Necrophilia?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well we had a thread about cannibalism. Which got me to thinking about the ethics of necrophilia. What do you guys think?

[BIXX]

I don't know, to me as long as you aren't killing me/people I like to fuck them, whatever. I mean really it'd prolly be better that you don't kill anyone to fuck them, honestly to me that seems like rape.

But like, if there were a body donation center so that necrophiliacs could have a place to go and do whatever they want to a body then I couldn't care less, more power to them.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I don't know, to me as long as you aren't killing me/people I like to fuck them, whatever. I mean really it'd prolly be better that you don't kill anyone to fuck them, honestly to me that seems like rape.

But like, if there were a body donation center so that necrophiliacs could have a place to go and do whatever they want to a body then I couldn't care less, more power to them.

Yea i like your idea, but really I meant more like if there just happens to be a dead body and someone has sex with it, without the previous owner of the body consenting. They no longer are the body anymore so... Would that be wrong?

[LiaSofia]

The same opinion that I have of all sexual preferences - if it's consensual then it's fine. And yes, it is possible to consent to necrophilia if you agree to it before you die.

This forum has the weirdest topics ever.

[LiaSofia]

Ooops. Didn't notice your post above mine. In response to that, yes I do think it's wrong even though no one is technically being 'harmed'.

[BIXX]

Yea i like your idea, but really I meant more like if there just happens to be a dead body and someone has sex with it, without the previous owner of the body consenting. They no longer are the body anymore so... Would that be wrong?


Maybe leave it to the next of kin/closest friends as they would be the most likely to know what the person would have wanted done with their body? Or maybe folks should carry a card that determines their opinions on it, and if they don't have a card it's a no-go?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Once the brain ceases to function the body effectively becomes an inanimate object. Fucking a corpse would be morally equivalent to fucking a rock or a tree.

That's how I feel about it on a rational level. If someone took the body of someone I cared about and used it for that, well... I don't know how I would feel about that.

[Hrafn]

As I've been told, I am a petit-bourgeois moralist. Hence, fuck necrophilia.

[BIXX]

fuck necrophilia.


I feel like there's a really good pun or joke or something here.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Yeah I'm gonna take the reactionary position and say necrophilia is something you shouldn't do.

[Lord Testicles]

Whilst I can't find anything wrong with fucking a corpse I do feel that if you have an inclination to fuck a corpse there are probably deeper problems than the actual act.

[Loony Le Fist]

I find it repulsive. However, I can't find any ethical problems with it. For example, I find pork rinds repulsive, but that doesn't make it unethical for someone to eat them.

[Futility Personified]

Yeah I'm gonna take the reactionary position and say necrophilia is something you shouldn't do.

When i'm commiting necrophilia my favourite position is the reactionary too ;)

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think a better question is is it alright to fuck dead animals. While a human can consent to their dead bodies being hammered before they're dead a animal cannot. At the same time does it really matter if the corpse of anything consents to have sex with you, "they" are not there anymore on a conscious level and never will be. Oh the moral conundrums!

I'm just going to stick with sticking my stick into people that are alive m'kay.

[Slavic]

Once the brain ceases to function the body effectively becomes an inanimate object. Fucking a corpse would be morally equivalent to fucking a rock or a tree.

That's how I feel about it on a rational level. If someone took the body of someone I cared about and used it for that, well... I don't know how I would feel about that.

Agreed

You lose all personal possession of your body once you die because there is no "You" anymore.

New question. In a society without capital, would personal possessions be permitted to pass through inheritance? This leading to, if you where to die would your personal possession, your body, pass to whom you delegate? Or would all personal possessions cease and become communal, the community's corpse?

[Hrafn]

(Y'all messed up, and I hope none of you ever find yourself in a central committee or some shit like that.)

[Dagoth Ur]

This is ridiculous. One should have the right to know that their body will not be desecrated after they die. Ownership of yourself does not end at death. The one and only exception being where your corpse has social value that outweighs your personal dignity.

[Lily Briscoe]

Mallard ducks are into this shit in a major way. There's video footage on YouTube iirc.

http://cdn.hark.com/images/000/006/085/6085/original.0

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Wouldn't that one and only exception always be in effect anyways since the raw material of a corpse can always have social value

[Dagoth Ur]

I said greater than personal dignity. The tiny resource value of a particular corpse does not equal the dignity we should preserve for all humans.

[Slavic]

Ownership of yourself does not end at death. The one and only exception being where your corpse has social value that outweighs your personal dignity.

Ownership of your body does indeed cease when you, the owner, does not exist.

If a non-existent person can claim ownership over a corpse, then shouldn't a potentially existent person claim ownership over a fetus?

[Dagoth Ur]

No because "potentially existent" people do not exist, will not exist, and have never existed in the first place. Until a fetus exits the body of its mother it is a part of her body and her dominion.

The same cannot be said of corpses who were only owned by themselves and almost certainly has some kind of post-death wishes. If we have any compassion for one another we must fulfill these wishes as best we are able.

And if the formerly living human loses ownership of their body at the point of death does their corpse become social property? If so why does this start at death? A living human is far more valuable than a corpse ever could be, so why not simply use them however society deems fit?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Ownership of your body does indeed cease when you, the owner, does not exist.

If a non-existent person can claim ownership over a corpse, then shouldn't a potentially existent person claim ownership over a fetus?

It wouldn't matter if they can claim ownership to the fetus. They can't claim ownership to the womb they reside in either way.

For those of you suggesting having the family take ownership of the body : does that mean the family can do necrophilia with the corpse?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

how much value would equal that dignity?

[Dagoth Ur]

Something that would directly equal saved lives, such as a corpse having some new disease that we must study or if that corpse would solve a diplomatic/war issue. There are any number of reasons to violate the dignity of humans but you can't just go around willy nilly doing whatever.

[Slavic]

No because "potentially existent" people do not exist, will not exist, and have never existed in the first place. Until a fetus exits the body of its mother it is a part of her body and her dominion.

The same cannot be said of corpses who were only owned by themselves and almost certainly has some kind of post-death wishes. If we have any compassion for one another we must fulfill these wishes as best we are able.

And if the formerly living human loses ownership of their body at the point of death does their corpse become social property? If so why does this start at death? A living human is far more valuable than a corpse ever could be, so why not simply use them however society deems fit?

We most likely just hold different ideas of what makes up the self's identity.

I follow that the self is just the summation of experiences that are stored and accessed at an independent location, the brain. Once the brain dies, the collection of experiences vanishes and the self is no more. Others may remember aspects of your self, but those memories are only apart of them and not you. You are dead.

[Dagoth Ur]

I don't see how that helps your argument at all. So what of the self is a collection of data and electrical signals? Does this mean we no longer deserve any dignity or an ability to determine the fate of our corpse?

[Slavic]

I don't see how that helps your argument at all. So what of the self is a collection of data and electrical signals? Does this mean we no longer deserve any dignity or an ability to determine the fate of our corpse?


Because the body just houses those signals, it is a shell. When a snake sheds its skin or a lizard loses its tail you don't morn for their lose of self, you see it for what it is, meat.

"Your" dignity post-mortum only exists in the minds of others and their interpretations of what "you" were.

[Art Vandelay]

This website is so susceptible to trolling.

[Redistribute the Rep]

This website is so susceptible to trolling.

Hmm? I think some genuine questions have been raised here

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well we had a thread about cannibalism. Which got me to thinking about the ethics of necrophilia. What do you guys think?

It goes hand in hand with cannibalism. We reject the bourgeois notion of the sanctity of the mortal shell and the 'Self' and see the consumption and or sexy times with said gooey goodness as being completely natural and clearly can be observed in ither species throughout the animal kingdom.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This website is so susceptible to trolling.

Behave yourself and be nice

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't see how that helps your argument at all. So what of the self is a collection of data and electrical signals? Does this mean we no longer deserve any dignity or an ability to determine the fate of our corpse?

That's pretty selfish of you don't you think. What if your corpse was the difference between children or a family with children or a children family even, living or dying? What if it was the sifference between someone finally feeling a sense of sexual release and emotional/psychological comfort and or therapy or not? You see, you musnt deprive people of something like that and I mean, why would you? I mean, you don't hate your fellow man and or children, do you?

I also demand that this be moved to the Learning section at once!

[Art Vandelay]

Behave yourself and be nice

Yes ma'am. I'll do my best.

[Skyhilist]

I don't see the moral dilemma tbh. The person is dead, so what do they care?

Also, I would only expect to see this type of thread on a site like this lol

[motion denied]

what the fuck is wrong with you

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

what the fuck is wrong with you

What is wrong with me?! What is wrong with you? Flesh fetishist!

[Hrafn]

Uuuuuuugh.

[human strike]

I've a friend who wrote her phd in necrophilia. She's considered somewhat of an expert. I can pass on any questions if anyone has any.

[Zukunftsmusik]

^Are there cases of ritual (or whatever) necrophilia in "tribal" societies throughout the times? I don't know if your friend did her PhD in anthropology, but that's the only interesting perspective I could think of.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Is it considered a mental disorder to be necrophile?

[Palmares]

Having some issues with coding, so apologies for double post. Second came out mostly better...

Can a mod fix the coding issues with my post below? Especially that weird "TD P { margin-bottom: 0cm; }P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link { }". Delete that please.

[Palmares]

I love these kind of boundary pushing questions!

Firstly, let's look at how corpses are regarded in our current societies. What happens to them? Well, when someone dies, normally the eventual destination is in a coffin, buried 6 feet under ground. We can't all be cryogenically frozen like Walt Disney.





Reasons for human burial

See also: Health risks from dead bodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_risks_from_dead_bodies) and Revenant (folklore) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenant_%28folklore%29)
After death, a body will decay. Burial is not necessarily a public health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health) requirement. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the WHO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization) advises that only corpses carrying an infectious disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_disease) strictly require burial.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial#cite_note-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial#cite_note-7)
Human burial practices are the manifestation of the human desire to demonstrate "respect for the dead". Cultures vary in their mode of respect.
Some reasons follow:


Respect for the physical remains. If left lying on top of the ground, scavengers may eat the corpse, considered disrespectful to the deceased in many (but not all) cultures. In Tibet, Sky burials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial) return the remains to the cycle of life and acknowledge the body as "food," a core tenet of some Buddhist practices.
Burial can be seen as an attempt to bring closure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_%28psychology%29) to the deceased's family and friends. Psychologists in some Western Judeo-Christian quarters, as well as the US funeral industry, claim that by interring a body away from plain view the pain of losing a loved one can be lessened.
Many cultures believe in an afterlife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterlife). Burial is sometimes believed to be a necessary step for an individual to reach the afterlife.
Many religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) prescribe a particular way to live, which includes customs relating to disposal of the dead.
A decomposing body releases unpleasant gases related to decomposition. As such, burial is seen as a means of preventing smells from expanding into open air.

But I think burial goes even further, it's an extension of both private property, and the self. On the latter, I will simply make this comparison, for example, mummification Pharaohs in Egypt was a type of immortalisation into the afterlife. Different types of preserving bodies, whether by burial or as far as mummification, is a type of disembodiment to elevate humans above the flesh, to be more than simply ungodly animals...

It would be hard to have sex with a cremated body afterall!

Getting back to private property, usually people get for their burial, like buying a house for your lifeless body. And to further protect the property of your body, in many places there are laws to protect their "desecration". I remember that famous case in Germany of the consentual cannibals, the living cannibal who ate the other was charged on such a law. So it's property damage, cannibalism and necrophilia.





The decomposition of a dead body depends on many factors, any of which can affect the time necessary to break it down. If a body is buried in a coffin deep in the ground, for example, it could take as long as 50 years for all of the tissue to disappear. But if it is exposed to the elements, it will decay very quickly. The most important factor in decomposition time is how much exposure the body has had to bacteria. Bacteria need oxygen to survive and are generally found in heavy concentrations in water. Therefore, exposure to air or water will speed up the process of decomposition dramatically. Animals and insects will feed on the tissue if a body is exposed, also quickening the process. Regardless of how long it takes for tissue to be completely broken down, it may take the underlying bones hundreds of years to fully decay.
So if you leave a corpse to decompose naturally (ie compost), it will become humus (soil). Not being a necrophile myself, I'm unsure if soil would match up to a necrophile's standards.

Perhaps, a part of this equation is how our moral compass compels us to sanctify our deceased bodies to the degree of museum-like preservation (hello Lenin!) that we then re-magnetise this compass when this sanctity is questioned.

Cremate me or bury me in a compost, so I can feed the soil like everything other organic being does, and there's nothing weird for the weirdos to fuck.

I have no problems with say... trees eating humans though. :thumbup1:


Sereno Edwards Todd, ]The Apple Culturist (1871)]It has been recorded by a reliable authority that near the graves of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, and his wife, there stood a venerable apple tree which had sent two of its roots into the graves of Mr. and Mrs. Williams. The larger root had pushed its way through the earth till it reached the precise spot occupied by the skull of Roger Williams. There, making a turn, as if going round the skull, it followed the direction of the backbone to the hips. Here it divided into two branches, sending one of them along each leg to the heel, where both turned towards the toes. One of these roots formed a slight crook at the knee, which made the whole bear close resemblance to a human form. There were the graves emptied of every particle of human dust. Not a trace of anything was left. There stood the guilty apple tree… caught in the very act of robbing the grave. The fact proved conclusively that bones, even of human beings, are an excellent fertilizer for fruit trees; and the fact must be admitted that the organic matter of Roger Williams… had bloomed in the apple blossoms, and had become pleasant to the eye; and more, it had gone into the fruit from year to year, so that the question might be asked, Who ate Roger Williams?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Actually, I want to correct the above. While I have spread the narrative that Walt Disney had his head frozen; according to my research, niether his body or his head was actually frozen. There have been other famous peoples who have been though. Like that one famous baseball dude.

[Lord Testicles]

Cremate me or bury me in a compost, so I can feed the soil like everything other organic being does, and there's nothing weird for the weirdos to fuck.


I want to end my life like a human being: in Intensive Care, high on morphine, surrounded by cripplingly expensive doctors and brutal, relentless life-support machines. Then the corpse can go into orbit -- preferably around the sun. I don't care how much it costs, just so long as I don't end up part of any fucking natural cycle: carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen. Gaia, I divorce thee. Go suck the nutrients out of someone else, you grasping *****.

(Fuck you revleft censorship.)

[BIXX]

One of the times where the censorship ought to have left a thing alone, IMO.

Btw what is "the walk"?

[Lord Testicles]

One of the times where the censorship ought to have left a thing alone, IMO.

Btw what is "the walk"?

It's a short story by Greg Egan. Which you can find here (https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.125books.com/inc/pt4321/pt4322/pt4323/pt4324/pt4325/data_all/books/w/w++Axiomatic+-+Greg+Egan.pdf) on page 100 if you wish to read it.

[human strike]

^Are there cases of ritual (or whatever) necrophilia in "tribal" societies throughout the times? I don't know if your friend did her PhD in anthropology, but that's the only interesting perspective I could think of.

Criminology.

[Dagoth Ur]

That's pretty selfish of you don't you think. What if your corpse was the difference between children or a family with children or a children family even, living or dying? What if it was the sifference between someone finally feeling a sense of sexual release and emotional/psychological comfort and or therapy or not? You see, you musnt deprive people of something like that and I mean, why would you? I mean, you don't hate your fellow man and or children, do you?


Ownership of yourself does not end at death. The one and only exception being where your corpse has social value that outweighs your personal dignity.
Kthanxbai

[Sea]

No because "potentially existent" people do not exist, will not exist, and have never existed in the first place. Until a fetus exits the body of its mother it is a part of her body and her dominion.This concept of having "dominion" over ones self (or fetus or an object) is a cultural one and is fundamentally incompatible with collectivism. Please go 2 the gulag.
No because "potentially existent" people do not exist, will not exist, and have never existed in the first place. Until a fetus exits the body of its mother it is a part of her body and her dominion.And yet a fetus must be still very much alive in its own right or else all births would be stillbirths. Because of this, abortion is indeed murder. And yet nevertheless there is nothing morally wrong with it! Evolutionary psychology and our culture both define why we see it as wrong to take the life of another, but in no way does that imply that there even is such a thing as moral right and wrong. Don't explain things away based on silly notions of dominion just because reality threatens to smash your moral compass. It's so amusing how people think it's bad or monstrous for someone to think that there's nothing wrong with the things they think are wrong. It's like... If *you* didn't think it was wrong, which seems to be what stops you from killing people, would you just suddenly run out and kill people? It makes me paranoid just to think about it! Seeing or hearing about death makes me feel bad inside for the reasons above (it's culturally and biologically programmed), but I guess a lot of people have trouble separating feeling of joy or revolt from right / wrong.
I think a better question is is it alright to fuck dead animals. While a human can consent to their dead bodies being hammered before they're dead a animal cannot. At the same time does it really matter if the corpse of anything consents to have sex with you, "they" are not there anymore on a conscious level and never will be. Oh the moral conundrums!Does revleft think it's okay to fuck live animals? Or rather to be fucked by a big strong german shepherd because that thick knot is sooo filling but he can only fuck you on a blanket that is called "the fuck blanket" because otherwise if you let him fuck you anywhere he'd do it and just start humping your leg of whatever when guests are around? And with the blanket he knows it's only OK when the fuck blanket is on the ground? Why is dog cum so watery?

I just wanna know if yall think it's OK or not before I delve into the topic any further.

[Lily Briscoe]

Please be joking.

[BIXX]

This concept of having "dominion" over ones self (or fetus or an object) is a cultural one and is fundamentally incompatible with collectivism. Please go 2 the gulag.And yet a fetus must be still very much alive in its own right or else all births would be stillbirths. Because of this, abortion is indeed murder. And yet nevertheless there is nothing morally wrong with it! Evolutionary psychology and our culture both define why we see it as wrong to take the life of another, but in no way does that imply that there even is such a thing as moral right and wrong. Don't explain things away based on silly notions of dominion just because reality threatens to smash your moral compass. It's so amusing how people think it's bad or monstrous for someone to think that there's nothing wrong with the things they think are wrong. It's like... If *you* didn't think it was wrong, which seems to be what stops you from killing people, would you just suddenly run out and kill people? It makes me paranoid just to think about it! Seeing or hearing about death makes me feel bad inside for the reasons above (it's culturally and biologically programmed), but I guess a lot of people have trouble separating feeling of joy or revolt from right / wrong.Does revleft think it's okay to fuck live animals? Or rather to be fucked by a big strong german shepherd because that thick knot is sooo filling but he can only fuck you on a blanket that is called "the fuck blanket" because otherwise if you let him fuck you anywhere he'd do it and just start humping your leg of whatever when guests are around? And with the blanket he knows it's only OK when the fuck blanket is on the ground? Why is dog cum so watery?

I just wanna know if yall think it's OK or not before I delve into the topic any further.



Live animals are fundamentally different from dead ones.

[roy]

i feel like some people are only saying necrophilia should be ok out of some fetish for absolute logical consistency i.e. if it doesn't really hurt anyone it's fine

really though this is fucked up go get some fresh air

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Evolutionary psychology and our culture both define why we see it as wrong to take the life of another, but in no way does that imply that there even is such a thing as moral right and wrong.

Don't go there, man. The last thing you want to do is end up on the streets, drugged out of your skull, yelling at the people walking by about hip-to-waist ratios.

Anyway, what do y'all propose people should do if someone fucks a corpse, call the socialist morality police? "Administration of things and direction of the process of production" my still-living arse.

[Rafiq]

Communists dont have a Communist morality, they just oppose, parisitically what is condemnable by the "ruling ideas". Communists are petty bourgeois negative ideologues who not only do not possess their own morality, but their own ideological universe. (This isn't a reflection of the absence of Communist politics either. no, no)

Whatever the current bourgeois state opposes, Communists ought to support, like ISIS. No, no, Communism doesn't pre suppose the achievements of bourgeois society. It isn't a contradiction of both capitalist relations and ideology. Communism comes from our ass, not our existing conditions. And the cause of the oppressed necrophiles is proletarian in nature: When you fuck a dead corpse, this doesn't reflect any twisted psychological dimensions - you are actually fighting the class enemy by defying their morality. Because Communist morality is defined by being the exact opposite of Bourgeois morality, like an insecure teenager to his parents. Want to fuck babies? No problem! Hook kids on heroin for fun? For the revolution! When previous communists declared that we should oppose official morality - they weren't saying that the real, developed Communist morality should never compromise to the "legitimate" official morality - they literally meant condone EVERYTHING the ruling class opposes.

This totally isnt a disgustingly LAZY way of thinking. It isn't infantile or simplistic at all. It's Communism.

Regards, 870.


In all seriousness, ironically it is those who CONDONE necrophilia and somehow associate it's acceptance with the class struggle who are the fucking petty bourgeois moralists. So opposed to the power of the power of the state over the petty bourgeoisie under the guise of calling it "official morality" being infringed upon them, they are willing to openly admit to condoning such filth.

These cowards won't actually stomach seeing necrophilia, or have the guts to do it themselves. Instead, they play a very sick game of the devils advocate - it's not hard to understand, they're desperately trying to be as edgy as possible. They are so insecure in their dispossession of an actual Communist ideology or political language that all they can do to assure themselves of their petty bourgeois convictions is childishly support everything "society" opposes. I promise you they wouldn't condemn rape absolutely if not for feminisms influence on the left, or if it wasn't a bannable offense. If they wouldn't be met with mass ridicule as a TRADITION of the left they would support the right to rape in defiance of "official morality" (official morality which they can't even properly conceptualize).

They are like the "rebellious" kids who sympathise with Nazism for being against the liberal order. They are against the state from the perspective of the PETITE BOURGEOIS CLASS. They would DARE accuse others of "petty bourgeois morality" but in truth, it is their morality which is distinctively petty bourgeois - "opposing it all" (of bourgeois society) in favor of previous conditions (when the Left was alive, many, many decades ago). Condoning necrophilia is a means by which they express their petty bourgeois sentiments.

Hypothetically, if someone was fucking a dead body then they are immediately in need of psychological evaluation and further action in correspondence (with the results). Without pre-enlightenment mysticism and superstition, there is no sexual impulse that prompts one to fuck a dead body that is without the pre requisite of being fucked in the head.

The desire to fuck a dead body, is one and the same with the desire to rape. To fuck a person without consent, to fuck without resistance and without the fear of being rejected. Otherwise why fuck an actual dead body? Why not a blow up doll or some other nonsense?

[Rafiq]

Honestly, who would mind another purge against cannibalism proponents, Necrophilia apologists and other positions held by "opponents of official morality"? Not me.

Hey 870, do you support non-violent Neo Nazis and holocaust deniers against the censorship and "oppression" of the state like Chomsky does? I mean, I'm sure the Sparts do. Can you admit this? That you are in favor of "freedom of speech" for the class enemy? If not, why? And how is this consistent with your other positions? Because as far as I'm concerned, fascists oppose official morality in their own way too. Do you wish to align yourself with them in your glorious, ambiguous struggle against the state? Is overt racism, and non western sexism allowed in your petty bourgeois socialist utopia, so long as you harm no one? Of course it is.

[Sea]

Please be joking.
I'm dead (bad pun) serious in the first part. I'm not entirely serious about the bestiality part.

[Lord Testicles]

i feel like some people are only saying necrophilia should be ok out of some fetish for absolute logical consistency i.e. if it doesn't really hurt anyone it's fine

really though this is fucked up go get some fresh air

What's wrong with logical consistency? Something may be fucked up but that doesn't necessarily mean it's morally wrong, or did I miss that meeting?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What's wrong with logical consistency? Something may be fucked up but that doesn't necessarily mean it's morally wrong, or did I miss that meeting?

I dread to think what sort of meeting it was, too. Anyway, some posters here really don't take the whole "abolition of government over persons" thing seriously, and of course if you try to be consistent then you're "edgy".

[Rafiq]

some posters here really don't take the whole "abolition of government over persons" thing seriously, and of course if you try to be consistent then you're "edgy".

What a worthlessly vague thing, "abolition of government over persons" - anyone can say this. From this phrase alone, you have yet to distinguish yourself from any anarcho-capitalist or Misean.

Don't act like this is some argument over some hypothetical future petty bourgeois utopia. This is irrelivent. We are talking about its implications today. Being in favor of Necrophilia, voicing support for those who engage in these acts, entails effort and action. Why? Because again, you oppose the "government" that resides "over people". So be consistent, 870. When the government clamps down on Neo-Nazis, child sex trafficking rings, and so on - be sure to remind us of how it is important to take seriously being against "government over people". This Trotskyist, so consistent in his disapproval of "government over people" that he has yet to condemn Trotsky, commander of the Red Army which if I recall correctly was an organ of a state - which was a government over people in the most meaningful sense of the phrase.

The thing is, and this goes to Skinz as well - this isn't logically consistent at all. And if it is logically consistent for you, you need to re-evaluate the basis of your beliefs to begin with. Our logic is not "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, it's fine". Because this hypocritically plays with the notion of what constitutes as "hurting other people". You 'consistent' revolutionaries want to knit pick what you think does, and doesn't hurt other people. If this is defined as the absence of physical pain, or physically hurting people - great, just be sure to give absolute, unconditional freedom of speech and press for the class enemy following a revolution. Just be sure not to condemn mentally torturing people - or the abstract condition of exploitation so long as no physical violence is involved (While exploitation demands physical violence and harm, the actual condition of exploitation by itself is not the same) Your morality is supposedly defined by right = what doesn't hurt people. Well that's worthless, because what "hurts" is too vague, too ambiguous, too contestable and too inconsistent.

The fact is there is no such thing as an isolated, "harmless" desire to fuck a dead body. Nobody would ever fuck a dead body for the sake of it. It reflects a deeper, more twisted pathology that yes - is very likely to 'harm' other people. What kind of mental predispositions would even allow someone to consider fucking a dead body?

Also, with your logic, what's wrong with raping people as long as you drug them before hand (or a child who can't even articulate what's going on?), so they don't actively experience or remember it? Really, what's wrong with it, by your logic? If the rapist 'responsibly' uses protection, and doesn't physically harm them, what's the problem, according to you? That this is an unlikely scenario? Well even more unlikely is someone who fucks a dead body, and isn't some kind of twisted murderer.

[Lord Testicles]

Rafiq, with respect, sometimes you type some utter bollocks.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq, with respect, sometimes you type some utter bollocks.

It is a given that necrophilia is condemnable - so it requires effort to redeem it. The question is why. Why would Communists seek to redeem necrophilia? Communism doesn't come from our ass - it derives from our existing conditions. What about necrophilia is not condemnable?

An example is that homosexuality might be condemnable by society - but Communists ought to support it because it aids the cause of female sexual emancipation and de-legitimizes capitalist sexual relations.

So what does necrophilia do? To specifically want to fuck a dead body, and not simply some kind of other inanimate object or toy, reflects a deeply twisted mental pathology. Why an actual body that previously was living? What are the other implications for living human bodies in a society which tolerates this?

[Lord Testicles]

It is a given that necrophilia is condemnable - so it requires effort to redeem it. The question is why. Why would Communists seek to redeem necrophilia? Communism doesn't come from our ass - it derives from our existing conditions. What about necrophilia is not condemnable?

Do communists actually seek to redeem necrophilia? What does that even mean in reality? (Do you have some image of CPGB members handing out leaflets "Tried fucking a corpse? Don't bash it until you've tried it!)

Why condemn a paraphilia? Should we condemn emetophiacs or haemotolangiacs just because their paraphilia is icky?


An example is that homosexuality might be condemnable by society - but Communists ought to support it because it aids the cause of female sexual emancipation and de-legitimizes capitalist sexual relations.

Not because homosexuals should be able to live their lives free from fear that they'll suffer any harm because of their sexuality then?


So what does necrophilia do?

Necrophilia doesn't do anything because it's a word used to describe a type of behaviour.


To specifically want to fuck a dead body, and not simply some kind of other inanimate object or toy, reflects a deeply twisted mental pathology.

I don't think anyone is saying that necrophiliacs don't suffer from some deep seated problems but is that enough of a reason to condemn them, the idea that they're mentally ill?


Why an actual body that previously was living?

Because that's their thing dude. If they wanted to just fuck a normal person we wouldn't be talking about them, if they wanted to fuck a car they'd be a mechaphile, if they got their jollies from squirting liquid up their ass they'd be klismaphiliacs and so on and so on.



What are the other implications for living human bodies in a society which tolerates this?

I don't know, I imagine one of the first implications would be that people who do something as harmless as fuck a piece of meat that was formerly a human being won't have their lives ruined by being sent to jail and might be able to get some proper help with any mental issues they might have.

[Hagalaz]

Anyone ever see the film Nekromantic?
I recommend that all would be corpse fuckers watch it before commencing to...well...you know.

[Palmares]

An example is that homosexuality might be condemnable by society - but Communists ought to support it because it aids the cause of female sexual emancipation and de-legitimizes capitalist sexual relations.

We are in solidarity with marginalised groups because we support their autonomy, and not to be discriminated for simply being who they are. It's for their own liberation, not because they are "useful".

What you mentioned of course is great, but it's simply an addition to our pre-existing solidarity.

[Rusty Shackleford]

To quote an Austrian social democrat at the turn of the century on the question of necrophilia: "nope nope nope nope nope nope noope." - Springer

[Slavic]

To quote an Austrian social democrat at the turn of the century on the question of necrophilia: "nope nope nope nope nope nope noope." - Springer


An antiquated social democrat's position on sex matters because...????

[Rusty Shackleford]

An antiquated social democrat's position on sex matters because...????

"Our contemporary utopists, the so-called Social Democrats, have taken a bold position in opposing both class society and the defiling of lifeless bodies. They may be confused on relations between the Czechs and Germans within their movement in the Empire, but they possess great moral fortitude on the subject of necrophilia." Oscar Wilde in personal correspondence with Plekhanov in 1896

[PhoenixAsh]

The fact that this thread has reached its 69th post and ran multiple pages......

[Slavic]

The fact that this thread has reached its 69th post and ran multiple pages......

Means you never know if you like it if you don't try it...
; )