Swedish woman charged with having sex with a skeleton.

[Yankee Empire]

Given that it's dead, it's not really a person.

And because dead bodies don't have the ability to consent unless specified in their wills while they were living people, it's obvious that necrophilia shouldn't be a crime.

Oh wait, that's just loony. It would be scary that "Ignore" has more votes than "Prosecute," but I've realized that you should always expect the unexpected on NS.

Well "Object and Marginilize" might have more if it didn't add "allow", as that implies your letting her do this rather than just being ignorant of it or not caring like ignore.

But yeah I vote prosecute, one more reason I hate hedonistic ethics "the persons dead and therefore can't suffer from this violation so who cares!? Amirite!?"

[Grenartia]

And because dead bodies don't have the ability to consent unless specified in their wills while they were living people, it's obvious that necrophilia shouldn't be a crime.

Oh wait, that's just loony. It would be scary that "Ignore" has more votes than "Prosecute," but I've realized that you should always expect the unexpected on NS.

Well "Object and Marginilize might have more if it didn't add "allow", as that implies your letting her do this rather than just being ignorant ogf it or not caring like ignore.

But yeah I vote prosecute, one more reason I hate hedonistic ethics "the persons dead and therefore can't suffer from this violation so who cares!? Amirite!?"

To be fair, that is an overexaggeration of the points that were made.

[Yankee Empire]

Well "Object and Marginilize might have more if it didn't add "allow", as that implies your letting her do this rather than just being ignorant ogf it or not caring like ignore.

But yeah I vote prosecute, one more reason I hate hedonistic ethics "the persons dead and therefore can't suffer from this violation so who cares!? Amirite!?"

To be fair, that is an overexaggeration of the points that were made.

What else has been discussed? Prison is too mean?

It's 14 pages i'm not reading them all as i've said pretty much all i needed to already so go ahead and elighten me if you beleive I'm being too quick to judge.

[Ostroeuropa]

To be fair, that is an overexaggeration of the points that were made.

What else has been discussed? Prison is too mean?

It's 14 pages i'm not reading them all as i've said pretty much all i needed to already so go ahead and elighten me if you beleive I'm being too quick to judge.

It isn't that they can't suffer from the violation, it's that it isn't a violation.

If the bones were legally aquired, she's using her property to do something that harms noone.
If the bones were illegally aquired, it's the aquirement that is the crime, and potentially property damage.

[Deutsche Demokratischer Volksstaat]

Objectionable behavior, yes, but I really don't see what is criminal about the act of having sex with a skeleton. If anything, the police should consider how she came into possession of the corpse and perhaps charge her if she used illegal means to get the corpse (theft, etc).

[Yankee Empire]

Necrophilic acts aren't a crime anymore?In Sweden? Why?

[Ostroeuropa]

Necrophilic acts aren't a crime anymore?In Sweden? Why?

Well one could make the argument that it's unconstitutional to ban it in the USA, property rights and such. It'd be a bad argument, but there it is.
And I misspoke. It is criminal, but it is not immoral. Like plenty of other laws that are wrong. Find me the immoral act in necrophilia.

[Yankee Empire]

Necrophilic acts aren't a crime anymore?In Sweden? Why?

Well one could make the argument that it's unconstitutional to ban it in the USA, property rights and such. It'd be a bad argument, but there it is.
And I misspoke. It is criminal, but it is not immoral. Like plenty of other laws that are wrong. Find me the immoral act in necrophilia.

Based on what you may think it's not immoral, but the fact that such laws exist meant people certainly disagree, myself included.

You see human societies have this thing called a ritualistic burial(any type of funeral really), thats meant to put the dead to a dignified resting place.

Now when some nutjob with a fetish for a decaying partner who can't reject their advances goes to wherever the hell is a corpse and decides to use it as their own personal damn sex toy!

I find that to be immoral.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well one could make the argument that it's unconstitutional to ban it in the USA, property rights and such. It'd be a bad argument, but there it is.
And I misspoke. It is criminal, but it is not immoral. Like plenty of other laws that are wrong. Find me the immoral act in necrophilia.

Based on what you may think it's not immoral, but the fact that such laws exist meant people certainly disagree, myself included.

You see human societies have this thing called a ritualistic burial(any type of funeral really), thats meant to put the dead to a dignified resting place.

Now when some nutjob with a fetish for a decaying partner who can't reject their advances goes to wherever the hell is a corpse and decides to use it as their own personal damn sex toy!

I find that to be immoral.

I fail to see how tradition means something is immoral, or why inanimate bones need dignity.

[Yankee Empire]

It's about the diginity of society as a whole. It' immoral because there's nothing moral about necophilia or having sex with corpses/skeletons.

[Deutsche Demokratischer Volksstaat]

Based on what you may think it's not immoral, but the fact that such laws exist meant people certainly disagree, myself included.

You see human societies have this thing called a ritualistic burial(any type of funeral really), thats meant to put the dead to a dignified resting place.

Now when some nutjob with a fetish for a decaying partner who can't reject their advances goes to wherever the hell is a corpse and decides to use it as their own personal damn sex toy!

I find that to be immoral.

I fail to see how tradition means something is immoral, or why inanimate bones need dignity.

For one I can tell you Asians tend to value post-mortem rites and rituals ALOT. What works for one country may not work for another; anyone knows how big exactly the Swedes are on post-mortem?

[Ostroeuropa]

It's about the diginity of society as a whole. It' immoral because there's nothing moral about necophilia or having sex with corpses/skeletons.

Uh...
Circular argument. on the second part.
As for the first, one persons definition of dignity is not anothers. If you don't want your corpse to have sex with people, put so in your will

[Yankee Empire]

It's about the diginity of society as a whole. It' immoral because there's nothing moral about necophilia or having sex with corpses/skeletons.

Uh...
Circular argument. on the second part.
As for the first, one persons definition of dignity is not anothers. If you don't want your corpse to have sex with people, put so in your will

Uh no it isn't. Thats like saying "2+2 isnt 5 because it's 4" is a circular argument.

It' immoral because it's not moral how is that hard to comprehend, it's bad because it's not good.

This is a very simplified version of Virtue Ethics.

[Yankee Empire]

As for the first, one persons definition of dignity is not anothers. If you don't want your corpse to have sex with people, put so in your will

Do you realize how ridiculous that is? This is the line of reasoning for why we have so many damn warning labels for obvious things.

Watch in a few years they'll have signs in the bathroom above a toilet bowl saying "Shit in here and nowhere else", "Well they said use the bathroom, if they didn't want me shitting all over the walls they shouldve said so..."

[Ostroeuropa]

Uh...
Circular argument. on the second part.
As for the first, one persons definition of dignity is not anothers. If you don't want your corpse to have sex with people, put so in your will

Uh no it isn't. Thats like saying "2+2 isnt 5 because it's 4" is a circular argument.

It' immoral because it's not moral how is that hard to comprehend, it's bad because it's not good.

This is a very simplified version of Virtue Ethics.

It's begging the question, read up on logical fallacies.

[Ostroeuropa]

As for the first, one persons definition of dignity is not anothers. If you don't want your corpse to have sex with people, put so in your will

Do you realize how ridiculous that is? This is the line of reasoning for why we have so many damn warning labels for obvious things.

Watch in a few years they'll have signs in the bathroom above a toilet bowl saying "Shit in here and nowhere else", "Well they said use the bathroom, if they didn't want me shitting all over the walls they shouldve said so..."

No, because it's property rights. You cannot shit on someone elses floor without their permission (RE, use their property without their permission) But the dead DO NOT HAVE PROPERTY, so the body has passed to the successor.
If the successor wants to use it for any purpose it's fine provided all capable of consent do consent.

[Yankee Empire]

Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's begging the question, but fine if you want me to spoon feed this to you...

Morals form out of a set of Ethical Principels.

On this of Virtue, I'm saying it's immoral because the act itself does no virtue(it does no good), and runs directly contrary to other virtues such as Respect and Self restraint(which is bad) to name only two, I consider that immoral.

Now if your claiming it's not immoral, then convince me how it's moral then. If you personally don't think Necrophilia is moral, then your not making any case for why this shouldn't be seen as immoral and sense i'm the only one willing to make a case i'd say that certainly give my claim more legitimate.

[Yankee Empire]

But the dead DO NOT HAVE PROPERTY, so the body has passed to the successor.

Who decides that the Dead "do not have property" Certainly many the societies whose tombs and graves are filled with many possesions and treasures would greatly disagree with that claim.

[Ostroeuropa]

Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's begging the question, but fine if you want me to spoon feed this to you...

Morals form out of a set of Ethical Principels.

On this of Virtue, I'm saying it's immoral because the act itself does no virtue(it does no good), and runs directly contrary to other virtues such as Respect and Self restraint(which is bad) to name only two, I consider that immoral.

Now if your claiming it's not immoral, then convince me how it's moral then. If you personally don't think Necrophilia is moral, then your not making any case for why this shouldn't be seen as immoral and sense i'm the only one willing to make a case i'd say that certainly give my claim more legitimate.

It is begging the question, because you are saying "X is not Y because it is not Y." that's begging the question.
How does it violate respect or self restraint, moreover, if it did, why does that make it immoral.
Everything not moral is immoral? There is no act of moral neutrality?

[Ostroeuropa]

But the dead DO NOT HAVE PROPERTY, so the body has passed to the successor.

Who decides that the Dead "do not have property" Certainly many the societies whose tombs and graves are filled with many possesions and treasures would greatly disagree with that claim.

had you asked those societies who the property belonged to, they would not respond "The corpse!" they would say the sentience previously an occupant of that corpse.
Failing a claim from the ghost, the defendent cannot confront their accuser. The dead neither de jure nor de facto have property rights, and thus no property.

[Yankee Empire]

It is begging the question, because you are saying "X is not Y because it is not Y." that's begging the question.

No it's not because thats all the statement goes, if I said the moon is not the sun because it's the moon, you may think thats begging the question but the fact ofthe matter is it's still correct.
Things are what they are. Why are they the way they are? Well thats determined by discussion, exchange of ideas and the creation of sttuctures such as linguistics, ethics, logic, definitions etc. etc.

I mean you can say "Nuts to it all!" and then just take refuge in audacity but your likel not going to garner much support on that.

How does it violate respect or self restraint, moreover, if it did, why does that make it immoral.

Respect for the Dead, Respect for yourself in the eyes of Societal Revulsion, Self restraint because of said Taboo.

Everything not moral is immoral? There is no act of moral neutrality?

Perhaps there is, though perhaps there isn't. In this case I point out negatives in this act, you point out no positives, but merely debate the negatives.

A zero and negative is a negative, in other words if I see this act as unjust and you provide no justification for it then by default it should be considered unjust and dealt with accordingly.

[Distributist Chestertonia]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/21/us-sweden-skeleton-idUSBRE8AK0IJ20121121?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

Reuters) - "A woman in Sweden has been charged with engaging in sexual activities with a human skeleton and could face jail time [2 years max] for disturbing the peace of the dead, a Swedish prosecutor said.

Police found a full human skeleton, skulls and a box containing other human bones by chance....

They also discovered CD-ROMs titled "my necrophilia" and "my first experience", and photographs of the woman engaging in various sexual activities with a skeleton....

It said the woman had handled the bones in a "shameful" and "unethical" manner.

"She is interested in the dead," Prosecutor Kristina Ehrenborg-Staffas told Reuters. "She has pictures of morgues, churches and graveyards.""

So she is being prosecuted for causing the state to go "Ewww"?

To me this is repugnant and distasteful but also a victimless crime. The skeleton doesn't care, I'm sure.

Why not just leave her alone? There are more important objectives for law enforcement.

What are your reactions? Should this sort of thing be punished? Repressed but allowed? Ignored?

Or (ewwww) encouraged?

On a purely natural level - ignoring Heaven, Hell, or any afterlife or reincarnation - to make this argument is on the same level as allowing bestiality, "marrying" animals, polygamy... these are victimless crimes, too, right?

Not so. Society is the victim of these crimes, including screwing corpses. Sex was made to accomplish two things: unity between husband and wife, and procreation. The functions of the chemicals and biological parts of it all make that perfectly clear. Oxytocin emotionally bonds husband and wife, while sperm and egg create new human life for the propagation of the species.

Necrophilia clearly accomplishes neither of these. And with human replacement rates as low as they are, Europe will end up masturbating, contracepting, and aborting themselves to extinction.

[Purpelia]

If I may. I have an interesting perspective to cast on this. Personally I am no supporter of necrophilia but I am also no supporter of silly medieval standards of "morality" being used as law. So while I would personally feel horrified if someone did something like that to a body of someone I knew I can not with a clear continence support laws against it. Hence if I may ask a simple question.

Respect for the Dead

Why should the dead be respected? They can't care about it. So the only reason I can think off is in order to avoid insulting the general public. And I do believe that all the principals of freedom ever were pretty much designed to make sure people can do what ever they want without being persecuted even IF it insult others.

Respect for yourself in the eyes of Societal Revulsion

Again, why should it be the actor and not the society that applies said revulsion at him the blame? Are we the better society for imposing arbitrary rules of "morality" and enforcing them by law? How is it from an absolute perspective any different to ban her from having sex with bones than to ban her from going out in public without covering her face?

And with human replacement rates as low as they are, Europe will end up masturbating, contracepting, and aborting themselves to extinction.

And that is a BAD thing WHY exactly? Seriously this world is overburdened by the weight of massive overpopulation and the huge populations of 1st world countries and those getting there polluting it and draining it of resources like vampires. A decline in world population, especially that in the 1st world is a good thing as it frees up resources and decreases pollution.

[Yankee Empire]

Idk if your only case is "why should I give a shit about morals or societies laws" then i could just up and say "why should I give a shit about her freedom? That this civilization because of it's foundation on certain ethical standards promoted and made into law to defend"?

This freedom doesn't appear self evident either, but unless you acually make a case just saying "Why not" isn't a valid counter argument, especially when I go on to explain "why not" and then just keep adding questions "ad infinitum".
It's like a child constantly asking why? Until you have no answers anymore. I shape my morals based on personal experiance and expostion from differing ethical schools.
And i'm not just going to allow or abide something I see as unjust simply because of an endless series of "well why not" responses, because im not goddamn immortal and don't have time to answer them all.

Society wouldn't be able to funtion without these, just endless questions untill we all just died of our or lack of doing anything but pondering, don't get me wrong being a philosopher I like pondering things but I at least I face it with the base idea that i'll always remain ignorant of many things.

The whole concept of Civilization is built on principles such as these.

[New Sindo]

I wonder how that man would've felt if he was still alive..