NationStates

Manisdog wrote:they should just lock her up in a lunatics asylum

Raeyh wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I don't see why. It's just a body. Without the mind in it, it's completely inanimate. It's pretty gross but then I find all kinds of things gross, it isn't my job to regulate peoples sex lives provided everyone involved is consenting.
Clearly here, the owner of the corpse either consented, or the property was stolen.
It isn't a rape, it's a theft.
If I steal your car and then have sex with it, the only crime i've commited is car theft.
...
and possibly indecent exposure.

It was a body that was alive at one time, and society shouldn't ignore a man's rights simply because he is no longer alive. I certainly wouldn't want anyone messing around with my body unless I give them permission before I die. Like the organ donation people, for example.

Ostroeuropa wrote:If someone used hair i'd cut off to masturbate with i'd give literally no shits.
Well ok, i'd be a bit weirded out, but not too much provided they stay away from me.
This is practically the same thing. This is bodily waste, not a body.

Do you consider it equal to necrophilia for someone to steal hair from a barber shop and use it for sexual activities?

Galloism wrote:

Raeyh wrote:
It was a body that was alive at one time, and society shouldn't ignore a man's rights simply because he is no longer alive. I certainly wouldn't want anyone messing around with my body unless I give them permission before I die. Like the organ donation people, for example.

Why should a person's corpse have human rights after death?

It has no consciousness with which to exercise it, nor any hope of regaining such consciousness.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Galloism wrote:Why should a person's corpse have human rights after death?

It has no consciousness with which to exercise it, nor any hope of regaining such consciousness.

Which is precisely why I see it as a property rights issue.
They no longer own their body, their next of kin does.

Pope Joan wrote: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?

Giovenith wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Which is precisely why I see it as a property rights issue.
They no longer own their body, their next of kin does.

What if she WAS next in kin?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Giovenith wrote:
What if she WAS next in kin?

*shrug*
There's no better way of preventing inbred children than one of the participants being dead. knock yourself out.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Giovenith wrote:
What if she WAS next in kin?

*shrug*
There's no better way of preventing inbred children than one of the participants being dead. knock yourself out. Though if I thought my sister would be up for that I may leave my corpse specifically to someone else...

Galloism wrote:

Raeyh wrote:
It was a body that was alive at one time, and society shouldn't ignore a man's rights simply because he is no longer alive. I certainly wouldn't want anyone messing around with my body unless I give them permission before I die. Like the organ donation people, for example.

Why should a person's corpse have human rights after death?

It has no consciousness with which to exercise it, nor any hope of regaining such consciousness.

Raeyh wrote:

Galloism wrote:Why should a person's corpse have human rights after death?

It has no consciousness with which to exercise it, nor any hope of regaining such consciousness.

It would be the equivalent of tearing down a man's life work just because he isn't around anymore. Your body is one of last things you have for people to remember you by. That's why we put them in expensive urns or make headstones.

Raeyh wrote:

Galloism wrote:Why should a person's corpse have human rights after death?

It has no consciousness with which to exercise it, nor any hope of regaining such consciousness.

It would be the equivalent of tearing down a man's life work just because he isn't around anymore. Your body is one of last things you have for people to remember you by. That's why we put them in expensive urns or make headstones.

Raeyh wrote:

Galloism wrote:Why should a person's corpse have human rights after death?

It has no consciousness with which to exercise it, nor any hope of regaining such consciousness.

It would be the equivalent of tearing down a man's life work just because he isn't around anymore. Your body is one of last things you have for people to remember you by. That's why we put them in expensive urns or make headstones.

Raeyh wrote:

Galloism wrote:Why should a person's corpse have human rights after death?

It has no consciousness with which to exercise it, nor any hope of regaining such consciousness.

It would be the equivalent of tearing down a man's life work just because he isn't around anymore. Your body is one of last things you have for people to remember you by. That's why we put them in expensive urns or make headstones.

Galloism wrote:

Raeyh wrote:
It would be the equivalent of tearing down a man's life work just because he isn't around anymore. Your body is one of last things you have for people to remember you by. That's why we put them in expensive urns or make headstones.

And yet the life work of people is torn down every day to make room for that megamall.

Are you proposing we never tear down anything that was a major event in anyone's life ever?

Raeyh wrote:

Galloism wrote:And yet the life work of people is torn down every day to make room for that megamall.

Are you proposing we never tear down anything that was a major event in anyone's life ever?

That's a bit impractical, which is why people just limit it to the bodies.

Raeyh wrote:

Galloism wrote:And yet the life work of people is torn down every day to make room for that megamall.

Are you proposing we never tear down anything that was a major event in anyone's life ever?

That's a bit impractical, which is why people just limit it to the bodies.

Kleomentia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:If someone used hair i'd cut off to masturbate with i'd give literally no shits.
Well ok, i'd be a bit weirded out, but not too much provided they stay away from me.
This is practically the same thing. This is bodily waste, not a body.

Do you consider it equal to necrophilia for someone to steal hair from a barber shop and use it for sexual activities?

So why waste money making sex toys, you can just take grandpa out of the basement and enjoy.

Ostroeuropa wrote:If someone used hair i'd cut off to masturbate with i'd give literally no shits.
Well ok, i'd be a bit weirded out, but not too much provided they stay away from me.
This is practically the same thing. This is bodily waste, not a body.

Do you consider it equal to necrophilia for someone to steal hair from a barber shop and use it for sexual activities?

Galloism wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:Never in a hundred million years will I be able to get that image out of my head.

Oh, we've had worse mental images on NSG.