Swedish woman charged with having sex with a skeleton.

[Purpelia]

@Yankee Empire
Exactly. To use your text to elaborate further if I may.

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"?

Quite right. It is the duty of every sane and scientific minded society to review its "morals and laws" to ensure that they stand up to scrutiny and are at least self consistent. And it is on this self consistency rule that the anti necrophilia laws fail.
The principal of "you can't have sex with corpses because it offends people" runs contrary to the precedents laid down by repealing such norms as "you can't vote because you are a girl and it offends people", "you can't have abortions because it offends people", "you can't have free speech because it offends people" and of course "you can't be a member of any religion but X since that offends people." Just because X offends people is not enough to have it banned. That sort of reasoning would be quite literally right out of the middle ages.

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".

The key here is to ask the right question. Modern western liberty minded societies DON'T work by asking "why should X be permitted?" They work by asking "why should X be banned?". And if no valid answer can be found the default state reverts to it being legal. In other words everything is LEGAL unless someone can provide a good reason for the contrary. And if the only reason provided is "because it offends people" than things can get a tad bit heated and for good reason.

[Yankee Empire]

I review morals and laws when I come across them , but your examples seem like strawman examples, by adding a comletely differant situation while adding a "seemingly" similiar reaction.

The major differance being, I could easily debate and promote the virtues of Woman voting, Religous Freedom, Free speech, and (though i personally dislike it much) Abortion.

I on the other hand can't say the same about Necrophilia, and haven't heard anyone else make the case either.

Also your claiming it's Bad to take inspiration from mthe Middle Ages?

Well why not?(Though admittedly that is an honest inquiry on my part)

And why not be insane and unscientific?(though this isn't) You get my point?

If I am the only one making claims then i'm the only one with validity.

[Purpelia]

The major differance being, I could easily debate and promote the virtues of Woman voting, Religous Freedom, Free speech, and (though i personally dislike it much) Abortion.

What about the virtues of drinking alcohol or smoking? Or having unregulated sex outside of marriage? Or owning firearms for fun and pleasure? Or drawing pictures of the Prophet Mohamed?

In fact smoking is a pretty good example here because it's an activity that brings pleasure to some but also hurts them heavily in the long run and it offends many. And yet it is considered fully legal.

Do you see where this is going?

I on the other hand can't say the same about Necrophilia, and haven't heard anyone else make the case either.

Here is a simple one. It is an activity that helps bring about sexual pleasure to one person at no harm to any other living creature.

Also your claiming it's Bad to take inspiration from mthe Middle Ages?

Yes regardless if it is taken as the phrasal form of use for the term "medieval" meaning dark and primitive or the literal use of it referring to a period of time (the term usually being connected to the western world in literature) characterized by religious oppression, wars, plagues and the general decay of human values. Some of the stuff from the period were well and fine. But anything inspired by it should NOT be taken at face value.

And why not be insane and unscientific?(though this isn't) You get my point?

As said, it is an activity that hurts none, insults the feelings of some people and brings pleasure to others. I see no reason why hurt feelings should be a justifiable reason for banning something that some people find pleasurable.

[Transhuman Proteus]

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

Like he was a live man having sex with a Swedish woman?

Or do you mean if he was both alive, so he could judge the act, and dead, so there could be an act to judge?

Maybe his response would have been "long dead and still scoring with the ladies. Not bad.

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?

I personally think polygamy should be allowed. And in the case of animals - the animal is a living thing capable of being harmed, suffering cruelty etc and can be harmed through such acts. As can the human (judging by the guy who died after he let a horse have sex with him).

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.

See, now you've gone off the trail. Sex can be had for enjoyment, and that is reason enough to had sex if one wants to have sex. Sex was not "made". Evolution, being a brainless process, didn't think "ok, now to map out this activity between the two genders and what it is meant for".

Evolution certainly doesn't give a stuff about man made concepts like marriage.

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.

Sure they will. I didn't realize masturbation somehow stopped people having children.

If I remember rightly masturbation still exists for adults in families with no children through to many, many children, because you know, it is irrelevant to having children.

[SaintB]

and so it begins

No, I think that's where it ends. What more can one say?

I could say that: She'll do hard time.
Or that according to the government she's a hardened criminal - her and her lover are a real Boney and Clyde (but that is stretching it).
If she is desperate all she needs is someone to throw her a bone.
She's a BONEafide sex offender.

I'm sure given time I can come up with more...

[SaintB]

It can't really be called a "sin of the flesh", can it?

A sin of the bone?

It was bad to the bone.

[Yankee Empire]

The major differance being, I could easily debate and promote the virtues of Woman voting, Religous Freedom, Free speech, and (though i personally dislike it much) Abortion.

What about the virtues of drinking alcohol? Or having unregulated sex outside of marriage? Or owning firearms for fun and pleasure? Or drawing pictures of the Prophet Mohamed?

Do you see where this is going?

No, unless your point is people debate over what they believe is right,i'm already aware of this.

I on the other hand can't say the same about Necrophilia, and haven't heard anyone else make the case either.

Here is a simple one. It is an activity that helps bring about sexual pleasure to one person at no harm to any other living creature.

Masturbation accomplishes this just fine, also I don't see gaining pleasure in itself as anything good, while it still adds the revulsion of desecrating a corpse.
And like I said i'd claim it does harm to society, which is made up of other "living creatures".

Also your claiming it's Bad to take inspiration from mthe Middle Ages?

Yes regardless if it is taken as the phrasal form of use for the term "medieval" meaning dark and primitive or the literal use of it referring to a period of time (the term usually being connected to the western world in literature) characterized by religious oppression, wars, plagues and the general decay of human values. Some of the stuff from the period were well and fine. But anything inspired by it should NOT be taken at face value.

Why not?

As said, it is an activity that hurts none, insults the feelings of some people and brings pleasure to others. I see no reason why hurt feelings should be a justifiable reason for banning something that some people find pleasurable.

So pleasure, which as I pointed out can be easily brought about without necrophiliac acts and I don't see as good in itself, is a valid justification, but causing emotional disgust and distress is not a valid counterpoint?

[Purpelia]

Masturbation accomplishes this just fine, also I don't see gaining pleasure in itself as anything good, while it still adds the revulsion of desecrating a corpse.

I personally do NOT see revulsion as a valid excuse to ban something. And granting pleasure is something that I do see as inherently good. That was my whole point. If the person in question gets pleasure and has no problem handling the revulsion them self than what everyone else in the whole society feels about it should be completely irrelevant to it's legality.

And like I said i'd claim it does harm to society, which is made up of other "living creatures".

How so? The only harm I can think of is that it shocks and offends people. And that as I have demonstrated in the examples you have failed to understand is NOT a valid reason to claim something is bad.

Why not?

Because NOTHING should ever be taken at face value. Even if it does not come from a time characterized by the list I drew up just now.

So pleasure, which as I pointed out can be easily borught about with necrophiliac acts and I don't see as good in itself, is a valid justification, but causing emotional disgust and distress is not a valid counterpoint?

Again. You are coming from the standpoint that I have to prove to YOU that something is good before it should be legalized. And that is the wrong stance to take. Everything is inherently good and should inherently be legal by default. And if you think the opposite than YOU have to prove to ME why this is. And as I have demonstrated (and as history has demonstrated) "moral" disgust is NEWER a valid reason to claim something is bad. So you have to demonstrate some other.


In fact let us abstract this whole conversation to make it easier. Even if we completely remove any pleasure for the act to make it even simpler. Say that for the necrophiliac the act does not cause any change at all. That still means it should be legal unless you can provide a valid reason for the opposite. And again, "morality" and "revulsion" are not valid as the standards of these change over time. There was a time and place where many of the things I originally listed were morally repugnant. And yet these things are normal today. Equally there was a time when blood sports to the death were morally good and pure and we tend to look down on them today. Judging anything based on our current morality is pointless.


EDIT:
Just to give you a simple conclusion you can reply to so you don't have to quote it all and cut it up. (seriously this is my platform in one paragraph)
If the sole reason against something being legal and considered good is that the society watching it feels revulsion and there are no other non emotional scientifically valid reasons that would be acceptable in an impartial and emotionless court of law than it SHOULD BE MADE LEGAL it is the society that has to change its moral standards to accommodate it being good.

[ImperialistSalvia]

Kinky

[Yankee Empire]

I personally do NOT see revulsion as a valid excuse to ban something. And granting pleasure is something that I do see as inherently good. That was my whole point.

If the person in question gets pleasure and has no problem handling the revulsion them self than what everyone else in the whole society feels about it should be completely irrelevant to it's legality.

Okay if your going to take the hedonistic route, what gives them the privilige to desecrate another persons body for their own desires without consent?

And like I said i'd claim it does harm to society, which is made up of other "living creatures".

How so? The only harm I can think of is that it shocks and offends people. And that as I have demonstrated in the examples you have failed to understand...

I understood what you meant well, i simply dismissed it because it's not th same issue, discontent is not the only issue, it's the perceived negatives vs. positives, may case here is that necrophilia is not positive in any way as the only case made so ar is that it can give the perpatrator pleasure, while i pointed out this can be easily done without resorting to necrophilia i.e. even if you see pleasure as a good in itself it doesn't justifiy this act.

...is NOT a valid reason to claim something is bad.

Also Why?

Why not?

Because NOTHING should ever be taken at face value. Even if it does not come from a time characterized by the list I drew up just now.

Why?

So pleasure, which as I pointed out can be easily brought about without necrophiliac acts and I don't see as good in itself, is a valid justification, but causing emotional disgust and distress is not a valid counterpoint?

Again. You are coming from the standpoint that I have to prove to YOU that something is good before it should be legalized. And that is the wrong stance to take.

Why? (and im being sincire this time rather than obnoxious to make a point)

Everything is inherently good and should inherently be legal by default. And if you think the opposite than YOU have to prove to ME why this is. And as I have demonstrated (and as history has demonstrated) "moral" disgust is NEWER a valid reason to claim something is bad. So you have to demonstrate some other.

Wow, now i think this is really begging the question, i explaine my position and reasoning for my claims, you on the other hand aren't, you're just making claims.

In fact. Even if we completely remove any pleasure for the act to make it even simpler. Say that for the necrophiliac the act does not cause any change at all. That still means it should be legal unless you can provide a valid reason for the opposite. And again, "morality" and "revulsion" are not valid as the standards of these change over time.

Uhh... i'm not really sure how to respon to this, not because i'm perplexed but because i literally have no idea on what you're tryingto say here.

[Arcturus Novus]

Wait... how the hell does that work?!

[Yankee Empire]

EDIT:
Just to give you a simple conclusion you can reply to so you don't have to quote it all and cut it up. (seriously this is my platform in one paragraph)
If the sole reason against something being legal and considered good is that the society watching it feels revulsion and there are no other non emotional scientifically valid reasons that would be acceptable in an impartial and emotionless court of law than it SHOULD BE MADE LEGAL it is the society that has to change its moral standards to accommodate it being good.

I'd argue that if anything is reviled and people can not validate a reason why it is good to do so, then it should be abhorred and made illegal if it bothers people.

[Yankee Empire]

Wait... how the hell does that work?!

I think this sums it up.

Well, she definitely got boned.

[Purpelia]

I'd argue that if anything is reviled and people can not validate a reason why it is good to do so, then it should be abhorred and made illegal if it bothers people.

So "everything should be illegal unless proven that it is good?"

[Fluffy Coyotes]

It's weird for someone to run up to one of your inanimate objects and start having sex with it, but beyond perhaps a fine to cover cleaning costs and emotional distress, no further action should be taken.

This, IMO, should be the maximum punishment, and I'm not sure such cases justify government involvement at all. In any case, it should not be a serious crime for someone to have sex with something that doesn't even have feelings anymore just because of the subjective notion of offensiveness. I'm offended that she didn't seek out a guy dressed up as a skeleton for sex instead.

[Potlimitomaha]

A skeleton can't consent.
Prosecute her but don't give to too hard a sentense.

[Ostroeuropa]

A skeleton can't consent.
Prosecute her but don't give to too hard a sentense.

It has nothing to consent to, it isn't an entity. It's an object.
A dildo can't consent either, should we prosecute?

The entity which occupied the skeleton's body has left. "He" is no longer there.
The skeleton is not a he, it is an it.

[BushSucks-istan]

Meh, this just crosses some ethical border, unless the person (who was the skeleton) gave permission for this... weird activity...

[Ostroeuropa]

Meh, this just crosses some ethical border, unless the person (who was the skeleton) gave permission for this... weird activity...

Well, what about if he left his corpse to someone, and THEY give permission?
Etc.

The only ethical problem here is how she acquired the bones. Not what she did with them, that's none of our business.

[Gauthier]

A skeleton can't consent.
Prosecute her but don't give to too hard a sentense.

It has nothing to consent to, it isn't an entity. It's an object.
A dildo can't consent either, should we prosecute?

The entity which occupied the skeleton's body has left. "He" is no longer there.
The skeleton is not a he, it is an it.

At most it should be a misdemeanor involving digging up a grave or something like that.

[Northern Skatchbrod]

Such abominations do not deserve to live. Kill her, burn the bones and erase the articles.

[Gauthier]

Such abominations do not deserve to live. Kill her, burn the bones and erase the articles.

God I love the Dark Ages.

[Sociobiology]

and here I thought I had heard everything.

[New Rogernomics]

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?

Why jail, they should be providing her psychological help; presumingly they think locking her behind bars is going to encourage her against committing further acts, in which case the prosecuitors clearly lack knowledge of human addictions.

[Purpelia]

Why jail, they should be providing her psychological help;

Since when do we treat sexual deviancy as a psychological problem? Better round up all the homosexuals.

(I think you get my point. I am not actually advocating rounding up homosexuals.)