The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Necrophilia should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
RMTheSupreme has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 112803
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I've done a couple of debates like this before, but it's been several months since the last one, so I thought I'd try it again.

I strongly believe that necrophilia ought to be legal. I will admit, I am a necrophiliac, so I am somewhat biased regarding this subject. I've heard the arguments against the legalization of necrophilia, and I've heard the proposed solutions to the problems. I'm going to expound upon what I believe to be the ideal system in which to practice necrophilia.

begin with, allow people the option to leave their body to necrophilia. Once someone has decided to leave their body to necrophilia, they receive a form to fill out, further specifying what they’re okay with concerning their body’s exact usage (for example, some people might be perfectly fine with having someone make love to their body, but not with having someone mutilate it). Then, when the person dies, their body is sent to a facility where it’s checked for diseases that could potentially be transferred to the living and properly cared for. The body is then put into an online database (kind of like online dating for necrophiliacs), including the information from the form that the deceased filled out, the results of the tests to check for diseases (which means that it’s informed consent for the necrophiliacs) and a current photograph (because we want to know how long our prospective lovers have been dead, regardless of whether we like them fresh or not so fresh). When a necrophiliac finds a body that suits their needs and preferences, it’s transported to them. Once they’re done with it, the body is returned to the facility (assuming it’s in any shape to be reused), checked for diseases again, and put back into storage so that it can be reused.

Thus, this system would eliminate the issues of consent (the person consented to precisely what is happening to their body) and sanitation (the bodies are kept in a sanitary environment, and the necrophiliac is informed of the risks before beginning their endeavor), the two biggest real arguments against necrophilia.


The dead human body is always public property or the property of a funeral parlor that would never allow this vile act and has never ever shown intention to do so as far as I know. Even if they have you then need to prove that their urge is enough to change a law.

If you extend it to animals, bestiality is illegal and the STD transfer risk is HUGE well... Actually it's less than human to human interaction to be fair becasue the same virus is unlikley to infect two but since bestiality is illegal and having sex with a dead animal is basically legal if you live in a bestiality-allowed region of Earth... The resolutiong 'should be legal' can in no way at all be interpreted to mean this and Pro's entire R1 implies dead human sex only.
Debate Round No. 1


Con said:

'The dead human body is always public property or the property of a funeral parlor...'

This is not the case. The legal property and possession rights for a corpse are as follows:

'In the ordinary use of the term, a property right does not exist in a corpse. For the purpose of burial, however, the corpse of a human being is considered to be property or quasi-property, the rights to which are held by the surviving spouse or next of kin. This right cannot be conveyed and does not exist while the decedent is living. Following burial, the body is considered part of the ground in which it is placed.' (1)

That being the case, I don't need to prove that funeral homes would like to allow necrophilic acts to be enacted upon the corpses in their care, or that such a desire is enough to change a law, because funeral homes have no legal rights to decide what does or doesn't happen to said corpses.

As for the fact that the spouse or closest relative has burial rights, that fact can easily be changed in the case of the deceased having designated that their body is to be donated to science, so it should be considered perfectly reasonable for someone to leave their body to necrophilia in this manner. Therefore there are no issues with property rights.

Con proceeded to make an argument related to extending the legalization of necrophilia to include necrophilic bestiality. This was entirely irrelevant, as that is a different issue entirely, and the legalization of those acts would be referred to as the legalization of necrozoophilia or zoonecrophilia (I've seen both terms used, and I can't seem to find any authoritative source for which is correct). As this debate is about whether or not necrophilia should be legal, it can be reasonably assumed that 'dead human sex' is the topic that I claimed should be legal, and necrophilic bestiality should not be included, or brought up at all in this discussion.

1. "corpse." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008. The Gale Group 17 Apr. 2018



I will provide links and legal technicalities in next round as required.

At this point, Pro has completely lost and I don't want to build-up a case that they can attack any sooner than I need to.

Pro concedes that this is not about dead animals or sex with them, he/she interestingly insists on pressing the matter that it's about legal sex with a human being... This the crux of the flaw in Pro's case.

The thing that makes sex with a human legal is consent... Dead bodies not only are considered less-able to consent... They cannot in any feasible way even be argued to have more than 0.00% consent.

In other words, Pro specifically says that the dead body we are having sex with is to be considered different to just any dead body and treated uniquely as it's a dead human body... Pro thus has defeated their own case since the sole thing that makes human adults legal to have sex with is their ability to consent which dead bodies can never do.
Debate Round No. 2


Con's entire argument in Round 2 was centered around the idea that corpses cannot consent to have sex, despite the fact that I expressly explained in Round 1 how, under the system I described, someone could consent to a necrophiliac having sex with their corpse. If someone is legally allowed to consent to their body being used for scientific research post-mortem, there is no reason why they shouldn't have the right to consent to their body being used for sexual purposes. Under the system I described, this consent would be documented, and as specific as the individual wants it to be, therefore there is no issue with consent.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
Need to think how to word my case. Trust me I have a strong one i'm just formulating it. Will take 12 hours or so.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.