[SENT TO GRAVEYARD] Ban On Necrophilia

by **Elke and Elba** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:08 am

Interesting observation: since "Sexual Acts" in Sexual Privacy Act required two living individuals (?), necrophilia is technically allowed, for I do not remember a ban on it anywhere else.

I presume that this General Assembly might have overlooked it, just as on Child Pornography which took such a long time to get it done.

As usual, this is one of the "spawned-off" drafts from trying to control the behemoth called "Sexual Privacy Act", which I hope does not unleash on us.

Ban On Necrophilia
Category: As of yet undecided - probs Moral Decency (oh thy category, how I hate you)

RECOGNISING that the dead, by its capacity as a non-living object, loses the rights that the object was once accorded when alive,

UNDERSTANDING that some individuals practice a bizarre sexual act by the name of "necrophilia", which happens between a living sapient being and a corpse, and,

NOTING that this Assembly has taken efforts to stop non-consensual sexual acts between living beings, it has failed to do so for a formerly living being,

FURTHER NOTING that the implicit acceptance of this downright distasteful practice cannot continue,

The World Assembly,

MANDATES all member states to ban the act of necrophilia.

This was pretty fun to write. May not submit it too.

by **Old Hope** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:19 am

We have the Convention On Wartime Deceased, resolution 136, but that only expands to corpses of those who were killed in a military conflict.
It might need a bit of work to avoid duplicating that. You could repeal that resolution and replace it with a general ban on such acts. And this is definitely Moral Decency, just like resolution 136.

by **Korouse** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:21 am

What if the person donates their body to porn?

by **Fortitudinem** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:23 am

What if the allowal of such acts is in the person's will or other such writ?

by **Abazhaka** » Tue May 05, 2015 11:59 am

what if it's just something that violates a little something called 'respect for the dead'? I am pretty sure Necrophilia is NOT a right, but just wrong.

by **Herby** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:02 pm

Behind a large curtain at the back of the room, a rhythmic noise lowly arises. Within moments the once barely noticeable harmonic wibble-wobble, not unlike that of sheet metal bowing, perhaps, becomes more discernable. It is soon accompanied by the sputtering of an old small-car engine, revving... then idling... then revving... then idling... then rev-rev-revving... briefly interrupted by a momentary distinctive clang of what most certainly must be a hubcap hitting the floor... then right back to rev-rev-rev-rev-revving....

Suddenly, the curtain falls, revealing the familiar form of the Republic of Herby's Ambassador, Herby #53, mounted atop the motionless, dilapidated, rusted hulk of what seems to be, judging by its body shape and its cracked, single-oval rear window, a mid-50s, or maybe early-60s, Volkswagen Beetle, long expired.

Oh, uh, sorry, I was just... ummm... you know, all that unleaded fuel nowadays is like Viag-- er.... Wait, what's this proposal all about now?

by **Elke and Elba** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:04 pm

Abazhaka wrote:what if it's just something that violates a little something called 'respect for the dead'? I am pretty sure Necrophilia is NOT a right, but just wrong.

Where the flying flute does this say that necrophilia is a right?

Fortitudinem wrote:What if the allowal of such acts is in the person's will or other such writ?

Korouse wrote:What if the person donates their body to porn?

How annoying. Can't they just do their desires when they are alive?

by **Mallorea and Riva** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:19 pm

Riddle me this! Why on earth are we legislating on such a pointless topic?

by **Alqania** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:40 pm

"Would this affect the kind of people that are often described as 'undead'?" asked Lord Raekevik curiously.

by **Mallorea and Riva** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:41 pm

Alqania wrote:"Would this affect the kind of people that are often described as 'undead'?" asked Lord Raekevik curiously.

Aren't we all undead by virtue of our vitality?

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Tue May 05, 2015 2:56 pm

I too despise the "Moral Decency" category. Have you considered writing this as Health/Bioethics? The pragmatic concerns about not spreading cadaver-borne disease might sway nations that aren't keen on MD for simplistic civil rights reasons, and it might be fun to try to take that category out for a spin...

by **Old Hope** » Tue May 05, 2015 3:07 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I too despise the "Moral Decency" category. Have you considered writing this as Health/Bioethics? The pragmatic concerns about not spreading cadaver-borne disease might sway nations that aren't keen on MD for simplistic civil rights reasons, and it might be fun to try to take that category out for a spin...

I was going to say that that would also stop us having to pry into poor Herby's sex life, which I think we all agree is something we don't want to do, because junked cars don't spread any diseases. But then I remembered tetanus, so nevermind.

However, Bioethics means a strong proposal, and Bioethics is just Medical Decency. Or in other ways, better not.

by **Ainocra** » Tue May 05, 2015 3:12 pm

Not an international issue

by **Defwa** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:17 pm

Defwa allows any use of cadavers so long as consent was given before death. We would prefer to keep our policy of absolute bodily autonomy remain as such.

I should say though that necrophilia isn't common by any means but there is some cannibalism and taxidermy.

by **Kaboomlandia** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:18 pm

I'm liking this. Maybe their could be an extra addition/change the title to ban bestiality as well?

by **Knootoss** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:24 pm

"Ugh. Why do people insist on banning anything that is remotely fun, risqué or adventurous? My body, my post-mortem choice!"

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:39 pm

waaaah Moral Decency waaaaah!!! :roll:

Y'know, sometimes the category is just necessary, so try to live with it. This is only a game.

Yes, that would be the correct category. Limiting personal freedoms, no actual increase in healthcare spending. And even if it did increase healthcare spending, why limit such a proposal only to health concerns linked to necrophilia? That seems like an awful narrow scope for a healthcare proposal.

Banning necrophilia, however, is the perfect use of the MD category, and by the way, also carries precedent: viewtopic.php?p=20011994#p20011994

(Karmi was by no means a right-winger, either.)

by **Arach-Naga Combine** » Tue May 05, 2015 7:18 pm

The Combine is fully against this kind of proposal. How is a funeral supposed to be conducted without necrophilia? That's essentially half the point. Have you ever tried to organize a corpse-centric social event resting solely on cannibalism? We will not support this foolish idea.

by **Sexy Cadavers** » Wed May 06, 2015 5:14 am

Vigorously opposed. Very vigorously. With a lingering scent of formaldehyde.

by **Kajar** » Wed May 06, 2015 6:34 am

How's about editing the proposal to help stop the infection and transmission of transmittable disease, while defining more strictly what you think consent means in regard to the deceased?

by **Knootoss** » Wed May 06, 2015 6:45 am

"The moral decency category is anathema. This proposal is anathema. So the Kennyites are perfectly justified in saying that this proposal is, and should be, of the 'moral decency' category.

However, I would suggest that the proposal infringes on religious liberties. A fatwa issued by an Imam who is an Expert in Exceptional Matters states that necrophilia is "Halal" or religiously acceptable practice in Islam. A husband has the right to wash the body of his dead wife and have sex with her as the marriage remains valid even after death. After all, a good Muslim couple will meet again in Heaven, and since death does not alter the marital contract it is not a hindrance to the husband’s desire to have sexual intercourse with the corpse of his (freshly) deceased wife. This proposal would infringe on that right."

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

by **Sol Progeny** » Wed May 06, 2015 6:50 am

So...we need to explicitly state that you're NOT allowed to take a corpse out to a viewing of Fifty Shades of Gray, tie it up, and pound it like a jackhammer?

by **Arach-Naga Combine** » Wed May 06, 2015 8:02 am

Sol Progeny wrote:So...we need to explicitly state that you're NOT allowed to take a corpse out to a viewing of Fifty Shades of Gray, tie it up, and pound it like a jackhammer?

This was unclear before. #Sarcasm #Toomuchswag #SorryI'mSWAG!

Of course not, that's a crime against nature.

But copulating with a tied-up corpse is perfectly acceptable.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Wed May 06, 2015 8:18 am

"Honestly, this is less a function of sexual rights and more a function of the respect of post-mortem wishes, implied or otherwise. Should the last wishes of the deceased be respected absolutely in regards to their body, or will moral and practical limitations be considered acceptable? If so, how far should the state be able to impose upon them? In the interest of public health? Moral decency? Would requiring cremation against the wishes of the deceased be acceptable if there is a certifiable lack of burial space available?

"While the majority of these issues ought to be left to the member state, it is certainly possible that there is room to legislate on the degree a state can ignore post-mortem bodily requests, just as there is likely a national-level degree to which most states are required to respect post-mortem financial directives for one's personal estate. Depending on the tact taken, it could be a Health - Bioethics or a Human Rights proposal, if the limits and exceptions are placed on the state. It would only have to be Moral Decency if the law required states to compel individuals to refrain from some action."

by **Ald-Mora** » Wed May 06, 2015 8:25 am

I think its a good WA resolution, and I would vote yes on the ban.

[SENT TO GRAVEYARD] Ban On Necrophilia

[SENT TO GRAVEYARD] Ban On Necrophilia

Who is online