Necrophilia

Chris Cremin said:
dis·gust·ing /dɪsˈgʌstɪŋ, dɪˈskʌs-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-guhs-ting, di-skuhs-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective causing disgust; offensive to the physical, moral, or aesthetic taste.
www.dictionary.com



I think that there's an extra "or" implied. "offensive to the physical or moral or aesthetic taste"
I'm sure that the combination of these types of disgust also occurs.

I feel that disgust as a word is generally used to describe the fear of a thing or an act which can produce disease.

We are more disgusted by a swarm of cockroaches than a swarm of bees, and it is not their appearance which makes the difference.

There was a story in which a man tried to get out of the army by pretending to eat his own faeces, and so be discharged on mental grounds.
He used brown peanut butter. We can see how other people in the story would find his actions disgusting, but we are amused by them.
Click to expand...

Im willing to accept your explanation as i dont see much difference between mine and yours.
Actually, your explanation of the definition of disgusting makes my point somewhat stronger. An act which can produce disease is by most people considered to be immoral. As for a thing that can produce disease, you can perform an act on a thing for it to produce a disease.

Orleander claims corpses are as clean as can be and there arent anymore potentially harmfull bacteria in them than in any living person. Orleander claims she isnt afraid of any diseases necrofilia may induce.
Still, she is disgusted by it. Yet she says it is not immoral, and thus moral.

Rather i think she is on somesort of a 'crusade' against me for critisizing hunting in another thread. Why else make such a big fuss about a definition which doesnt even has to do with the discussion that much.
Also, notice how she ignores others that say almost the same i do but instead chooses to attack my post. :shrug:
Its all fine by me... *sigh*
 
With Necrophilia we have taboo as well as disgust as a factor, but I think that the disgust part of it is to do with fear of disease.
Quite Rightly too.
 
Last edited:
Enmos said:
....Orleander claims corpses are as clean as can be and there arent anymore potentially harmfull bacteria in them than in any living person. Orleander claims she isnt afraid of any diseases necrofilia may induce.
Still, she is disgusted by it. Yet she says it is not immoral, and thus moral.

Rather i think she is on somesort of a 'crusade' against me for critisizing hunting in another thread. Why else make such a big fuss about a definition which doesnt even has to do with the discussion that much.
Also, notice how she ignores others that say almost the same i do but instead chooses to attack my post. :shrug:
Its all fine by me... *sigh*
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
Exactly, why make such a big fuss about a definition?
If I use the word repulsive instead of disgusting, will that make you feel better? NO? How about if I say super duper icky.

And please can show me where I said dead things as as clean as can be. And please show me something where there has been a person who caught a disease from having sex with a dead person. You keep saying it, but I haven't seen proof of it yet.

Crusade against you?? someone thinks highly of themselves.
 
What about sex with zombies and vampires? How does that fit in?
Not too sure about zombies, but some lady vampires are quite attractive.
 
Last edited:
Orleander said:
:rolleyes:
Exactly, why make such a big fuss about a definition?
If I use the word repulsive instead of disgusting, will that make you feel better? NO? How about if I say super duper icky.

And please can show me where I said dead things as as clean as can be. And please show me something where there has been a person who caught a disease from having sex with a dead person. You keep saying it, but I haven't seen proof of it yet.

Crusade against you?? someone thinks highly of themselves.
Click to expand...

I cant find actual articles about people getting diseases from necrophilia, but then that doesnt prove a thing. Its not like people are likely to tell how they gotten the disease. And even if they do it would probably not be in the papers out of protection of the necrophile.

However, i found an article about Necropsy (the examination of a body after death) which states why protective clothing are neccesary.

From: http://mozcom.com/~emcdvm/necro01.html
NECROPSY PROCEDURES:
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The wearing of protective clothing is not meant to prevent soiling and/or preserve the appearance of what is worn by the examiner underneath. It should protect the examiner from contamination with blood, tissues and body fluids from the cadaver that are potential carrier of infectious particles. The recommended protective clothing should provide comfort to the examiner while not compromising protection from possible contamination. The wearing of cotton coverall, rubber boots, gloves, and butcher's plastic vest is recommended and provide ample protection from contamination. These articles must be washed clean and disinfected after each use.

The common laboratory gown may used. However, the hanging flaps may easily soak with the cadaver's blood and body fluids with the examiner not noticing it, and thus exposing the examiner to contaminants. Although lacking any protective clothing, the laboratory gown will be sufficient. A pair of ordinary garden latex gloves of appropriate size is useful for necropsy. Compared with the surgeon's latex glove, the latter are less expensive, more durable and provide equal protection. Necropsy without wearing any gloves is an open invitation for contamination. The gloves should fit the hands and fingers of the examiner without interfering with manual dexterity and causing numbness. Loose, also very tight fitting gloves may cause undue interference in handling organs and tissues, not to mention the awkward look and the uncomfortable feeling it may render to the examiner.
Click to expand...

This is the first article i came across and i can no doubt find more similar ones.
 
Orleander said:
I know its yucky but why is it considered immoral?
If you can donate your body to science to be cut up and sent out to others, why couldn't you donate it to a Necrophila club for their use?
Click to expand...

Or even better - why not donate it to cannibals? They can use it too . . .:confused:
 
Genji said:
Serial killer John Wayne Gacy Jr of Chicago climbed into a casket holding the body of a 14 year old boy and laid underneath him for thrills when he was only 12 years old. He liked the hardness of the corpse's private part. Years later he would murder 33 young males in a spree spanning 2 decades.
Necrophilia is a sickness and a sign of bad things to come for it's participants.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed that the only person thus far in this discussion, who is duscussing an actual case and not just throwing around hypothetical crap is the person who got ignored. I think Genji has this one nailed.
 
COURT TV's Crime Library has article after article about necrophiles. Combined with Wikipedia's entries and elsewhere, it seems pretty obvious to me that a high number of necrophiles are in the earlier stages of become serial killers. If that isn't a strong enough case against necrophilia, God help your vision of rationality.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/necrophiles/index_1b.html
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't consider it moral, no. If it leads to the pattern of behaviors that creates psycho killers, obviously not. Even if someone doesn't become a true serial killer the framework is all there.
 
Xevious said:
I wouldn't consider it moral, no. If it leads to the pattern of behaviors that creates psycho killers, obviously not. Even if someone doesn't become a true serial killer the framework is all there.
Click to expand...

leads to a pattern of behaviors that create psycho killers? If all psycho killers have drank milk, does that mean something? Is milk bad?

If there was a 'club' set up for necrophiliacs where a person could donate their body (like organ donations) would that be immoral?
 
Necrophilia: Disgusting? Yes
Immoral? No

It's interesting how humans seem to find necrophilia more morally repugnant than ole generic rape. This is despite the fact that while generic rape can fuck a person up for life (mentally), necrophilia doesn't hurt anyone. It's essentially a victimless crime. The guy's dead, why would he care whether you screw his corpse or not?
If you believe in spirits, I doubt his apparation will be hanging around on crummy Earth, going "Oh man, I can't believe he's doing THAT to my body! Oh no, don't stick that in there! Oh no, no, nooo!"
 
I finally decide to look into this topic, and this is truly and literally the only topic that has made me nautious

Sex with a dead person? I truly feel woozy right now, and no, it's not the pizza I just ate, it's this disgusting talk

Let me guess, there is someone defending sex with the dead?
 
Fugu-dono said:
b..b..b.bu..but... zombies are UNdead.
Click to expand...

Zombies are definitely without any sex appeal.
But that still leaves vamps.

I wonder if necrophiliacs "Come out" to their parents.

N: "Mum, Dad, I've got something to tell you.....
I don't know how to put this but I'm a.........."
 
Last edited:
this thread reminds me of a limerick i know:

there was a young man called Dave
who found a dead whore in a cave
he said i know its disgusting
but she only needs dusting
and think of the money i'll save!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top