates do.

Separate from any arguments stemming from law, ickiness, or hygiene, I find nothing wrong with pre-consent.

---

Regarding the non-necrophiliac pre-consent sex: Honest question here. Suppose the girl (or guy) is on the way to a party but is completely sober and in possession of all mental faculties. While still sober, this girl (or guy) tells the guy (or girl or girl or guy)

"I intend two things tonight. I intend to get smashing drunk, and I intend to have sex. After I get drunk, I may no longer be coherent; I may, in fact, object to any sexual advances. But I'm telling you now, that regardless of whether I

(a) Pass out and so can not say yes nor no

(b) Get blitzed to the point where I say neither yes or no but don't resist

(c) Get blitzed and then tell you No

'I want you to have sex with me. Let me make this clear. Even if I, while drunk, tell you otherwise, I want you to have sex with me."


Would it fly?

[athon]

You know, rigor mortis makes me hard.

Athon
(I think that about does it, old boy. No more beers for you...off to bed...stop typing now...):w2:

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
There is another issue. You said that "dead people cannot consent in anything". This is true but what about mentally ill people? We know very well that there are cases of people that they cannot give their consent in anything. Why dead people don't have the same rights with them?
Why a sexual intercourse with a mentally ill person isn't considered a form of masturbation?

All I am trying to do is to define from which point a human loses his "rights". Good point. A dead person (like a mentally incompetent person, an unconscious person or an infant) is incapable of giving consent. I didn't mean to suggest that the ability to give valid consent is a necessary prerequisite to having rights. On the other hand, being a living human being is ("animal rights" being something of a misnomer, but that's a matter for a different thread). In my view, a dead person is not really a "person" in a legal sense, although the extension of his former rights through such things as inheritance law contributes to the fiction that he is.

Thus, there are two parties to an act of sexual intercourse with a mentally incompetent person, but only one party to an act of sexual intercourse with a corpse. A corpse has no more rights than a rock. The fact that you can have sex with a rock but not a corpse is not a reflection of the corpse's rights, but of a specific duty that has been imposed on you by the legislature - the duty not to have sex with corpses. (Consider, by way of analogy, how the fact that you can pick a dandelion but not an endangered flower is not really a reflection of the endangered flower's rights.)

Of course, the technical reason sex with an unconscious person is illegal is also that it falls within the scope of a prohibition established by the legislature, but whereas the legislative rationale behind the rape statute has a great deal to do with protecting the victim's rights, the rationale behind the necrophelia statute doesn't, because there aren't any such rights.

[Cleopatra]

By mentioning the inheritence laws as a factor that contributes to the creation of the "fiction" regarding dead persons' rights you gave an excellent explanation without appealing to moral values although they do have a role to play in the creation of the legislation.

I should have thought about that. Arg!


edited to add: I believe though that philosophically speaking such rights do exist but I will attempt to show that later.