MAP Forum

I honestly don't care if people have sex with dead people.

It's not like it's going to hurt them. Well, not the dead people at least.

Relevant, kind of: https://www.brianribbon.com/short-takes ... vid-sconce

BLueRibbon wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2026 12:33 pm I honestly don't care if people have sex with dead people.

It's not like it's going to hurt them. Well, not the dead people at least.

Relevant, kind of: https://www.brianribbon.com/short-takes ... vid-sconce

One thing I've never really understood is the selective hedonism that people sometimes engage in (i.e. 'what's the problem, it's not as though it hurts anyone,' and it's understood that 'harm' is emotional distress and not physical injury) where they take it as obviously reasonable in one scenario but don't consistently apply it to all ethical issues.

To repeat myself, harm to the deceased is not my issue. A victimless act can still have troubling implications about the psychology of the people who engage in it. There's no inconsistency in my saying that a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies is morally problematic while maintaining that only felt emotional distress is intrinsically harmful, that injustice requires harm (or at least a reduction in happiness paired with malintent or a negligent disregard for someone's emotional well-being) and happiness/suffering are all that moral agents should ultimately be concerned with. Imagine that someone invents a video game where the object is to murder as many pedophiles as is possible. No actual pedophile is murdered during this fantasy simulation and there's no evidence that I'm aware of linking violent video games with real-world violence statistically. Yet, we would likely agree that there is something troubling about the fact that people enjoy engaging in this kind of fantasy because it implies a disregard for the welfare of child-attracted adults, I can easily see it being the case that the promotion of this video game could indoctrinate impressionable minds into hatred against pedophiles even if, again, that never translates into real-world violence and that ultimately poses a challenge to the 'MAP liberation' movement.

I think it's a mistake to reduce this to 'disgust' and, besides being unavoidable in many scenarios, I don't think the emotional response of loved ones is necessarily unreasonable (as in, their involuntary emotional reaction is not necessarily the result of a misguided belief or value). That said, I wouldn't necessarily feel compelled to bring something like this to public attention knowing how much trauma it would cause people.

This might sound hypocritical coming from an antinatalist but I don't think it's wise to associate a 'MAP liberation' movement with a sub-culture or mindset that celebrates death as opposed to children's happiness but that's relative to my value system. It's not just that I think it's politically unwise in terms of 'softening' the perception of minor-attraction when felt by adults, I'm willing to promote things that hurt any given cause I support (in terms of swaying hearts and minds) if I believe that they're consistently implied by my ideals, it seems at odds with countering the stereotype that pedophiles don't care about children's welfare.

For the record, the only thing that I'm really taking a firm stance on is a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies. It's hard for me to imagine someone 'sexualizing' the corpse of someone whose happiness they value; whom they would prefer to live (under ideal enough conditions at least), it's upsetting to me largely because I'm skeptical and I think that's contrary to normal human psychology, but I'm open to that possibility.

Really sorry to hear that you're going through this, it must be really hard for you.
I hope you can find others who share this attraction and you're able to support each other. All I can say is that it doesn't make you a bad person in any way, none of us can help our sexualities and what drives our chemistry. Just hold on to the fact that you're a good person and deserve happiness so try to find someone who can love and treat you well for who you are.

CantChainTheSpirit wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2026 8:41 am Really sorry to hear that you're going through this, it must be really hard for you.
I hope you can find others who share this attraction and you're able to support each other. All I can say is that it doesn't make you a bad person in any way, none of us can help our sexualities and what drives our chemistry. Just hold on to the fact that you're a good person and deserve happiness so try to find someone who can love and treat you well for who you are.

If you want him to experience happiness then you want him to live; something that he does not necessarily want for others (or at least that would conflict with a fundamental preference for dead bodies). If, for example, you were a gay 'necrophiliac' (i.e. someone who prefers dead bodies as dead bodies) who found him attractive (or would find his corpse attractive) you would prefer that he die which conflicts with wanting him to experience happiness in general or specifically to have the same pleasurable sexual experiences that you want for yourself. Looking back at the first page I see that he said that he wishes he was normal but my point, even if I was callously ignoring the human element of this (by focusing on the moral implications of necrophilia and not what he's struggling with on a personal level etc. etc.) is that not every deviant sexuality should be celebrated or normalized. Being honest about that doesn't necessarily imply malice to the people with those sexual interests.

If his interest in dead bodies is exclusive then he doesn't want someone (a romantic partner) who will love him and treat him well, but maybe you meant in terms of a platonic relationship or support.

snapped_scapula,

You seem to not realise that sexual activity with a child can absolutely (and usually is) be harmful, whether they “enjoy” (have an involuntary physical reaction) it or not.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a desire to have mutually pleasurable sex with a child. The possibility of that is logically coherent, even if you believe that it's unrealistic (this is a rushed response). Death necessarily precludes the possibility, for the deceased, of the same pleasurable sexual experiences that you want for yourself. Why would you be more deserving of happiness than anyone else? Happiness is happiness.

It is arguably more disrespectful to engage in sex with someone who may say yes but doesn’t have the capacity to actually consent/know what they’re agreeing to, than to have sex with a corpse, who won’t be impacted by anything you do

.

Child-adult sex can possibly be a source of pleasure for children. At the very least, a preference for child partners doesn't necessarily involve devaluing children's happiness. The fulfillment of your sexual desires would necessarily require someone's death. I again acknowledge that the dead are not harmed by whatever is done to them, but we should also want people to know happiness. Still, this is less of an 'injustice' for me as it is a mindset that I have to be troubled by relative to my ideals (I think of injustice as harm/a reduction in happiness caused by not valuing the happiness of others or wanting them to be free from emotional distress, but harmless fantasies and acts can still be immoral in implying that one does not value the happiness of others).

And yeah I do have a preference for the dead. I love them. They are beautiful to me, and quiet, and don’t leave, nor do they lie nor do they argue and yell. I may have sadistic pleasures, but most of my fantasies are romantic and soft. Also, you can’t help your fantasies.

Emotional responses are involuntary but our conscious beliefs and values play a big role in them (changing one's perspective can influence how one responds to things emotionally). I won't question that this is an interest you haven't chosen but that doesn't actually change my position because if it's not a moral failing, it's still not ideal.

You claim to not be judgemental, but that’s exactly what you’re doing.

I have never claimed to not be 'judgmental.' That's largely the point of my argument, that we should be more judgmental. The problem is with discrimination and hate. I don't think that everything goes, I'm not a relativist.

I came here to vent and chat with other paraphiles, not debate, but I see that’s not what happens around here.

I was just adding my two cents on the topic of necrophilia. I admit, this might not have been the best thread to do so.

John_Doe wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2026 4:58 pm If you want him to experience happiness then you want him to live; something that he does not necessarily want for others (or at least that would conflict with a fundamental preference for dead bodies). If, for example, you were a gay 'necrophiliac' (i.e. someone who prefers dead bodies as dead bodies) who found him attractive (or would find his corpse attractive) you would prefer that he die which conflicts with wanting him to experience happiness in general or specifically to have the same pleasurable sexual experiences that you want for yourself. Looking back at the first page I see that he said that he wishes he was normal but my point, even if I was callously ignoring the human element of this (by focusing on the moral implications of necrophilia and not what he's struggling with on a personal level etc. etc.) is that not every deviant sexuality should be celebrated or normalized. Being honest about that doesn't necessarily imply malice to the people with those sexual interests.

If his interest in dead bodies is exclusive then he doesn't want someone (a romantic partner) who will love him and treat him well, but maybe you meant in terms of a platonic relationship or support.

snapped_scapula,

I'm not sure that follows because you're equating two different things.
Yes I want him to be happy and to be happy you have to live, but equally to be unhappy you have to live, to be in pain you have to live, to self hate you have to live. I don't think it's right to project one persons state on to another person. It's like if someone wants to have sex with a woman it doesn't mean their partner must want to have sex with a woman, of if one person is Christian then their partner has to be Christian for them to be happy.

In this, he is sexually attracted to dead people and you are right, they can't love him back. But some people have sexual relationships with dolls and sex aids that don't love them back, some people have sexual relationships with people just for sex and no emotion (friends with benefits). A person could have a rich friends circle or a partner with the same attraction, have companionship, and yet only be attracted to dead people. It's like people who are sexually attracted to toddlers who may not be able to express intimacy back quite as equals but it doesn't mean the relationship isn't fulfilling to those experiencing it.

But as far as I know sex with dead people is illegal so you'll be as frustrated as pedophiles so if there's any way to break the attraction you should, I just don't know if it's possible to break sexual attraction. More likely you'll have to just manage those urges and find companionship where you can with someone who understands and accepts that part of you.

John_Doe makes good points, I don't want to encourage you to be alone or unhappy but I also don't want to judge or suggest any moral superior position by telling you that I as a pedophile am telling you that you need a partner of equals.

Can'tChainTheSpirit,

I'm not sure that follows because you're equating two different things.

What would they be?

Yes I want him to be happy and to be happy you have to live, but equally to be unhappy you have to live, to be in pain you have to live, to self hate you have to live.

This is why I've argued that we should want people to live not for its own sake but under ideal enough conditions and once those conditions have been met, it would be better to live than not to. After all, in order to have pleasurable sex with a corpse a necrophiliac must be alive. Sexual desire is a desire for a positive state of affairs, whereas when we're trying to avoid the feeling of hunger or physical pain we're trying to avoid something negative (as in, a necrophiliac's desire for sex with a corpse is packaged with an implicit desire to live; not necessarily for its own sake but because that's what would allow for sexually fulfilling experiences, but he actively prefers that other people not be able to benefit from the same; or at least he prefers a state of affairs that precludes their similarly benefiting from what he wants to experience. Death can cure sexual frustration but the object of sexual frustration is the absence of sexual pleasure; the desire for which is the only reason why people experience sexual frustration to begin with).

I don't think it's right to project one persons state on to another person. It's like if someone wants to have sex with a woman it doesn't mean their partner must want to have sex with a woman, of if one person is Christian then their partner has to be Christian for them to be happy.

I agree because different things can cause or be objects of happiness for different people and happiness is what's ultimately good (although with the Christianity example, I think the question from the perspective of someone who takes the religion seriously and literally would be whether or not Christianity is objectively true). I don't agree if you mean that it's not right for someone to want others to experience happiness just because they want to experience happiness for themselves, if happiness is inherently beneficial for anyone (or more to the point, if anyone's happiness is inherently good simpliciter) then it's inherently beneficial for everyone (and if one person's happiness is inherently good then every possible person's happiness is/was/would be inherently good, a distinction between one person's and another's is an arbitrary double standard because happiness is happiness, we're just selectively considering the same thing to be ultimately good, bad or neutral based on criteria that has nothing to do with the nature of happiness). What would be the basis for saying that it's not right to project one person's state on to another (e.g. if I like women, you had better like women too)? In what way would you see that as an unfair assault? If it stems from basic golden rule reasoning you're making an appeal to consistency which is what I'm doing in saying that there's something problematic about a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies; which is a preference for someone to be incapable of sexual pleasure (inconsistency per se is not a moral problem, I would rather that someone who believes there's a moral obligation to maximize as much suffering as is possible be inconsistent in sparing at least some people pain they would normally cause than to consistently cause pain to every single person they can but all inconsistencies are arbitrary and irrational, most of our beliefs are unavoidably arbitrary; at least ultimately, but there's a non-arbitrary alternative to inconsistently holding a certain belief or value which is holding it consistently, every ethical theory besides hedonism is also arbitrary and hedonism is the non-arbitrary alternative).

My issue with necrophilia isn't just some random arbitrary personal hangup (there are other things that turn me off, that might even 'bother' me beyond personal disgust, but I see them as wholly unproblematic in themselves so if they can be a source of happiness for other people that's great), it's rooted in my belief that, depending on how exactly we define it, necrophilia necessarily implies devaluing the happiness of others and unlike opposing AMSC on principle there is a non-arbitrary reason to oppose a mindset that devalues the happiness or suffering of others (because regardless of intuition or what conclusion you come to upon reflection via subjective logic, we actually experience happiness and emotional distress as inherently good and bad, their being self-evidently good and bad is what makes hedonism the non-arbitrary ethical theory. The inherent value of happiness can't be illusory because it doesn't simulate something other than itself that it might misrepresent).

In this, he is sexually attracted to dead people and you are right, they can't love him back. But some people have sexual relationships with dolls and sex aids that don't love them back,

I don't think the psychology, in practice, is entirely the same (using a sex doll vs. using a corpse) but, again, I'm willing to concede the possibility of someone who genuinely values the happiness of all possible people yet can 'sexualize' someone's corpse with no cognitive dissonance. Even if such a person is practically possible, people who use sex dolls, dildos, etc. are generally using them as fantasy or masturbatory aids; they would ideally prefer conscious, living partners.

some people have sexual relationships with people just for sex and no emotion (friends with benefits).

I've never personally understood the idea of 'sex without emotion.' I understand sex without commitment, but it seems to be social activity to me. Affection/wanting emotional intimacy is related to the psychology of valuing the happiness of others (and I think that valuing someone's happiness is necessarily personal) but even if you can have sex without 'attachment' or 'affection,' you can still value the happiness of a casual sex partner you have an 'impersonal sex only' agreement with, you would still be expected to show certain courtesies, I'm sure (again, I don't 'understand' the idea of 'impersonal sex,' sex seems to imply emotional intimacy for me, but it might be besides the point).

A person could have a rich friends circle or a partner with the same attraction, have companionship, and yet only be attracted to dead people.

I didn't really understand this point.

It's like people who are sexually attracted to toddlers who may not be able to express intimacy back quite as equals but it doesn't mean the relationship isn't fulfilling to those experiencing it.

Toddlers sometimes masturbate so they might be capable of some sexual gratification, even without the full-blown cyclical libido of someone who can menstruate or produce sperm. It's also possible that they could enjoy some gentle sexual contact as play (it could be 'non-sexual' from their end). Even if they are completely neutral about some kind of sexual contact, someone who prefers toddlers isn't necessarily devaluing their happiness because nothing about some kind of sexual contact in some hypothetical fantasy scenario would have to cause them emotional distress or death. A necrophiliac as a necrophiliac (again, if we're talking about someone who prefers dead bodies because they are dead) wants at least some people to be dead and their deaths would exclude the possibility of any future happiness for them.

I also wanted to add that although a lot of people who are turned on by the idea of sex with a corpse would be repelled by the reality of a significantly decomposing corpse (e.g. the smell), I don't think that a basic attraction to a corpse at some early stage of decomposition is unusual or rare considering of the resemblance to a living body. It seems to me that, in practice, the appeal is rooted in a fetishization of death (in the same way that being turned on by police officers as police officers has nothing to do with their being physically different than people with other occupations; it's the idea of being with an authority figure, the power imbalance, the unexpected intimacy, etc. that excites them).