/lit/ - Literature

I am the best tripfag on /lit/

HMMM, MAYBE IT'S RESPECT FOR THE PERSON WHO'S BODY YOU'RE DEFILING

>>1769733
>What further harm can befall a dead body?

Cool aspie logic bro.

>>1769739
Yeah, but what about harvesting organs and tissues to help the living ones? It's the same thing.

>>1769749

They give their consent for that dumbshit

humans are rather cute sometimes

>>1769739
why are you so mad again

>>1769738

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

>>1769755
>implying that the opinion of a man has any real meaning after its death

>>1769784
If you want to argue from an objective place than sure. But laws aren't based on objective rights or wrongs. They're based on whatever people feel is right or wrong, and most people feel that necrophilia is wrong. Welcome to the real world, where technicalities won't get you laid.

What makes you think a dead body can't be harmed further? If you can harm something that never was animate (dent my car), then you can certainly harm something that was once animated and now is not.

>>1769749
They have to give consent for that while living.

Just about every religion on earth generally has some kind of rule or taboo about defiling the dead.

Throughout human history, defiling a dead body or otherwise burying a grave has long been considered a very serious offense.

Furthermore, sex with a dead person serves no biological function, and there's no evidence of a biological draw to do so - it's all psychological. As such, any sexual gratification from dead bodies would be seen as a serious mental disorder (and generally is).

So while the dead body itself generally doesn't care, it's in the interests of families, the sanctity and dignity of the dead, and the prurient interest of the community both local and at large to make sure people don't go around fucking corpses.

>>1769792
>burying a grave
*bothering a grave

derp

>>1769792
>sex as a biological function
Who are you, The Pope?

this thread should have ended after the word 'consent'

>>1769733
If you have to ask then you are too dumb to understand the answer.

>>1769817
No, no one is saying 'sex out of anything beside reproduction is wrong'

But he does have a point, but one could easily ask the same out of masturbation or protected casual sex. Some of those needs are psychological.

>>1769824
Someone around here hates philosophy.

It's really just a thinking question

Okay, what if everyone besides a donor card would also have a "necrophiliac friendly card"?

Technically, in the US it's not a federal law, and there are apparently only 20-something states that have officially outlawed it. Considering that there are like 20 states that still have sodomy laws, that seems odd. and creepy. I now want to be buried in one of the states in which it is actually a felony, not just a misdemeanor. Or cremated, but there would still be that window where I'm dead & not yet burned

>>1769835
Because you can't legally give permission for someone to commit a crime.

>>1769840
well that's circular
and I'm captain obvious

>>1769840
And why it's a crime then?

>>1769845
because IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, WHICH IS WHAT ANYTHING ILLEGAL IS BY DEFINITION

>>1769840
That one is lacking a basis in reason.

>>1769835

hahahaha oh man, this. somebody might as well enjoy this meatsack when i can't anymore

>>1769859
speak for yourself. If someone couldn't earn getting into my pants while I was alive, they damn well don't deserve my sweet girly parts in stages of decay

To convince murderers to do their raping before the murder to lessen their sentence

>>1769863
I bet you don't have a donor card either.

>>1769863

>deserve

why on earth would you care?

how weirdly aggressive and retroactively vindictive of you

>>1769843
>>1769845
>>1769853
To be fair, the post specifically responded to the question of why you can't put "necrophiliac friendly" on your ID.

There's a couple of obvious reasons that I figured weren't necessary to mention, but apparently this is 4chan and being pedantic is a requirement. So:

1) Once a person is dead, their last will and testament is the primary source of material for determining what can happen to them.
2) Second to that, the family gets to decide.
3) If neither case is permissible, then standard law applies, and standard law precludes necrophilia.

Since necrophilia is currently a crime, you can't give someone permission to commit that crime, since by definition a dead body can't consent to sex.

While it would be a pretty amusing Law & Order episode, there is no legal basis for giving some the right to defile your body sexually after death. Technically speaking, you don't really have the right to give someone else that right.

>>1769871
I'm sorry, were you being serious?
nevermind then

>>1769876

completely serious. which, i think, makes it funnier.

>>1769875

i think the premise under discussion is the idea that the law might be changed, you densoid.

>>1769871
This may come as a shock to you, but I certainly care what happens to my body after death.

I've got family members, friends, and other people who also care about me, and I'd like them to understand that should they die before me, I would see that their bodies are properly respected as per custom.

If someone spent his entire life believing that red is a color for evil, it would be a real violation against the spirit of his memory to put him a red coffin. I would rather see respect for the dead by honoring those sorts of wishes.

And I imagine most people do not wish to have their bodies used as sexual gratification for weird perverts.

>>1769884

yes, most wouldn't. but if i would, by your own logic, my wishes should be honored.

>>1769875
>Since necrophilia is currently a crime
Then back to this (yes, it's circular):
>Why is necrophilia illegal? What further harm can befall a dead body?

>>1769881
ah, well, mine was said in facetiousness

(and probably inspired by sexual frustration)

>>1769884
Let's say that if a guy will have sex with your inanimate body, some-other woman won't get raped.
Are you willing to sacrifice your dead body for the well-being of a living person?

Its a question of what the government ought to do. To the milquetoast secular modern, the government only acts to protect property and the secruity of person. If however, the purpose of the government is to innoculate virtuous citizenry, then sex laws, drug laws, are all legitimate. Furthermore, the milquetoast secular modern can concieve of no cogent arguement to prevent me from imposing my ideal government upon them; so rotten and weak are they from their own sophistry.

the answer is that in order to live animals must see their death.

now, critically, it is a stupid law. you can fuck whatever as long as it's not me.

why can i legally slit a cows throat, eats its flesh, turn its hide into leather, but not fuck it?

>why it's wrong?
because you need consent
>what if you have consent?
you can't, it's illegal
>why it's illegal?
because it's wrong

Rinse, repeat.

Blame moral reasoning.

Everything is permissible.

>>1769922

what if you have consent, and it isn't illegal?

didn't mean to rain on your little parade there

I should have the right to let people fuck my dead body.

>Why is necrophilia illegal?
It loses its impact if not reserved for special occasions, such as the photos of Bin Laden's body probably.

>>1769926
Then you could legally fuck dead people?

>>1769933
You can't do that, stupid. The dead people might become pregnant and give birth to dead babies. Imagine that.

>>1769951
It's when the zombie babies themselves start reproducing that you start to see the genetic consequences of necrophilia.

It is illegal for the same reason rape is, because the intercourse performed has only one persons consent. For it to be legal they must be over 16 and both have consented to it. Forcing a dead person to have sex is pretty simillar to rape.

the amount of retardation in this thread demonstrates the need for philosophy. i mean goddamn

For the same reason that homosexuality was considered wrong: most people are too dumb to distinguish "eww" from "evil". If you own the body, it's definitely not a problem. Having sex with other people's cadaverous property might be a minor offense.

>Have a funny grammatical joke
>go to say it to my /b/ro
>Oh, wait, they are retarded
>other boards I usually go to won't give a fuck.
>Let's have a look at /lit/, it may make some of them giggle.
>Wait, what's this on the first page, a necrophiliac thread? Yay, I feel like on /b/!
My first time on /lit/

Also, let's say I live in a place/state/country where necrophilia isn't illegal. I could have a "please be free to fuck my dead arsehole" card, right?
And what about a "I give my body to doctors and people who may need my body parts, to /sci/ence because science is cool, and to coo/ck/ers who may want to eat human meat" card?

>>1770024
A dead body isn't a person. When you fap, does your hand actually say that it's OK? No. Well, it is a rape then, following your argumentation.

I'm willing to venture it's because the majority of people are naturally repulsed by rotten things in addition to the fact that we still extend our affections to the dead out of love and it would be traumatic. Yes, there's an eww and evil confusion, but I'm willing to let the law stand unchallenged because of the beauty of the second sentiment. Sure, my argument, or the sentiments I'm arguing for for that matter, aren't entirely rational -- but we're not purely rational beings. Sure, there are cases were fucking a corpse wouldn't be traumatic to the family of the person, but there's always the chance for mistakes, and better we deny a small slice of the population for one of the nobler common traits.

>>1769863
I dont see why not, except for it would probably encourage murder....yeah thats probably it....the depravity involved in fucking a corpse would inevitably lead to a complete collapse of morals in the necrophilliac, who would then go out and murder more peop;e

A dead body is an inanimate object. You don't need the consent of an inanimate object to fuck it.

Otherwise the company making fleshlights would go out of business.

>>1770139
Pussy.

>>1770151
>he depravity involved in fucking a corpse would inevitably lead to a complete collapse of morals in the necrophilliac, who would then go out and murder more peop;e
>mfw

>>1770168
At least I'm not a fag.

Can you imagine what it would be like sucking a 72 year old woman's pussy?!

>>1770220
you know, I think most people would agree that's not appealing alive or dead

I mean, if tits sag...

This is why people get cremated.

>>1770248
There's always the chance that you get the fucked up morgue attendant who hasn't been caught yet

I mean really, once decay has really set in, the chance that someone will get all frisky really goes down. Unless they have a thing for lepers or something

Sex without consent.

what's with this consent nonsense.

>>1770291
It's not sex, it's masturbation.

You can't rape someone who is dead you retards

>>1770294
If you are an physical and emotional adult who is of sound mind and is not inebriated and you agree to do something then it is consent.

One time I was reading about some woman who'd been arrested for necrophilia and I assumed she'd be mad ugly but then here's a picture and whuuuuuuut? She's young and hot and fucking corpses.
U GO GIRL!

>>1770327
Maybe it was like in that movie Clerks

>>1770318
yea but you can't say that when you are ded.

WELL, IF YOU'RE FUCKING A DEAD BODY, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT HAS DIED FROM SUSPICIOUS CAUSES, DO YOU THINK THINGS LIKE DEPOSITS OF YOUR FUCKING SPERM AND SALIVA ARE GOING TO DO YOU WONDERS?

SORRY POLICE, JUST I 'FOUND' THIS DEAD WOMAN IN MY HOUSE YOU SEE, AND WELL, SINCE SHE JUST HAPPENED TO ALREADY HAVE BEEN STRANGLED AND STUFF, I JUST THOUGHT I'D FUCK HER BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE SHE CAN SAY NO, RIGHT?

>>1770327
It should be very hard being a necrophiliac woman, even harder than being a rapist woman. And when I say harder, I'm talking about the erection thingy.

/lit/ is clearly the smartest board on 4chan

>>1770327
>>1770327
>>1770327

hahahahaha oh man. you made my night.

>>1770481
see
>>1770332

No matter what you're going to have to either get burned to smithereens or put under the ground to rot. In comparison to that, posthumous sex sounds like a good deal.

Can you will a fuck to someone and have your lawyer follow up on it? (if only)

Move to Wisconsin, OP:

http://www.huliq.com/34426/us-states-lack-laws-explicitly-outlawing-necrophilia

In other words, it's one of those things that was considered so rare---like lesbianism in Victorian England---that in many places specific laws were never placed on the books.

The problem here is that necrophilia---like the music of Schoenberg or libertarianism---is never going to be anything other than a minority taste: the average person will never view it with anything other than bewilderment and disgust.

It's not the only nonsensical legal issue related to death, though. In most jurisdictions suicide is still on the books as a felony that you can never be prosecuted for if you're successful in committing it.

>>1770624
I am doing none of those things I am donating my entire body to science.

>>1770673
Oops, meant to say, SCIENCE!

>>1769733
i lol'd IRL when I saw OP pic. I'm sure you have good intentions.

Do you want someone fucking your grandmas corpse?

>>1770724
Well, when you put it that way... YES!

bump

bump

>>1771486
lmao that was a funny story

1. There are certain ways we think corpses should be treated that have always existed as part of the moral framework.
2. Irrumatio is traditionally seen as a way of subjugating another.

>>1771519
Waht story?

>>1771486
god damn it

>>1771519
>funny story
heartless bastard detected

so sad

>>1771536
she got killt

>>1770625
>In most jurisdictions suicide is still on the books as a felony

Lol how retarded. Couldn't you just drop the charges against yourself if you survive? Or just, you know, lie about it being a suicide attempt (a little tricky if you left a note, though)

>>1771545

>>1771536
you don't want to know, anon. that was the day /b/ went too far.

>>1770724

My grandma donated her body to science. Then they gave us the stuff that was left a few years later, which was then burn to smithereens, then disposed of in a questionable manner by an unscrupulous undertaker.

Honestly, at a certain point I think it helps to consider people dead and not fret so much about what happens to the remains.

>>1770151
>>1770151
>>1770151
>>1770151
>>1770151
>>1770151
still this

>>1771563
The issue with necrophilia is not what happens to the corpse, but why the individual is doing that to the corpse.

>>1771562
But I do want to know. This is /lit/, we want stories. So tell us more. Unless you're troll or a samefag.

www.libertarism.com

>>1771486
what happened goddammit

>>1771757
you don't want to know man.

seriously.

go on with your life.

>>1771600

privatize all morgues

>>1771764
you don't know either, eh?

>>1771767
GTFO the ghost of Ayn Rand.

You ask why we honor our dead not just in spirit but also in their physical remains (meaning that those should not be harmed)?

Even in the earliest forms of society people had a cult about the deceased (usually those of their own kin), probably the first religion came from it. It probably is also a root of monogamy in so far that people needed to be certain of their lineage (which you can not be sure about in polygamy, at least from the fathers side). Dishonoring the dead (especially in times of conflict) happened fairly often, but only to hurt the fallen enemies and their families even more. See the tragedy of Antigone for example. Mutilation meant that those people were also mutilated in their afterlife. Inproper burial doomed the souls of the deceased. Sexual intercourse with fallen enemies happend on ancient battle fields far more often than even back then society would and could admit. It was a form of fetishizing the fallen opponent and the victory over him. Genitalia were cut off for trophy.

Necrophilia, besides being a mental condition and unhygienic, means dishonoring the dead. People don't react well to that.

THATS WHY YOU DON'T GET TO FUCK THEM, YOU SILLY ASSHAT!

>>1771486
her eyes change between the pictures...

>>1771819
Don't know, man. I've heard about some cultures who ate their dead or do some awful things to them, by our 'modern' standards.
I don't have to remind you that things that we accept today as normal, only a few decades ago were considered psychotic or unhygienic and so on. Like sodomy, for example.
Moral standards change quickly.

you guys seriously think this will ever be legal:

you get to take home the cold dead human body of a woman to do as you wish with.

including to mutilate, fuck, eat or whatever else you want

>implying you wouldnt get murdered by someone else for even trying this

>implying I wouldnt personally hunt you down and torture your living body

>implying I wouldnt enjoy the sick hypocrisy of it

>implying I dont know how many times I have used implying

I think I made my point

>>1771995
I would literally hunt you down for hunting that person down, and tghen I would eat you alive while you watched

>>1771995
People like you are the ones who persecuted negroes, jews and homosexuals just because they couldn't cope with idea that people are different.

>>1771995
I like your style guy

>>1771995
It's more than just hypocrisy, you see, because you are the scumbag who's actually harming a living person