What is sexually immoral?

[Me Myself]

I didn't say compare, I said comparable:
1. capable of being compared; having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison: He considered the Roman and British empires to be comparable.
2. worthy of comparison: shops comparable to those on Fifth Avenue.

3. usable for comparison; similar: We have no comparable data on Russian farming.

Synonyms
1. like, equal, equivalent, similar.

I think the Oxford is a better source than a random online dictionary:

Definition of compare

verb

[with object]
1estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between:
individual schools compared their facilities with those of others in the area
the survey compares prices in different countries
total attendance figures were 28,000, compared to 40,000 at last year’s event
(compare something to) point out or describe the resemblances with; liken to:
her novel was compared to the work of Daniel Defoe
(compare something to) draw an analogy between one thing and (another) for the purposes of explanation or clarification:
he compared the religions to different paths towards the peak of the same mountain
[no object, with adverbial] have a specified relationship with another thing or person in terms of nature or quality:
salaries compare favourably with those of other professions
[no object, usually with negative] be of an equal or similar nature or quality:
the dried stuff just can’t compare with the taste and aroma of fresh basil

2 Grammar form the comparative and superlative degrees of (an adjective or an adverb):
words of one syllable are usually compared by ‘-er’ and ‘-est’



Now, comparable means that we can compare it, I can look it up in the Oxford too if you like, but I´d be confident it would say that.

 

[Drolefille]

comparing means the act of seeing both differences and similarities.

Would you prefer we ask you to stop equating the two, because that is what has been done.

When people say things like what I just bolded they reveal an incapacity to do this, this means you are too scared or repulsed to think, which means you will not be able to think straight on this. If you do not overcome that, you will not be able to know your position better.

This is highly presumptuous. Comparing or equating homosexuality or same-sex acts to necrophilia is offensive. My finding it so doesn't change my ability to think about the issue. Your attempted analysis has no real grounding in anything that's actually been said in the thread.

I wasn't talking about violating a taboo, if I was to be offensive in this thread, I'd actually compare the two.

You are talking about necrophilia, this is a taboo. You're talking about breaking a taboo - even if not yourself- and thus following through on your previous claim of "liking to talk about eating puppy corpses around vegans" and thus I, like Storm, am choosing not to take you seriously.

What is even the difference between being picked on and bullying?

Tell me what I said to purposely offend Storm?

I'm not at all trying to be insincere, I'm trying to not get my reputation out of line again.

In attempt to be civil, this is what it turns to... I wasn't even responding harshly.

You claimed to be both bullied and picked on, while I see nothing more than us responding to your own words, directly and not inaccurately.

You obviously don´t understand what "compare" means.

We could compare 2 completely different things and it would still be called a comparison. What makes it a comparison is to do it step by step element by element. When you speak as a whole, you are not being able to compare correctly, because that needs a dissemination of the elements of that things which are being compared.

Playing grammar nazi doesn't help your case here. I think it's clear what is meant.

 

[Storm]

I think the Oxford is a better source than a random online dictionary:

That "random online dictionary" would be dictionary.com, which cites Oxford among other sources.

Now, comparable means that we can compare it, I can look it up in the Oxford too if you like, but I´d be confident it would say that.

Be my guest, and don't forget the synonyms.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Now, comparable means that we can compare it, I can look it up in the Oxford too if you like, but I´d be confident it would say that.

Wrong.

Comparable:
adjective
able to be likened to another; similar:
the situation in Holland is comparable to that in England
of equivalent quality; worthy of comparison:
nobody is comparable with this athlete

Definition of comparable

 

[Drolefille]

You mean about unresistant sex? then I ask you:

See my other response.

I think the Oxford is a better source than a random online dictionary:

Definition of compare

verb

[with object]
1estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between:
individual schools compared their facilities with those of others in the area
the survey compares prices in different countries
total attendance figures were 28,000, compared to 40,000 at last year’s event
(compare something to) point out or describe the resemblances with; liken to:
her novel was compared to the work of Daniel Defoe
(compare something to) draw an analogy between one thing and (another) for the purposes of explanation or clarification:
he compared the religions to different paths towards the peak of the same mountain
[no object, with adverbial] have a specified relationship with another thing or person in terms of nature or quality:
salaries compare favourably with those of other professions
[no object, usually with negative] be of an equal or similar nature or quality:
the dried stuff just can’t compare with the taste and aroma of fresh basil

2 Grammar form the comparative and superlative degrees of (an adjective or an adverb):
words of one syllable are usually compared by ‘-er’ and ‘-est’



Now, comparable means that we can compare it, I can look it up in the Oxford too if you like, but I´d be confident it would say that.

Here's the thing, you weren't pointing out dissimilarities, you were specifically equating the two behaviors. Now, here's why it's offensive - because homosexuality has been classified as deviant in much the same way that necrophilia is. Oh, you might say, this means that necrophilia isn't really deviant either! Wrong. That's not how psychology works. And when it is all too common to equate pedophilia and bestiality in particular with homosexuality, it is reasonable that people who are attracted to the same-sex get annoyed when others make such comparisons.

I've explained why they're not the same, insisting that you're not really comparing and what the definition is is not furthering the discussion.

 

[Me Myself]

This is moving the goalposts as there may be a handful of cases where this has ever occurred.
Assume that, like the vast majority of people, no one consented to having the corpse involved in an act of coitus.

In that case it would be coherent difference. I was exploring the subject, not "moving the goalpost". What I mean is that I honestly gain nothing by necrophilia being okay . I don´t like it. But I like to explore the moral rationales of things. I think it helps us know each other better, they whys this or that is considered immoral or moral, etc.

Now for no one having consented, it may be as good or as bad as skeletons of humans in museums, in the cases in which we are talking thousands of years old humans that obviously couldn´t give consent to a concept so abstract as a "museum" for their remains.

The reason it becomes different is because of the specific legal system between consenting people (those of a city or a country) which made laws to regulate this things, and have decided the permitted way of managing bodies. going against this undermines the legal agreement between all and as such it could be said to be immoral. the person only gains (very weird) pleasure but is doing something illegal and against the wishes of society. Also the diseased person most likely did will his family to have the legal says on the body or s/he him/herself wrote what s/he wanted for it.

So sure, this would be a difference. though technically, it would not be against the act itself, but against the most common form of it (and no it is not the same). Killing a human being I see as wrong, but I don´t see anything wrong with euthanasia, so that would be an exception. So killing a human being is not always wrong in my view.

I would consider it unhealthy if this is the only type of sex that either party preferred or was interested in in the same way I consider necrophilia unhealthy (note, a random necrophilic fantasy is not the same thing as engaging in or fixating on necrophilic behavior). However as long as the partner is conscious and capable of consenting or more importantly of revoking consent at any time, then this is not immoral.

Acts between adults cannot be compared to necrophilic acts because of the ability to give consent.

Well then if the necrophiliac has sex with other (probably unsuspecting ) partners, it would get out of the bolded part. Then about consent: when it comes to your body when it is going to die, you can only give consent once about what will be done with it. Those that ask to be cremated cannot be asked again once they are dead, etc.

Likewise in the (incredibly unlikely/uncommon) case one gave permission to partner for this kind of sexual endeavor with body, well it could only happen once too.(the consent)

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Comparison of consenting human sexual behavior to pedophilia, necrophilia, or other similar things may be treated as a violation of the forum rule on trolling:

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

Furthermore, please refrain from making personal comments about other members and keep Rule 1 in mind while posting:

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

 

[Me Myself]

See my other response.

Here's the thing, you weren't pointing out dissimilarities, you were specifically equating the two behaviors.

I am actually looking for the dissimilarities. I don´t like necrophilia. the more ammo I got against it the better, but so far, I don´t have much, not beyond the "yuk! disgusting!" factor. I cannot find the differences if I am not honestly looking for them, and part of finding the differences is looking for the similarities in an honest way.

Now, here's why it's offensive .

I advice not to get on the discussion of whether it is offensive or not: I don´t care. Anyone can decide me eating a cheese sandwish is offensive, I won´t sweat over it. Make a new thread about "offensiveness on comparisons" if you like but I wont get into that discussion here. comparing behaviours is how we decide which are "good" and which are "bad". If we did not compare with all our honesty, it would be morally irresponsible to have a fixed view on it IMHO.

If I want to be able to say "necrophilia is wrong" I need to have made an honest comparison to other sexual behavours that are considered "good".

because homosexuality has been classified as deviant in much the same way that necrophilia is. Oh, you might say, this means that necrophilia isn't really deviant either!

I would never say that. That is too unrefined. To determine whether it is good or not I must analise it´s elements. Simply looking one similarity between an accepted sexual behaviour and necrophilia is not enough to say necrophilia is okay. It is fair to say though, that a behaviour is okay until you have explicit reasons for which it is not. I am not saying this doesn´t exist for necrophilia, I am actually looking for them, but everytime someone shies away from comparison it does give the impression they are afraid they wont find much (be mindful: I am not saying this is the case for most or all, but it does give such impression. I don´t believe in taboos when it comes to speech. At least not in this way)

it is reasonable that people who are attracted to the same-sex get annoyed when others make such comparisons.

I can understand how and why they get anyoned yes, but that´s the beauty of a forum. They just don´t have to reply or open the link if they dont wanna. I probably wouldnt have this conversation in rl unless I see they are not too anoyed by it (and be "too" I mean necrophilia is an uncomfortable subject in general. I dont generally like to think or talk about it, but it became interesting here. Didn´t stop being uncomfortable though )

I've explained why they're not the same, insisting that you're not really comparing and what the definition is is not furthering the discussion.

Oh I am comparing. They are not the same. No one is saying they are. The discussion is whether necrophilia is immoral or not, that´s it. The comparison came because someone said it was immoral for a reason that is shared not only for homosexual sex, but even could be shared by say, unmarital sex, or even marriage with someone the family does not approve, etc. It is not a specific comparison to homosexuality, it was just the one picked of many options.

 

[Me Myself]

Well, now I must stop the posting about it then.

I dont agree with the decision, but I´ll abide.

 

[Drolefille]

In that case it would be coherent difference. I was exploring the subject, not "moving the goalpost". What I mean is that I honestly gain nothing by necrophilia being okay . I don´t like it. But I like to explore the moral rationales of things. I think it helps us know each other better, they whys this or that is considered immoral or moral, etc.

While I understand that, and have played devil's advocate many times myself, when you switch from one now-disproved point to the other hypothetical one, it is moving the goalposts. Concede or finish the first discussion then switch and it makes more sense.

Now for no one having consented, it may be as good or as bad as skeletons of humans in museums, in the cases in which we are talking thousands of years old humans that obviously couldn´t give consent to a concept so abstract as a "museum" for their remains.

Correct, and there are many who oppose this use, as well as many who argue that such remains are treated respectfully.

The reason it becomes different is because of the specific legal system between consenting people (those of a city or a country) which made laws to regulate this things, and have decided the permitted way of managing bodies. going against this undermines the legal agreement between all and as such it could be said to be immoral. the person only gains (very weird) pleasure but is doing something illegal and against the wishes of society. Also the diseased person most likely did will his family to have the legal says on the body or s/he him/herself wrote what s/he wanted for it.

I haven't mentioned legality as legality is not at issue. Morality is mostly independent from legality except in that it is often moral to follow the law.

So sure, this would be a difference. though technically, it would not be against the act itself, but against the most common form of it (and no it is not the same). Killing a human being I see as wrong, but I don´t see anything wrong with euthanasia, so that would be an exception. So killing a human being is not always wrong in my view.

Well then if the necrophiliac has sex with other (probably unsuspecting ) partners, it would get out of the bolded part. Then about consent: when it comes to your body when it is going to die, you can only give consent once about what will be done with it. Those that ask to be cremated cannot be asked again once they are dead, etc.

A necrophiliac would be a she or he, not an it. And no, having sex with other partners does not remove a fixation on necrophilic fantasies or behavior, it means that ultimately non-necrophilic acts are unsatisfying.
As virtually no-one has consented to engage in sexual acts past death, and consent cannot be revoked freely, it is, as you noted, impossible for it to be an ethical sexual act.

 

[Me Myself]

I like a lot how we ere having a better discussion now. I think I better left the subject for the sensibilities of other and to evade possible problems. It was really good to see someone be able to ddiscuss it rationally

 

[PRV357]

Necrophilia doesn´t really hurt anybody. It can hurt the people alive that are sad or perturbed because of what is being done to the body, but that is indeed akin to someone protesting against homosexuality because it perturbs him, even though he is not the one having homosexual sex.

wonder what the families of Dahlmer's victims would think of this

 

[Drolefille]

wonder what the families of Dahlmer's victims would think of this

I think murder is an entirely separate subject. Particularly in this case where it is so emotionally charged.

 

[PRV357]

I think murder is an entirely separate subject. Particularly in this case where it is so emotionally charged.

:sorry1: if you think it's going off topic... but the thread's about "what is sexually immoral?"... & necrophilia is definitely one of the most deviant examples of such...

so (sadly) it can & does lead to evermore horrific crimes, such as Dahlmers...
murder was the method by which the corpses were obtained... to commit the necrophilia... as was the m/o in the cases of Gacy & Bundy also...
although Ed Gein was initially just robbing graves, for his fetish... he too eventually resorted to murder

 

[Drolefille]

:sorry1: if you think it's going off topic... but the thread's about "what is sexually immoral?"... & necrophilia is definitely one of the most deviant examples of such...

so (sadly) it can & does lead to evermore horrific crimes, such as Dahlmers...
murder was the method by which the corpses were obtained... to commit the necrophilia... as was the m/o in the cases of Gacy & Bundy also...
although Ed Gein was initially just robbing graves, for his fetish... he too eventually resorted to murder

Right, but murder is not sexually immoral and is thus irrelevant.

We've been talking in depth about necrophilia.

 

[Me Myself]

Right, but murder is not sexually immoral and is thus irrelevant.

We've been talking in depth about necrophilia.

Thanks for the obvious clarification :yes:

 

[PRV357]

Right, but murder is not sexually immoral and is thus irrelevant.

We've been talking in depth about necrophilia.

exactly THE topic I'd started, pages ago :yes: (for a more accurate clarification)

murder was entirely relevant in those cases, as BOTH their motive & method...
to obtain corpses for their heinous/deviant necrophilia...

ANOTHER issue relevant to the thread topic would be; Gacys & Dahlmers sexually immoral preference for same sex victims

 

[Badran]

What is sexually immoral?

Any sex that is not between a man and a woman who are engaging in the bondage of marriage given the approval of the respected families of each and the blessings of the properly ranked clergyman as well as it's occurrence within the related set of religious and cultural rituals which include the necessary uttering of specific words pronounced in a certain way is immoral sex as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Storm]

exactly THE topic I'd started, pages ago :yes: (for a more accurate clarification)

murder was entirely relevant in those cases, as BOTH their motive & method...
to obtain corpses for their heinous/deviant necrophilia...

ANOTHER issue relevant to the thread topic would be; Gacys & Dahlmers sexually immoral preference for same sex victims

Necrophiliac cannibalistic murders are made worse by the presence of homosexuality? That's seriously screwed up.

 

[PRV357]

Necrophiliac cannibalistic murders are made worse by the presence of homosexuality? That's seriously screwed up.

IT WOULD BE seriously screwed up :areyoucra for anyone to think that...

especially since an overwhelming majority of serial killers & rapists are HETERO