MAP Forum

John_Doe wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2026 5:38 pm I don't think that necrophiliacs (as in people who prefer dead bodies, not people who have an automatic sexual response to a corpse without fetishizing death or being turned on by the idea of sex with a corpse as a corpse. I imagine that most people could feel sexually attracted to a recently deceased corpse in some scenarios for reasons that have nothing to do with the body being dead per se and there's nothing inherently wrong with that) should be discriminated against or mistreated but I think it's a huge mistake to lump necrophilia (again; the fetishization of death or a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies) in with attraction to minors or to view it as totally unproblematic.

It's true that sex with a corpse is harmless to the deceased (assuming that there is no afterlife and they'll never be made aware of it or affected by it in any way) but a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies necessarily implies devaluing people's happiness, which is why I can't consider it to be benign. Whether or not the deceased consented prior to their death is not ultimately important to me but even a victimless act can imply a disregard for others (e.g. joking about Charlie Kirk's assassination among like-minded people; neither he, his loved ones or the people who have some basic respect for him could be bothered by that but you'd only be inclined to do so because you devalue his happiness, assuming that you're not pretending to find it funny for some unusually complicated, calculated 'greater good' which would still be a difficult thing to do for a sympathetic person). Nothing about true pedophilia or an attraction to legal minors implies devaluing the happiness of children or minors. There is nothing wrong with the desire to have sex with children in 'hypothetical' scenarios where sexual intimacy would be mutually pleasurable for both parties (why would sympathetic people not want children to experience sexual pleasure, or have fun with sexual contact in scenarios where it might be more about play and experimentation for them than true sexual gratification, as long as it caused no long-term harm or cost? Even if you think that such a scenario is unrealistic, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the desire to sleep with children). There is something wrong with wanting people to be dead which is what necrophiliacs as necrophiliacs must necessarily prefer on some level (this is true even if the attraction is purely physical and not inherently about wanting to have sex with a mindless entity. I regret that I never acknowledged the possibility that some 'necrophiliacs' might prefer sentient zombies with partly decayed bodies that would live on indefinitely over mindless corpses in a book I self-published where I briefly touch on this, although the idea of sentient zombies with bodies that can function and operate despite being 'dead' seems incoherent unless maybe we're talking about a living person with some medically unusual body that resembles a corpse with some notable decay and I don't know how many necrophiliacs in real life would prefer living people with corpse-like bodies over mindless corpses, I can't see how natural selection would favor a hardwired preference for decaying corpses in practice but when exploring first principles I think the theoretical is important). The ideal should always be for a partner who would find physical intimacy with you pleasurable (I don't have a problem with the psychology behind paying a sex worker to sleep with you because that's largely a matter of fantasy, as in the client would prefer that the attraction and interest was mutual and he might pretend as though they are but has to settle for that or using a sex doll, porn, etc. as fantasy aids).

Disgust is not the only driving force behind the opposition to necrophilia. I said earlier that I have no problem with mere attraction to a corpse (because of the shared resemblance between a living body and a decomposing one) but we generally seem to feel that our first response to the sight of a dead body should be pity. It's normally difficult for people to deal with the dead bodies of people they love or care about. So even attraction to a corpse should be packaged with an appreciation for what the deceased has lost (or if they couldn't have otherwise known happiness in their lives, we should lament that much if not their death per se. The point is that what we should ideally want for them is life, under the right conditions. If a man prefers redheads he has a vested interest in living in a world with redheads, if someone prefers corpses they have a vested interest in other people dying).

John_Doe wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2026 5:38 pm I don't think that necrophiliacs (as in people who prefer dead bodies, not people who have an automatic sexual response to a corpse without fetishizing death or being turned on by the idea of sex with a corpse as a corpse. I imagine that most people could feel sexually attracted to a recently deceased corpse in some scenarios for reasons that have nothing to do with the body being dead per se and there's nothing inherently wrong with that) should be discriminated against or mistreated but I think it's a huge mistake to lump necrophilia (again; the fetishization of death or a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies) in with attraction to minors or to view it as totally unproblematic.

It's true that sex with a corpse is harmless to the deceased (assuming that there is no afterlife and they'll never be made aware of it or affected by it in any way) but a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies necessarily implies devaluing people's happiness, which is why I can't consider it to be benign. Whether or not the deceased consented prior to their death is not ultimately important to me but even a victimless act can imply a disregard for others (e.g. joking about Charlie Kirk's assassination among like-minded people; neither he, his loved ones or the people who have some basic respect for him could be bothered by that but you'd only be inclined to do so because you devalue his happiness, assuming that you're not pretending to find it funny for some unusually complicated, calculated 'greater good' which would still be a difficult thing to do for a sympathetic person). Nothing about true pedophilia or an attraction to legal minors implies devaluing the happiness of children or minors. There is nothing wrong with the desire to have sex with children in 'hypothetical' scenarios where sexual intimacy would be mutually pleasurable for both parties (why would sympathetic people not want children to experience sexual pleasure, or have fun with sexual contact in scenarios where it might be more about play and experimentation for them than true sexual gratification, as long as it caused no long-term harm or cost? Even if you think that such a scenario is unrealistic, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the desire to sleep with children). There is something wrong with wanting people to be dead which is what necrophiliacs as necrophiliacs must necessarily prefer on some level (this is true even if the attraction is purely physical and not inherently about wanting to have sex with a mindless entity. I regret that I never acknowledged the possibility that some 'necrophiliacs' might prefer sentient zombies with partly decayed bodies that would live on indefinitely over mindless corpses in a book I self-published where I briefly touch on this, although the idea of sentient zombies with bodies that can function and operate despite being 'dead' seems incoherent unless maybe we're talking about a living person with some medically unusual body that resembles a corpse with some notable decay and I don't know how many necrophiliacs in real life would prefer living people with corpse-like bodies over mindless corpses, I can't see how natural selection would favor a hardwired preference for decaying corpses in practice but when exploring first principles I think the theoretical is important). The ideal should always be for a partner who would find physical intimacy with you pleasurable (I don't have a problem with the psychology behind paying a sex worker to sleep with you because that's largely a matter of fantasy, as in the client would prefer that the attraction and interest was mutual and he might pretend as though they are but has to settle for that or using a sex doll, porn, etc. as fantasy aids).

Disgust is not the only driving force behind the opposition to necrophilia. I said earlier that I have no problem with mere attraction to a corpse (because of the shared resemblance between a living body and a decomposing one) but we generally seem to feel that our first response to the sight of a dead body should be pity. It's normally difficult for people to deal with the dead bodies of people they love or care about. So even attraction to a corpse should be packaged with an appreciation for what the deceased has lost (or if they couldn't have otherwise known happiness in their lives, we should lament that much if not their death per se. The point is that what we should ideally want for them is life, under the right conditions. If a man prefers redheads he has a vested interest in living in a world with redheads, if someone prefers corpses they have a vested interest in other people dying).

snapped_scapula wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2026 6:12 pm

I never meant to make it sound like I was comparing the two or anything. I just hate that my paraphilia is rare and often rejected even by my own community. I don’t see any harm that could be caused by relations with a corpse, besides offense to the family or possible disease, both of which can be avoided. I see your point, however.

John_Doe wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2026 3:42 pm

snapped_scapula wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2026 6:12 pm

I never meant to make it sound like I was comparing the two or anything. I just hate that my paraphilia is rare and often rejected even by my own community. I don’t see any harm that could be caused by relations with a corpse, besides offense to the family or possible disease, both of which can be avoided. I see your point, however.

It was a general point (people linking pedophilia and necrophilia because they're both outcasted sexual interests or being tolerant of the latter because their attraction or interests are also stigmatized) and I realize that I'm saying something that is potentially hurtful to you but I want to remain true to my standards, and all standards inevitable conflict with the values, interests, etc. of at least some possible people. Again, I don't think that necrophiliacs should be mistreated or discriminated against but my value system does not lead to 'tolerance' of all things (I don't think that any internally consistent ethical theory could). I also, again, don't have a problem with the mere attraction to corpses (as much as I have a hard time believing that someone could value someone's happiness and be inclined to 'sexualize' their corpse without any cognitive dissonance or internal contradiction, I will concede the possibility of such a person who would prefer a living conscious partner would would also enjoy the physical intimacy that they want to experience) but a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies.

ReArm!,


-Standards limit 'tolerance.' I'm not interested in rebelling against social norms for the sake of rebellion, so I don't see the stigmatization of every taboo as necessarily unjust. Sure, most people have some problematic desires but that's just speaks to human imperfection. That doesn't mean that we should idealize our flaws.

In fact, to be perfectly honest with you, if someone is insanely turned on by the idea of sex with a corpse as a corpse I will not be the one to encourage them to suppress their desires (through fantasy at least). Maybe they need to experiment or work out who they want to be and what their 'limits' are etc. I don't think suppression is 'healthy,' my hope would be that becoming a more sympathetic person organically would naturally quell some interests, but I'm not going to pretend that I don't see anything wrong with a fetish or interest that inherently de-values the happiness of others and it does matter whether or not people privately value the happiness of others because even if they never act on certain anti-social instincts that would make it hard to maintain a functioning society, it will influence choices that affect other people. The thought of necrophilia has crossed my mind at times in the past, I could never get into it (for one it bored me because it was like masturbating to a fantasy about masturbating; a mindless body is like a masturbation aid without the social/psychological connection with another person, on two occasions when I actually looked for pictures online I was so immediately wracked with guilt that it took me around 48 hours to fully recover and I had difficulty sleeping. It wasn't that I stumbled across the picture of a dead body I was attracted to and used that to visualize a fantasy where the person was alive and happy with me but that I went out of my way to search for dead bodies because they were dead bodies; the first time I was desperate for stimulation to help with my erectile dysfunction and to distract me from body image problems, the second time I was in a misanthropic mood so I thought that I wouldn't care but I did), but I never thought that what I was doing was ok or benign, I thought that there was something off about it and I still felt a need to acknowledge that to honor other people (in the same way that some people might cheat because they have no fundamental problem with cheating, at least when they're not the one being cheated on, and other people give in to temptation when it contradicts their ideals and who they want to be).


The total distinction between an act that's considered bad or wrong and a desire to engage in it seems meaningless to me because the desire that would drive a certain real-life act is what would drive a fantasy stimulation of that act (the former is morally worse by degree because it would result in something 'permanent,' you can just stop fantasizing about something that you no longer want to do because it has no lasting real-world consequences, but if a thing is inherently bad then the desire for it to exist is necessarily immoral and I say this as a consequentialist who doesn't think that morality per se has intrinsic value but that is still what's implied by a thing being inherently good or bad. If happiness is inherently good then it is immoral to de-value it even when doing so doesn't actually result in a reduction of happiness). I don't see a problem with desires that clash with other people's desires because I don't think that we are morally obligated to respect the desires of others merely because they hold those desires (which is why I said that I don't ultimately care what the deceased consented to prior to their death, at least not for its own sake. Our obligations to others are to consider their happiness and emotional distress, not what they want per se).

-We agree that necrophilia isn't necessarily harmful but my contention is that a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies is anti-social, it's morally problematic because it de-values the happiness of others. I want Jane Doe to experience happiness, her happiness is as valuable as my own and any fundamental distinction between her's and mine is completely arbitrary, experiencing happiness requires being 'alive' (or at least existing, being conscious). Jane Doe has legitimate cause to resent me for de-valuing her happiness and if I'm a 'necrophiliac,' I have an interest in her ceasing to exist so that her death provides me with a source of pleasure-her mindless body. Children only have legitimate cause to resent a pedophile if s/he doesn't care whether or not sexual intimacy with them would cause them pain but when pedophiles fantasize about children, what they want ideally, they are almost always going to be fantasizing about scenarios in which the sex is pleasurable for the children as well! So I don't see them as morally equivalent, a preference for dead bodies per se and a preference for children (not from a perspective that sees happiness as inherently beneficial. If I were a negative hedonist I would have no issue with a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies because I couldn't justify viewing life as preferable to death, in terms of benefit to the deceased, under any conditions). Again, you make this total distinction between action and desire that I don't understand because desires drive actions and I am not ultimately concerned with freedom as an end in itself (precisely because I don't think there's an obligation to respect the values of other people because they happen to value x, without any consideration to the nature of x. I don't respect the values of antis who oppose AMSC on principle even when it could be an ultimately harmless source of pleasure, I don't respect the desire of bullies and sadists; which includes some antis, to torment their victims, I don't respect Hitler's desire to subjugate, torment and eradicate an entire race of people, etc. and all of this does relate to autonomy as a value because it's not actually a proper specific value, an appeal to freedom is ultimately asking that others respect the values that choices one would make regarding their own 'property' without interference would be rooted in; I don't think that you can coherently respect someone's choice to do x while simultaneously 'disagreeing' with the value that drives that choice).

-Snuff porn (where people are actually killed on camera for the sexual gratification of viewers) or some kind of fetish that involves killing a partner is also highly taboo. Rape is taboo. It's taboo to violently assault random people and I'm sure someone out there gets sexual gratification from that. Some people are interested in women in high heels crushing small animals to death by stepping on them, I would hope to God that this is generally taboo. You also have ethical standards and those standards imply a limit on what sexual behavior is permissible. Some people might oppose necrophilia because it's 'disgusting' or just because it's abnormal but that's not the only argument to make against it (and once more, I am not talking about the mere attraction to a corpse or even actual sex with a corpse although I find that deeply disturbing. I am talking about a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies).

Regardless of why people actually do oppose pedophilia and necrophilia, one devalues the happiness of others and the other does not. My opposition to 'necrophilia' is rooted in the same value that drives my opposition to the AMSC taboo. If children can experience sexual pleasure as a result of certain intimacy with adults, why should anti-pedos (on principle) not want them to have that experience? If they can't and that's unrealistic, there's still nothing fundamentally wrong with wanting to have mutually pleasurable sex with them. The anti-AMSC taboo is offensive to me because in arguing that AMSC is bad as an end in and of itself even in some hypothetical scenario where it could be a source of happiness for children with no long-term harm, they are saying that AMSC shouldn't be a source of pleasure for children even if/when it could be, valuing the happiness of children consistently implies rejecting the 'AMSC is inherently bad' position just as it implies rejecting a preference for their dead or unconscious bodies.

zarkle wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2026 9:51 am This is such a morbid socially unacceptable topic that makes me uncomfortable to think about but I will cast my two cents into it because I am unhaunted by social norms and only care about the logic of discussing necrophilia analytically. At a personal level I am very disgusted by this and it does weird me out significantly, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal or even avoided from discussion. My own feeling of disgust doesn't take away the rights of peaceful people or negate logic. so here's what I have to say, not as advice but just as a way to talk about this morbidity rationally.

I thought of necrophilia before from a coherent perspective. NOT due to wanting to ever engage in it ( I have zero interest),

There are three different transitional types of necrophilia - including an alternative isolated body parts variation.

Necrophilia subtypes

1) recently deceased
2) rotting corpse
3) skeleton form
+ independent removed body part (that can be in stages 1 through 3 of decomposition) and obviously rotting corpses are a transition because a slightly rotted vs severely decomposing corpse are two different things. The independent body part version has additional ethical/legal issues of dismembering a corpse.

You describe yourself as a 2), so you don't have the ethical issues other categorizes have. I assume strongly good faith that you don't try to kill people to practice necrophilia. I also assume my comment has no influence whatsoever on what you decide to do. I still strongly agree with mainstream society it should be a crime to use a corpse at a morgue or dig one up at a cemetery, because no one gave the necro permission and that violates property rights and the families contract to dispose of the body.

But if someone gives permission before they die then sure! its disturbing as hell in my eyes, but I don't see it as harmful or violation of any true ethical principle. Put simply, before a person dies if they give consent it appears ethical. Even though this grosses me out. Though the practitioner must consider a condom to avoid extreme STDs especially on a rotting pathogen infested corpse. Though keep in mind this is still highly illegal and the law does not allow such contract in any Western country. So even if a confirmed non AI video of a now deceased person willing necrophiliac sex it would still be illegal.

However necrophiles (unlike girl lovers) are legally allowed to

1) save as many decomposing corpse images as they want to their hard drive, such as images from forensic body farms
2) masturbate to pictures of decaying corpses on forensic body farms
3) buy putrid sprays online and sniff them

so consider yourself l.u.c.k.y considering swimwear images of girls can be illegal where I live!

But I thought of another thought experiment of finding a rotting corpse in the woods, like a hanged body in the forest - but then I realized it would be morally wrong to have sex with a rotting corpse in the woods because the better thing to do would be to alert local police/investigators to identify it so the family of the person knows their deceased was found. and having sex with that body before reporting it to the police or NOT telling the police will
1) result in the cops finding the necros semen/DNA on the corpse accuses and accusing the necro of rape and murder while the corpse was a alive person
2) same as above but they think the necro killed someone and reported their own crime to conceal the blame

So in both cases having sex with a dead random rotting corpse is never the right answer, not because of folk psychology "right vs wrong" BS but because I logically explained the huge risk it carries, such as a murder and rape charge. When I use the terms right and wrong. I am using them from a perspective of property rights violations and avoiding personal harm, not in the perspective of folk psychology where disgusting sexual things are auto illegal. Even if 99.9999% of people find something "wrong" that doesn't mean personal freedom is negated. Only when it conflicts with the liberty of someone else or causes harm. The harm being the family assumes a necro murdered and raped a corpse.

One thing I'll add to the end is the research of a scientist named Charmaine Borg, she showed sexual arousal and disgust are opposing forces. Disgust is meant to be a cancellation force on sexual arousal. In the normal human brain disgust is a firewall meant to reject all unwanted sexual behaviors
https://mindwise-groningen.nl/disgust-a ... ng-forces/

So If this is true we can see how in a rare minority of individuals perhaps disgusting stimuli and erotic stimuli cross wire in the brain due to how close the relationship is between disgust and arousal, and that cross wiring could lead to necrophilia, attraction to feces and attraction to vomit. What once was an extremely taboo subject, science shines its light down on and explains it. This is not a fact but I think it is a safe hypothesis to say "Due to disgust and sexual arousal sharing brain pathways, necrophilia, feces attraction and vomit attraction are when disgust pathways and arousal pathways cross wire."


Now all we need to do is hope science can build a case!