• Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal' according to youth branch of Swedish Liberal People's Party
    412 replies, posted
Considering Necrophilia requires the person to be dead, wouldn't most necrophilia's generally have to be murderers or corpse thieves as well? That's really the only way you're going to actually act upon the fantasy, outside of art. But Gore porn =/= literally acting upon it there is really no way you're going to find anyone else to consent to it unless its preplanned. So you'd have to either strike lucky with something that accepts it pre-death, find a corpse or kill someone and do it that one. This is assuming they wish to commit it. It totally excludes people who only 'use' the art. The easiest way that someone can act upon it is through murder or corpse theft. Incest is one thing, but acting upon necrophilia pretty much requires someone to be mentally out of it.
Sometimes I think I am a degenerate until I see shit like this and realize I am a upstanding citizen compared to disgusting fucks like necrophiliacs. If you seriously legalize shit like necrophilia you will know humanity has failed as a civilization and we might as all well being living in caves and acting like primitive sexually fueled savages again.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';49890178]Sometimes I think I am a degenerate until I see shit like this and realize I am a upstanding citizen compared to disgusting fucks like necrophiliacs. If you seriously legalize shit like necrophilia you will know humanity has failed as a civilization and we might as all well being living in caves and acting like primitive sexually fueled savages again.[/QUOTE] Humanity has failed as a civilization from the moment it begun criminalizing mutually consensual behavior between adults. As I said before, what you or I think of incest and necrophilia is irrelevant: it is their bodies, and they can decide what to do with them. For incest, the birth defect argument fails because carriers of genetic diseases are free to have sex with who they want, and their 'threat' to the gene pool is greater than incest could ever be. To forbid them from having control over their own bodies is to embrace eugenics. For necrophilia, the personal health argument falls flat on its feet. I can smoke fifty packets of cigarettes and I can jump off a bridge, and they are both legal. People should be free to make their own choices about their health and body, even after death. Almost every 'argument' in this thread can be copy-pasted to argue against homosexuality and premarital sex, but I don't see anybody in Facepunch in a hurry to ban those.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49890406]Humanity has failed as a civilization from the moment it begun criminalizing mutually consensual behavior between adults. As I said before, what you or I think of incest and necrophilia is irrelevant: it is their bodies, and they can decide what to do with them. For incest, the birth defect argument fails because carriers of genetic diseases are free to have sex with who they want, and their 'threat' to the gene pool is greater than incest could ever be. To forbid them from having control over their own bodies is to embrace eugenics. For necrophilia, the personal health argument falls flat on its feet. I can smoke fifty packets of cigarettes and I can jump off a bridge, and they are both legal. People should be free to make their own choices about their health and body, even after death. Almost every 'argument' in this thread can be copy-pasted to argue against homosexuality and premarital sex, but I don't see anybody in Facepunch in a hurry to ban those.[/QUOTE] Did you actually just compare homosexuality arguments to necrophilia, lmao. Even people who wish gays would burn alive understand that necrophilia and homosexuality are hugely different. How does the argument that it can result in massive genetic disorders apply to homosexuality how does the argument that one of the biggest ways to actually act upon necrophilia is through murder or corpse theft apply to homosexuality or pre-marital sex -snipping- my arguments about necrophilia because it's not really worth arguing about it tbh, but please don't [I]actually [/I]compare it to homosexuality, that's just an extremely shitty thing to do :v:
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49885762]In a society without contraceptives and abortions incest should be wrong but give me a reason for why it should be banned in this modern age. You wanting it banned because you think its gross is just as silly as conservatives wanting interracial marriage and gay marriage banned for thinking those are gross.[/QUOTE] And for necrophilia its your corpse man. Do whatever you want with it. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("What the fuck" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
I'm sure dead bodies are perfectly capable of consenting. Yep. how are you going to regulate how people consents before they die though? when they actually can consent? [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] like, people are saying "do whatever you want with it", but that literally makes no sense how the hell could you prevent it being legal from being massively exploited :v:
[QUOTE=J!NX;49890510]I'm sure dead bodies are perfectly capable of consenting. Yep.[/QUOTE] Obviously before they die and obviously in the will.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49885762]In a society without contraceptives and abortions incest should be wrong but give me a reason for why it should be banned in this modern age. You wanting it banned because you think its gross is just as silly as conservatives wanting interracial marriage and gay marriage banned for thinking those are gross.[/QUOTE] Uh, if there's corpses they need to be dealt with. In order for a person to die, some accident had to have occurred which generally means that it shouldn't be tampered with at all. To not say anything about a corpse and instead to use it for personal means is to not only be incredibly selfish, but incredibly reckless. And I'm sure it's unsanitary.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49890406]Humanity has failed as a civilization from the moment it begun criminalizing mutually consensual behavior between adults. [/QUOTE] Huh, well I guess the good news is we never really failed because we never succeeded to begin with.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49890406]Humanity has failed as a civilization from the moment it begun criminalizing mutually consensual behavior between adults. As I said before, what you or I think of incest and necrophilia is irrelevant: it is their bodies, and they can decide what to do with them. For incest, the birth defect argument fails because carriers of genetic diseases are free to have sex with who they want, and their 'threat' to the gene pool is greater than incest could ever be. To forbid them from having control over their own bodies is to embrace eugenics. For necrophilia, the personal health argument falls flat on its feet. I can smoke fifty packets of cigarettes and I can jump off a bridge, and they are both legal. People should be free to make their own choices about their health and body, even after death. Almost every 'argument' in this thread can be copy-pasted to argue against homosexuality and premarital sex, but I don't see anybody in Facepunch in a hurry to ban those.[/QUOTE] You are fucking stupid and crazy that's my argument. Maybe you belong in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie so you can fuck corpses maybe finger your mom a little bit.
Considering he thinks society has somehow failed because people can't fuck dead bodies he probably is a necrophiliac himself [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] I mean it's just like homosexuality right? haha, totally the same thing
[QUOTE=BenJammin';49890814]You are fucking stupid and crazy that's my argument. Maybe you belong in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie so you can fuck corpses maybe finger your mom a little bit.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=J!NX;49890816]Considering he thinks society has somehow failed because people can't fuck dead bodies he probably is a necrophiliac himself [editline]8th March 2016[/editline] I mean it's just like homosexuality right? haha, totally the same thing[/QUOTE] Oh good, ad hominem. That's a nice way to start the day. I said before that I find incest as disgusting as the next guy. But that should be [B]IRRELEVANT[/B] to legislation. There are a lot of things that I find disgusting, but you don't see me campaigning to ban them, because what people do with their own bodies is not any of my business (or yours). If two consenting adults want to have sex, then that is their own decision - they did not ask me, you or anyone else for permission. [B]That[/B] is how it is similar to homosexuality: both are agreements between consenting adults, and we have no right to interfere with them, as we are not affected by what they do in their own bed. The same is the case for necrophilia. Me, you and most of the world may be nauseated by the idea, but it is not our place to tell anyone what they should do with their bodies after death. It does not affect you or me, therefore our opinions are irrelevant.
a rotting corpse is a hotbed for disease and a health hazard. how are people thinking that doesnt affect anyone?
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49890879]Oh good, ad hominem. That's a nice way to start the day. I said before that I find incest as disgusting as the next guy. But that should be [B]IRRELEVANT[/B] to legislation. There are a lot of things that I find disgusting, but you don't see me campaigning to ban them, because what people do with their own bodies is not any of my business (or yours). If two consenting adults want to have sex, then that is their own decision - they did not ask me, you or anyone else for permission. [B]That[/B] is how it is similar to homosexuality: both are agreements between consenting adults, and we have no right to interfere with them, as we are not affected by what they do in their own bed. The same is the case for necrophilia. Me, you and most of the world may be nauseated by the idea, but it is not our place to tell anyone what they should do with their bodies after death. It does not affect you or me, therefore our opinions are irrelevant.[/QUOTE] In most cases I would agree with you, morality should not effect legislation, but a line has to be drawn and responsibility has to be taken to uphold a society based on decency. Homosexuality isn't a niche fetish dominated by sick fucks who are potentially violent and harmful to society. Homosexuality is something lots of normal people are born with, which is why people were fighting for gay rights in America. Obviously I am excluding incest, because I know a lot of people have that fetish. And it's weird, and I still think it should be illegal, but I don't think incest is inherently fucked up as fucking necrophilia. Sure incest is pretty taboo, but I don't feel strongly in opposition to someone who has that fetish. I personally feel people who are as far left-field as having necrophiliac tendencies and even go as far and knowingly breaking laws to commit their sexual acts are an inherent problem to society. We should not be condoning and supporting things that lead further down the path of mental health deterioration, because that is already a problem humans face on a large scale already.
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49890898]a rotting corpse is a hotbed for disease and a health hazard. how are people thinking that doesnt affect anyone?[/QUOTE] It affects the persons involved, not the rest. That argument could be used for banning a LOT of things, and you can't nitpick which health hazards you like and which you don't. Also, as someone who has worked with cadavers (eugh) as part of my medical training, they can be properly preserved so they are not a health hazard. It's the reason we can study anatomy without worrying about diseases. In anatomy, the concern was not that we would be contaminated by the cadaver, it was that we would contaminate [I]it[/I]. [QUOTE=BenJammin';49890906]In most cases I would agree with you, morality should not effect legislation, but a line has to be drawn and responsibility has to be taken to uphold a society based on decency. Homosexuality isn't a niche fetish dominated by sick fucks who are potentially violent and harmful to society. Homosexuality is something lots of normal people are born with, which is why people were fighting for gay rights in America. Obviously I am excluding incest, because I know a lot of people have that fetish. And it's weird, and I still think it should be illegal.[/QUOTE] You can draw that line anywhere, and it will still be arbitrary and amount to nothing more than enforcing your own/the majority's subjective morality on people who do not agree, and do not hurt anyone with their actions. 'Weird' is not an argument for banning something. If these 'sick fucks' get violent, then the law already covers that, since violence is illegal. Using 'decency' as an argument is the same slippery slope, and precisely why I compare these to homosexuality. Take this line: "In most cases I would agree with you, morality should not effect legislation, but a line has to be drawn and responsibility has to be taken to uphold a society based on decency." And tell me that, if read out of context, it could not be used to justify [I]any[/I] ban, be that on homosexuality or on wearing socks with sandals.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49890937]It affects the persons involved, not the rest. That argument could be used for banning a LOT of things, and you can't nitpick which health hazards you like and which you don't. Also, as someone who has worked with cadavers (eugh) as part of my medical training, they can be properly preserved so they are not a health hazard. It's the reason we can study anatomy without worrying about diseases. In anatomy, the concern was not that we would be contaminated by the cadaver, it was that we would contaminate [I]it[/I]. [/QUOTE] uh no dude if im living ewith somebody and they decide to keep a corpse around the hosue you can be sure as fuck thats unsanitary and poses a health risk to me. and yeah, you can pick and choose which hazards to like and dislike people do it everday and corpse fucking is a pretty good hazard to dislike
I'm not going to make this about necro/incest, instead I'll make it about why your comparison should be laughed at, and why The biggest difference is that homosexuality it purely a matter of gender and nothing else. It completely overlaps necro-incest-pedo-whatever because it's ONLY about gender. It isn't a specific set of rules like a fetish. It's not involving a corpse, or anything else. It's involving two people, just like normal sex does. Homosexuality doesn't carry the huge moral weight does, but of course, I agree that morality shouldn't be in play either, and this isn't about morality, it's about practicality and everything else. Homosexuality doesn't carry the same arguments that incest or necrophilia does, such as "Where is the line drawn", "What about children that stem from it". Homosexuality, unlike necrophilia, isn't carried out by people who would likely try to manipulate someone into doing it, or force them into it. Homosexuality can't create children born with horrible defects. Yes, other things can, like incest as well, but that's not about those. I won't talk about that anyways either way. I'd rather talk about necro. Homosexuality is literally nothing more than boys liking boys and girls liking girls. There are no parameters outside of that. I agree that in terms of both having consenting adults involved, but there are so many reasons why they shouldn't be compared, that comparing them kind of insults the entire gay community, and in a pretty shitty way too. It also insults interracial couples to say that it's similar to incest. There are so many differences that using it as an argument is just a massive strawman. as for necro [QUOTE=J!NX;49889697]Considering Necrophilia requires the person to be dead, wouldn't most necrophilia's generally have to be murderers or corpse thieves as well? That's really the only way you're going to actually act upon the fantasy, outside of art. But Gore porn =/= literally acting upon it there is really no way you're going to find anyone else to consent to it unless its preplanned. So you'd have to either strike lucky with something that accepts it pre-death, find a corpse or kill someone and do it that one. This is assuming they wish to commit it. It totally excludes people who only 'use' the art. The easiest way that someone can act upon it is through murder or corpse theft. Incest is one thing, but acting upon necrophilia pretty much requires someone to be mentally out of it.[/QUOTE] I've already made my point here. That's an opinion I'm not capable of changing. But hey, if you think that necrophilia could be regulated, you can think that. I think it's an awful thing to agree with though. I think that the entire "It's actually just that I don't think morals should come into play for laws" is nothing more wall to hide behind.
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49890898]a rotting corpse is a hotbed for disease and a health hazard. how are people thinking that doesnt affect anyone?[/QUOTE] Who does it affect other than the weirdo fucking the corpse? If you think personal safety should be reason for legislation, that's fine, but it isn't consistent with current laws. There are plenty of legal activities which could result in disease or death but a line has been drawn based on emotion or morals, I don't think either have a place in what should be an objective system of law.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49890963]Who does it affect other than the weirdo fucking the corpse? If you think personal safety should be reason for legislation, that's fine, but it isn't consistent with current laws. There are plenty of legal activities which could result in disease or death but a line has been drawn based on emotion or morals, I don't think either have a place in what should be an objective system of law.[/QUOTE] how do you not realize how a corpse would pose a health risk to people who arent actively fucking it? would you keep roadkill you find in your bed or on your couch?
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49890971]how do you not realize how a corpse would pose a health risk to people who arent actively fucking it? would you keep roadkill you find in your bed or on your couch?[/QUOTE] I mean, technically the person bedding with the corpse could spread the disease afterwards not only that but when you factor insects/flies into it if they don't actually properly care for it
dont forget the fact that its also fucking decomposing and leaking all sorts of nasty shit. sometimes literal shit.
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;49890937]It affects the persons involved, not the rest. That argument could be used for banning a LOT of things, and you can't nitpick which health hazards you like and which you don't. Also, as someone who has worked with cadavers (eugh) as part of my medical training, they can be properly preserved so they are not a health hazard. It's the reason we can study anatomy without worrying about diseases. In anatomy, the concern was not that we would be contaminated by the cadaver, it was that we would contaminate [I]it[/I]. You can draw that line anywhere, and it will still be arbitrary and amount to nothing more than enforcing your own/the majority's subjective morality on people who do not agree, and do not hurt anyone with their actions. 'Weird' is not an argument for banning something. If these 'sick fucks' get violent, then the law already covers that, since violence is illegal. Using 'decency' as an argument is the same slippery slope, and precisely why I compare these to homosexuality. Take this line: "In most cases I would agree with you, morality should not effect legislation, but a line has to be drawn and responsibility has to be taken to uphold a society based on decency." And tell me that, if read out of context, it could not be used to justify [I]any[/I] ban, be that on homosexuality or on wearing socks with sandals.[/QUOTE] Necrophilia doesn't hurt people? Who fucking condones their own or someone else's corpse to be fucked? If that is even a thing it's such a tiny minority. It's a "slippery slope" when you have been fucking peoples corpses. And yeah if read out of context it can used to justify any ban, but that's not the way shit happens. Well it does happen but we are talking about two different things here. A moral line has to be drawn somewhere, and in America a moral line is sometimes drawn in areas that are illogical and fucking stupid, usually based on religious morality. But are you seriously telling me it's illogical to make necrophilia illegal? You talk about subjective morality, but all morality is subjective. That doesn't mean we should cater to a small group of people who are statistically mentally unhealthy.
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49890986]dont forget the fact that its also fucking decomposing and leaking all sorts of nasty shit. sometimes literal shit.[/QUOTE] I would assume that the person bedding with it would at least try to take care of it but I mean if you're into that I'm not sure hygiene is a thing for you
corpses smell repungent. a distinct repungent smell that sticks to shit too. nobody wants that.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49890963]Who does it affect other than the weirdo fucking the corpse? If you think personal safety should be reason for legislation, that's fine, but it isn't consistent with current laws. There are plenty of legal activities which could result in disease or death but a line has been drawn based on emotion or morals, I don't think either have a place in what should be an objective system of law.[/QUOTE] the only objective laws are natural laws. all other laws are derived from the morality of the culture making the laws.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49890963]Who does it affect other than the weirdo fucking the corpse? If you think personal safety should be reason for legislation, that's fine, but it isn't consistent with current laws. There are plenty of legal activities which could result in disease or death but a line has been drawn based on emotion or morals, I don't think either have a place in what should be an objective system of law.[/QUOTE] You could try to regulate necrophilia but then i'd argue that it's simply not worth it. There's plenty of things to consider besides legalizing the act itself and it would be of very little benefit to any real amount of people. Incest is a different case altogether because there's generally no harm if it's a relation between two consenting adults, genetic defects would become apparent only after a few generations and it's not that much riskier than old people having babies. Most importantly, it's going to happen regardless of the legal status of it, it's an unenforceable law with no real effect.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49890990]I would assume that the person bedding with it would at least try to take care of it but I mean if you're into that I'm not sure hygiene is a thing for you[/QUOTE] bloating and gass. how do you take care of that? swelling and maggots? sure, the person into it might not care about hygient but my point is that its a hazard to other people
i can easily sleep at night knowing i am oppressing corpsefuckers by opposing legalizing necrophilia
[QUOTE=Nautsabes;49891004]bloating and gass. how do you take care of that? swelling and maggots? sure, the person into it might not care about hygient but my point is that its a hazard to other people[/QUOTE] I work in a butchery, all I do is clean animal flesh off of machines and floors, and freezers, and literally everywhere. I can only clean so much, no matter how had you wash blood off, you're [B]going [/B]to miss some of it. Obviously this is different, and properly processing meat is extremely sanitary. It also ONLY involves animal meat and fat, not organs, etc. Stations are washed with huge amounts of soap every day. Very different, but it's still flesh. but... unless the person is cleaning their 'station' like fucking crazy like a butchery will, and cleaning it using quality grade bleach, degreaser and sanitizer there is literally nothing they can do assuming the person consents to their body being used as much as possible. Even freezing the corpse would only last so much. Meat that's frozen still rots, in fact, you have to scrub it off of the fucking floor, and it can turn black. If you're sanitary you won't have to deal with insects so much as rot. But with a decomposing body you're pretty limited. There's a point in where the "it only effects the bedder" argument stops being an argument and starts becoming another bullshit reason. also, please don't arrest me for talking about bodies like that, I clean animal meat not people meat :v:
if somebody is really wanting to get dirty with a dead body in our culture there is something severely wrong with them mentally and they need help, this is why necrophilia is illegal. i dunno if i would send someone to jail for it if they're, like, caught in a morgue, but psychiactric care should be mandatory.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.