The Instigator
darkcomedy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Necrophilia should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,603 times Debate No: 21724
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

darkcomedy

Pro

I say that necrophilia (The attraction to and/or making love to corpses) should be legalized. Furthermore, I say that people should have a right to leave their own bodies to love as easily as they could science, cremation, or a burial.
ConservativePolitico

Con

Problems With Necrophilia

1) Desecration of the Dead

- Necrophilia is extremely disrespectful for the dead. In a traditional sense bodies (barring an autopsy or suspicious reason for death) go straight from a short stay in the morgue to a funeral home for care and then burial. Bodies spend very little time in transit from the place of death to burial and this is for a couple of reasons: sanitation and respect. If one were to "donate" their body to "love" as you put it you would have to get consent from the family of the deceased before engaging in such a vile practice. Also, necrophilia has nothing to do with love but is grounded completely in sexual desire. If you truly loved the deceased you would give them a decent burial and let them rest.

2) Unsanitary
- Necrophilia would be extremely unsanitary. Bodies are buried or burned for one main reason: they begin to decay. Bodies begin to decay quite quickly. Once the heart stops beating the body's cells die quickly, usually within 24 hours. [1] At this point you would then by "making love" to rotten meat. This unlocks a whole range of health concerns from disease, decay and the spreading of such unfavorable conditions.

3) Consent
- When engaging in sexual activities you must gain consent from the other person or else it is considered rape. In this case a dead body cannot give consent and therefore should not be allowed to engage in sexual activity. In the very best of cases this consent could be given to the family and direct relations of the deceased but I don't think that this practice would be very popular amongst the grieving.

4) Sexual Laws

- It would not be difficult to keep necrophilia grouped with other sexual laws such as no sex before 18, no sex without consent etc. These laws are in place for a reason and necrophilia is grouped in with such laws on purpose. Other sexual laws exist to protect people from being taken advantage of and unfavorable or disrespectful sexual practice and necrophilia is all of these things.

5) Donating to Science vs. "Love"

- You distastefully compare donating your body to "love" to donating your body to science but there are very key differences between the two practices. When someone donates their body to science is it generally felt that their body will be put to use to benefit the common good and to further learning and understanding about human science. However, when donating your body to "love" you are benefiting no one except the person who wishes to make love to your rotting corpse. The two are completely different. Families of people donating their bodies to science are accepting of this fact and usually proud where as I don't think any mother or son wants to think about their loved ones rotting flesh being used a sex toy for perverts. Sorry to put that so harshly but that is how it is conceived by the masses.

In conclusion:

- It is disrespectful and offensive
- Necrophilia is unsanitary due to the nature of rotting flesh
- Bodies cannot give consent
- This is in line with other sexual laws

Necrophilia should stay blessedly illegal.

Thank you.
[1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 1
darkcomedy

Pro

1. RE: Desecration of the dead.
"Necrophilia is extremely disrespectful to the dead."
An honest opinion, but flawed. Some may find the act disrespectful and some may not. The important thing to remember is that the subject itself WILL NEVER feel such as all cognitive ability will have diminished. Only the living will care, and certainly not the perpetrator. Your statement would be more accurate if it were phrased:
"Necrophilia is extremely disrespectful to the family's and friends of the dead."
But now we are entering a flimsy hypothetical scenario where legality rests atop the opinions of peoples who are not, quite frankly, directly involved in the situation at hand. But it is not my intention to dispatch of straw men so I will end this section by redirecting your own argument. The main idea here seems to be that if something is disrespectful, it should be illegal. Referring to a necrophilia as a "vile practice" could be considered disrespectful to the living half of the affair, and by no means would we see that as grounds for censorship, which is strange since when compared with your assertion, ours can actually care.

2. Unsanitary
"Necrophilia would be extremely unsanitary."
There are many types of unsafe sex, necrophilia is one of them. Though just like the others, protection and cleanliness should be advised. Still, it's hardly a reason to banish it.
"Bodies are buried or burned for one main reason: they begin to decay. "
This statement is just plain incorrect. Burial is a ritual perpetuated through history. There are many reasons one may bury someone, they vary from religious beliefs, to practical ones.
Yes, sanitation may be one of them. But human burial was around far longer than health regulations.
The same can be said of cremation.
You also mention the dangers of someone "making love to rotten meat". Which, by the way, is perfectly legal to do. Just not rotten, human meat.

3. Consent
"When engaging in sexual activities you must gain consent from the other person or else it is considered rape."
Untrue. When engaging in such activities with living humans one needs consent. One does not need consent to fornicate with an animal, (Something legal in most states.) or an object. Dead humans do NOT have the same rights as their living counterparts, they lack any motor skills or thought processes. Even below that of most mentally deprived living animal on the planet. (Which you can have sex with.)
They are an object, forced to be food for maggots and worms, a fate no one alive with rights would want to be subjected to, and yet sex (An act not only necessary to the survival of our species but also a direct expression of personal love.) is somehow a violation.

4. Sexual Laws
"It would not be difficult to keep necrophilia grouped with other sexual laws such as no sex before 18, no sex without consent etc."
Of course it would not be difficult. The law is already in effect. This entire discussion is about whether or not it should be decriminalized.

5. Donating to Science vs. "Love"
"You distastefully compare donating your body to "love" to donating your body to science but there are very key differences between the two practices."
Ahem. I also compared it to the other alternatives. Donating your body to science could benefit the masses. But donating your body to the ground only benefits the insect masses and certainly not the whole population. There is no real need to debate this aspect as it is pretty much pointless. There are many legal things we can do that do not help society as a whole, but we can do them freely because we have FREEDOM.

In conclusion:

- Corpses have no sense of self-respect and cannot be offended.
- Necrophilia could possibly be performed with safety in mind.
- Bodies, like objects, cannot give consent.
- This is not in line with other sexual laws

Necrophilia should be legalized.
ConservativePolitico

Con

1.

Let me rephrase: "Necrophilia is extremely disrespectful to the family and friends of the dead in question."

Respect for the dead is something societally accepted by the vast majority of people. All of the major religions have respect for the dead and many have very specific practices that must be followed when burying someone. This act would not only disrespect the memory of the person it would offend nearly every major religion. This societal pressure and offense that would be generated by such a law would be wildly unpopular. While laws should not be withheld due to unpopularity, in such a case as this where the only benefit to society would be hedonism at the expense of major groups and popular opinion I say that there are grounds to keep such a practice illegal.

2.

Let me rephrase again for clarification: "Disposal of human bodies is done primarily for sanitation reasons."

And this does date back. In ancient times people disposed of bodies so they would not rot in the streets and spread disease. Now we must note I am not arguing for the "banishing" of necrophilia based soley on unsanitary conditions but in combination with a host of other reasons as well.

Corpses smell and can spread disease, in the name of public health alone corpses should not be allowed to circulate through the populace especially not in the name of sex.

I see no way around the fact that bodies decay quickly and pose a threat to public health by being allowed out of morgues and funeral homes.

3.

When a person dies their body is not left at the place of death for long, once a death has been discovered the body is claimed by the family, medical workers or the police. Once these bodies, which you have conceded do not have the same rights as the living, are taken in by one of these groups they essentially then become property for all intents and purposes. In order to take a body for sexual purposes you would have to approach the group in possession of the body and gain consent. That is what I meant by consent. There is no way you can graverob a body or steal one from the morgue to use as a sex toy, you would have to get consent from the group in possession of the body.

"and yet sex (An act not only necessary to the survival of our species but also a direct expression of personal love.) is somehow a violation."
Yes sex in this case, when using a body as a blow up doll, is a violation. A body cannot procreate so that blows that part out of the water outright. Now an expression of personal love varies from person to person but I can assure you, you already said this yourself, the body cannot feel and is none the wiser. Sex, unless you're talking about rape, is a two person act and when engaging in this activity with a corpse the love is a little onesided.

4.

And combination with the offense it would bring, the unhealthy conditions and the problem with consent and the pure hedonistic nature of the act I say it should remain criminal.

5.

Pro conceded this point to me. While donating a body to science benefits the masses, burying a person benefits the family and friends of the dead while necrophilia fuels only a short period of sexual desire.

The combination of all these reasons together builds a strong case against necrophilia.

Also, beastiality is actually a felony in many states. [1]

Here are some sources showing the sacredness of the dead and burial rights. [2] [3] [4]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.al-islam.org...
[4] http://www.jewishfederations.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
darkcomedy

Pro

1:

Before I began dismantling your arguments, I believe it might be best to look at the positive aspects of necrophilia, more specifically, their "societal benefits."

It could possibly lower the high sex crime rate.

According to the American Psychological Association, Men rape for 5 reasons.
They are, and I'm quoting: "
(1) disadvantaged men who resort
to rape, (2) "specialized" rapists who are sexually aroused by violent sex, (3) men who rape
opportunistically, (4) high-mating-effort men
who are dominant and often psychopathic, and
(5) partner rapists motivated by assessments of
increased risk of sperm competition."

Necrophilia could conceivably cut down on all but number 4 and 5.
The "Disadvantaged Men" are described as being physically undesirable, and so resort to rape as they cannot obtain mates through normal means. Necrophilia could help them by providing an outlet to satisfy this need, while the innocent living people do not have to suffer the emotional trauma that comes with being raped.
As for those turned on by the act of violent sex, well just give them a human carcass and let their fantasies run wild. Honestly it may sound a little sick, but wouldn't you rather it be a dead body than some innocent, living boy or girl?
And finally "men who rape opportunistically" Basically men who try to get with receptive women, are rejected, and then resort to rape. Well, there is no woman more guaranteed to be sexually receptive than a dead one.

Your statement in summary, says that necrophilia should be illegal because it offends/disrespects families and is "wildly unpopular". I say that that necrophilia has the potential to protect families from more serious trauma, and maybe, just maybe, save a life.

2 and 3.
"Disposal of human bodies is done primarily for sanitation reasons."
Alright, so maybe trashing human bodies is our janitorial responsibility. But even so, I never suggested that we totally disrupt this process. The majority of bodies would still be buried. In my original post, I suggested a fourth option alongside the traditional ones. That was that someone could willingly leave their body to be the object of someone else's love. (And yes, even fantasy.) Health issues could be met here. Perhaps they could even create a necrophiliac brothel, where bodies could be cleaned up to certain sanitation standards, kept in cold storage, etc. This also ties into your third section, where you mentioned possibly property violation. Those laws would not be undermined. But those guilty would only be charged with property damage and not necrophilia.

4. "And combination with the offense it would bring, the unhealthy conditions and the problem with consent and the pure hedonistic nature of the act I say it should remain criminal."
This was mere redundancy here. You retreat back to your offense and sanitation assertion from above.

5. "While donating a body to science benefits the masses, burying a person benefits the family and friends of the dead while necrophilia fuels only a short period of sexual desire." You claim I conceded this point to you, (I didn't, I merely pointed out that I was suggesting it be kept with the other alternatives INCLUDING donating to science. I also mentioned how burying bodies was just as ineffectual as to society as necrophilia.) As I have mentioned, their are possible benefits to it, and it is not purely to please a single individual.

[references: http://www.william-mckibbin.com...]
ConservativePolitico

Con

Higher Crime Rate

First off I want to say that I highly doubt that sex with a corpse is anything like sex with a living breathing woman. Now I don't know this for sure since the thought of sleeping with a corpse has never once crossed my mind but I think given the opportunity to have sex with a woman and have sex with a body I'd pick the woman. Keep that in mind because it is true for nearly everyone...

* Disadvantaged men: men who are disadvantaged resort to rape because it makes them feel powerful in an otherwise powerless situation. The point of rape is to give someone power over another person, now you don't get this power by raping a corpse. [1]

* Violent sex: again, with violent sex comes that feeling of power. Also the men like it when the women resist which is why they prefer violent sex over regular sex. You don't get any resistance from a corpse.

* Raping for opportunity, mating and competition: there is a large argument out there that rape is just the natural instinct to mate, have kids, compete etc. [2] but again we see that all of these reason stem from natural feelings. Corpses cannot bear children, they can't increase opportunities and they can't compete in the sexual arena. So what would be the point? There is none.

As we can see, rape and violent sex usually comes from natural urges and the feelings that come from natural sex with living beings, from feeling powerful and trying to potentially reproduce. Corpses give none of these things and the urge to have sex with corpses is not natural therefore I can see no reason as to why legalizing necrophilia will reduce sexual crime by any means.

Necrophiliac Brothels

Your next argument derives from the idea of a corpse based brothel but there are quite a few things wrong with your argument here.

* Sanitation: you have given no definitive ways to increase body sanitation after death save for "cold storage". Now cold storage usually works for short periods and only because the bodies aren't handled by people. These bodies would be continuously in and out of the freezer being thawed and re-chilled while being handled by people in a sexual nature. I fail to see the sanitation in this.

Also you never said how the actual sexual intercourse with a rotting corpse could be safely done and how that transfers between living sexual partners after sleeping with a corpse. These are all things that have gone unanswered and may prove to be serious health issues with the practice.

* Prostitution is illegal: paying for sex in brothels with living partners is illegal so why should it be legal for dead partners? The idea of paying for sexual acts with bodies of the deceased is even worse than the thought of actual prostitution. You've combined two illegal acts into one and have tried to sell it as a legal product. Necrophilia is illegal, prostitution is illegal so how can the two go together and be legal? That's like saying rape is okay if you murder the victim afterwards. This actually would be worse than actual prostitution.

Donating

With your corpse brothel idea busted open and sanitation questions left disturbingly unanswered I still fail to see 1) how donating your body to "love" after death benefits more than one person's sick sexual desires and 2) how that can even be remotely related to donating your body to science. You have merely circumnavigated this point throughout the debate.

I say the two (science and "love") cannot be compared and have given reasons as to why this practice is illegal and should stay that way but you have not given a solid response.

Necrophilia is gross, disrespectful and has far too many unanswered questions to be made legal.

The burden of proof was on Pro and I fail to see how he carried the burden to this point.

In light of all this, please Vote Con.

Thank you.

[1] http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu...
[2] http://iranscope.ghandchi.com...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by skylergurl22 2 years ago
skylergurl22
i think im going to throw up
Posted by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
A dead partner fails to give the energy that can invigorate his/her man, the impulse and drive.:)
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Major WTF to this debate, haha.
Posted by LeoL 2 years ago
LeoL
Lol wtf
Posted by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Why thank you... once it dies feel free to make love to it.
Posted by Greyparrot 2 years ago
Greyparrot
Beautiful debate guys.
Posted by Phoenix.Wright 2 years ago
Phoenix.Wright
first homosexuality and now this?! This is disgusting....
Posted by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
I haven't seen one of these for a while. Nice change of pace.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 2 years ago
DakotaKrafick
While I don't necessarily agree with necrophilia, Con gave some very easily-refuttable arguments.
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
Well this certainly will be an interesting debate. If a tad bit disturbing, but interesting none-the-less.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
darkcomedyConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro moved the debate to interesting frontiers but failed to prove his point. The issue with violation and disrespect to the dead proved mildly interesting until Con discussed how disrespectful to the families and friend. Moreover, Pro's point about benefiting the insect masses, decreasing crime rates, and so forth were shown false...especially since Con showed that necrophilia would not necessarily satisfy the powerful urges that drive rape and so forth. An interesting debate, indeed, I say....
Vote Placed by Yep 2 years ago
Yep
darkcomedyConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't uphold BOP Con upheld refutations, clean extensions on con case.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
darkcomedyConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con gave numerous great arguments for why necrophilia should remain illegal, and the pro in my opinion did not provide convincing arguments against those points. arguments to the con, sources to the con