The Last Taboo

[W_L]

I heard that urban legend before (The version I heard was that the girl had given a guy her apartment keys and he kept going back to her every night, until he discovered sores on his body   The police told him the girl had died weeks before after a sexual encounter.)

 

Outside of having sex, which I agree is debatable, loving the dead is not taboo. It is an expression of love that is deeper than most and praised in certain context, because few people will ever go that  far for their deceased lover.

 

As incest is more than just raunchy sex between brothers/sisters/first cousins, there is an aspect of love that makes the concept less shocking and less taboo in different societies.

[Thorn Wilde]

I don't think continuing to love someone after they've died is the same as necrophilia. In fact, necrophilia is defined as sexual attraction to corpses. Love doesn't come into it.

[W_L]

I don't think continuing to love someone after they've died is the same as necrophilia. In fact, necrophilia is defined as sexual attraction to corpses. Love doesn't come into it.

 

Again, it depends, does the necrophilia have any personal experiences with the corpse during its life?

 

If the necrophilia is purely an attraction to an "object", i.e. a corpse, then it is far closer to sex toy fantasy. In this case, I would not define it as an attraction, more like a fetish

 

However, if the necrophilia is connected to experience and the person is carrying on a "living" expression of the love that he/she had with the deceased, it becomes a different expression.

 

The last research conducted on this was done in 1989 and, based on the methodology/research sample, I would conclude they did not use a wider cross-cultural base of subjects to survey. Despite this fact, the second highest reason (21%) why necrophilia exist was "reunion with their lost partner".

 

To me, the subject is not really taboo beyond the realm of potential acceptance. (Weird, I agree, but if you love someone that much; I am not going to stop you.)

 

On the other hand, a fetish is a fetish. It is not an attraction or hold inherent emotional reception.

[Thorn Wilde]

See, to me, when a person has died they're no longer there. That corpse, that's not that person. That person is gone. I think that necrophilia in the way you're defining it here is not so much necrophilia as a very unhealthy expression of abandonment issues and inability to accept death. It's like the mother who continues to try and care for her dead baby. It's dreadfully sad, but in the end it's an expression of something being emotionally really wrong within that person. 

 

As for the study you're citing, Wikipedia has the following addition:

 

 

 

At the end of their own report, Rosman and Resnick wrote that their study should only be used like a spring-board for further, more in-depth research.

[W_L]

Few others explored this section within psychology after the two decades old research.

 

It definitely is tragic, but it is something we can all sympathize with, which makes it a rather odd expression of love rather than a taboo.

 

Psychology can only do so much to treat patients, if they remain in love with their dead partner, you can't always change them or give them new emotional anchors. To them, it is a promise to keep their love soley with that partner. Fidelity is a social construct, but when people enter romances we expect it.

 

Love beyond what many great writers like to describe is not merely pleasure, but is intrinsically painful due to our human frailties.

 

A taboo unacceptable to human beings must never be sympathetic or understood.

[Sasha Distan]

A taboo unacceptable to human beings must never be sympathetic or understood.

 

Under this definition i don't think that there is a single actual taboo out there then.

 

every taboo i can think of can be twisted to become sympathetic in some format as you have just shown necrophilia to be (and in case that sounds like i disapprove, i don't, you have excellent skills in presenting your argument)

[Former Member]

Few others explored this section within psychology after the two decades old research.

 

It definitely is tragic, but it is something we can all sympathize with, which makes it a rather odd expression of love rather than a taboo.

 

Psychology can only do so much to treat patients, if they remain in love with their dead partner, you can't always change them or give them new emotional anchors. To them, it is a promise to keep their love soley with that partner. Fidelity is a social construct, but when people enter romances we expect it.

 

Love beyond what many great writers like to describe is not merely pleasure, but is intrinsically painful due to our human frailties.

 

A taboo unacceptable to human beings must never be sympathetic or understood.

 

That doesn't mean they have to have sex with their dead partner though.  There are other ways of 'reconnecting' that do not involve unearthing a grave and having sexual relations with something that is more of an object now than a person.

 

Also, I find necrophilia SO gross.  Even if it's 'fresh' (bluh), as soon as a person dies, the other living things in the body (bacteria) are still working.  The body fills with gas and will eventually explode.  Imagine that happening as you're macking on your deceased partner's decaying face.  NO.  Thank you.

[W_L]

That doesn't mean they have to have sex with their dead partner though.  There are other ways of 'reconnecting' that do not involve unearthing a grave and having sexual relations with something that is more of an object now than a person. Also, I find necrophilia SO gross.  Even if it's 'fresh' (bluh), as soon as a person dies, the other living things in the body (bacteria) are still working.  The body fills with gas and will eventually explode.  Imagine that happening as you're macking on your deceased partner's decaying face.  NO.  Thank you.

Oh definitely individual taste

 

the issue of connecting with deceased loved ones reminds me of the movie, "what dreams may come". The chaeacter Annie is mentally broken by the death of her children and she relied on her husband (played by robin williams) to remain attach to reality. When he dies, she no longer has anything to live for. Society is based on many attachments, healthy and otherwise.

 

Myiege, like you said sex is not the only form of necrophilia, it is merely one expression. The concept in on itself is not sexual, unless the pis attracted to corpse but that's a fetish for an object.

[Thorn Wilde]

Oh definitely individual taste

 

the issue of connecting with deceased loved ones reminds me of the movie, "what dreams may come". The chaeacter Annie is mentally broken by the death of her children and she relied on her husband (played by robin williams) to remain attach to reality. When he dies, she no longer has anything to live for. Society is based on many attachments, healthy and otherwise.

 

Myiege, like you said sex is not the only form of necrophilia, it is merely one expression. The concept in on itself is not sexual, unless the pis attracted to corpse but that's a fetish for an object.

 

No, that is incorrect. Necrophilia is defined as being sexual. It is not necrophilia to remain in love with a dead lover unless you express that love through sexual contact with your lover's dead body, or desire for such. Attachment to a dead lover is not necrophilia, it is a possible motivation for necrophilia. Necrophilia is a behaviour.

 

'Rosman and Resnick (1989) reviewed information from 34 cases of necrophilia describing the individuals' motivations for their behaviors: these individuals reported the desire to possess an unresisting and unrejecting partner (68%), reunions with a romantic partner (21%), sexual attraction to corpses (15%), comfort or overcoming feelings of isolation (15%), or seeking self-esteem by expressing power over a homicide victim (12%).' --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia

 

I can also bring your attention to the fact that 21% out of 34 people is 7 people.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Thorn Wilde

[W_L]

No, that is incorrect. Necrophilia is defined as being sexual. It is not necrophilia to remain in love with a dead lover unless you express that love through sexual contact with your lover's dead body, or desire for such. Attachment to a dead lover is not necrophilia, it is a possible motivation for necrophilia. Necrophilia is a behaviour. 'Rosman and Resnick (1989) reviewed information from 34 cases of necrophilia describing the individuals' motivations for their behaviors: these individuals reported the desire to possess an unresisting and unrejecting partner (68%), reunions with a romantic partner (21%), sexual attraction to corpses (15%), comfort or overcoming feelings of isolation (15%), or seeking self-esteem by expressing power over a homicide victim (12%).' --- [/size]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia I can also bring your attention to the fact that 21% out of 34 people is 7 people.

You do know I said the 1989 research methodology was lacking cross cultural sampling

 

In addition, as I said expression is not uniform. Sexual arousal or even relations does not always mean penetration or oral intercourse.

 

In conventional stereotypes, gays are usually subjected to that concept as well I.e. just because two guys are in love: one or both must be fucking the other.

 

Also another point of fact, the 1989 research does not go into detail on what they consider "sexual".

 

I think the research is not there to justify your view thorn, nor mine in reality, which I freely admitted. However, the potential is there for my definition rather than purely an explicitly dark evil version as you ascribe.

 

My view is that this phenomenon is not inherently taboo under certain precepts, not all. A faithful lover interpretation is acceptable for most romantics among us, even if it is macabre.

Edited October 28, 2013 by W_L

[scotty94]

why do you want to have sex with your own kids in the first place it happens by sick in the head predators, there your kids why would you hurt them in that way. Secondly if you have a healthy relationship with your partner why do you need to have sex with other member of your family, and if you think it brings the family more closer that is completely wrong it breaks family apart and not to mention the mental problems if you somehow have a successful born baby from a incest relationships, and I not even going in to the disability they can incur.

[Thorn Wilde]

You do know I said the 1989 research methodology was lacking cross cultural sampling

 

In addition, as I said expression is not uniform. Sexual arousal or even relations does not always mean penetration or oral intercourse.

 

In conventional stereotypes, gays are usually subjected to that concept as well I.e. just because two guys are in love: one or both must be fucking the other.

 

Also another point of fact, the 1989 research does not go into detail on what they consider "sexual".

 

I think the research is not there to justify your view thorn, nor mine in reality, which I freely admitted. However, the potential is there for my definition rather than purely an explicitly dark evil version as you ascribe.

 

My view is that this phenomenon is not inherently taboo under certain precepts, not all. A faithful lover interpretation is acceptable for most romantics among us, even if it is macabre.

 

I am simply giving you the dictionary and psychology definition of the word necrophilia. You are, of course, free to ascribe other meaning to this word if you so will, but if you do you are likely to be misunderstood, for you will be quite alone in your interpretation most of the time.

 

It is perfectly natural and normal to continue loving people who have passed away. I haven't seen my dad alive since I was 11, and I still love him. I'd do anything to crawl into his lap and inhale the scent of stale smoke and coffee one more time, or sit on the floor and play with circuit boards while he taps away on his computer, or listen to him play guitar and sing. That doesn't mean I ever wanted to dig up his corpse, and it does not make me a necrophile. The elderly lady who outlived her husband and still wears her wedding ring and talks to him every night and keeps his ashes on the mantle isn't a necrophile either. Nor is the young man whose lover dies and who chooses to remain celibate and visit his grave every weekend for the rest of his life rather than find a new partner, even if he does still dream of or fantasise about sex with his lover, assuming that the lover is in fact alive in those fantasies. That is not the definition of necrophilia. 

 

EDIT: If you do not believe me, you can read the full extent of Rosman and Resnick's study here. You'll find that the full title of the study is Sexual Attraction to Corpses: A Psychiatric Review of Necrophilia. And there are plenty of examples of what they consider sexual, including but not limited to full on penetrative intercourse, being aroused while cutting up a dead body, masturbation over a corpse, and sexual arousal caused by the act of murder or mutilation.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Thorn Wilde

[Former Member]

As a note.  "Sexual" is normally defined as something that causes arousal.  And in all three cases Thorn has described above...well, I don't really think that any of those instances of remembering and continuing to love someone dear to you is a form of sexual arousal or attraction and therefore could NEVER be construed as necrophilia, which is considered a sexual fetish.  And the fetish really is more about the dead body than the soul that used to reside in said dead body.

[Thorn Wilde]

As a note.  "Sexual" is normally defined as something that causes arousal.  And in all three cases Thorn has described above...well, I don't really think that any of those instances of remembering and continuing to love someone dear to you is a form of sexual arousal or attraction and therefore could NEVER be construed as necrophilia, which is considered a sexual fetish.  And the fetish really is more about the dead body than the soul that used to reside in said dead body.

 

My point exactly. 

 

The summary of the study published by Drs Rosman and Resnick states as follows:

 

The authors review 122 cases (88 from the world literature and 34 unpublished cases) manifesting necrophilic acts or fantasies. They distinguish genuine necrophilia from pseudonecrophilia and classify true necrophilia into three types: necrophilic homicide, "regular" necrophilia, and necrophilic fantasy. Neither psychosis, mental retardation, nor sadism appears to be inherent in necrophilia. The most common motive for necrophilia is possession of an unresisting and unrejecting partner. Necrophiles often choose occupations that put them in contact with corpses. Some necrophiles who had occupational access to corpses committed homicide nevertheless. Psychodynamic themes, defense mechanisms, and treatment for this rare disorder are discussed.

 

 

I doubt it can be said any clearer than that. While it can be a motivation, love for a dead loved one alone is not defined as necrophilia. Necrophilia has to do with sexual attraction and sexual desire, as well as behaviour.

[W_L]

Research methodology problems, Thorn, is what holds this research back from conclusive statement.

 

With a high prevalence of homicide and a sample filled with males, the research had a lot of problems. They admitted that their sampling was 92% male to begin with, not a very logical cross sample. The pseudo-necrophiles were all homicidal criminals, plus 11 out of the 34 were homicide necrophiles as well. It feeds into the old horror movie trope of Norman Bates of Psycho.

 

Also, they did not even list racial composition, so we are talking about a cultural singular study with a high prevalence of males and murderers.

 

The 1989 research had a lot of issues that few have tried to retrace and challenge.

 

Also, I like to point this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_arousal

 

Sexual arousal has several stages and may not lead to any actual sexual activity, beyond a mental arousal and the physiological changes that accompany it.

 

Sexual arousal and attraction does not always equal sexual acts. However in the sample, it shows a very strong prevalence of sexual acts, primarily through criminal action.

 

Thorn and Miyege have neither of you been turned on by your partner or lover, but nothing comes about afterwards. Sexual arousal by experience, memory, or contact is not equivalent to sexual acts. 

 

Also, aggression and sexual acts run in tandem. Aggression is also high among criminals Perhaps if their research was conducted with a wider sample and less reliance on criminals, it would be a bit more balanced than this

 

The problem with psychology is that the field researches rare things, then consider it science without retesting their hypothesis.

 

I am not saying that these guys are all saints; many of them may be evil incarnate for all I know and you know based on the early research. However, the methodology for the early research was extremely flawed. The extrapolation and conclusion faulty considering modern methodology and procedures.

 

I don't think any of us really want to drag this topic out any longer, we all stated our opinion on Necrophilia. I don't consider its adherent to be criminally inclined, macabre and weird definitely, but I would not judge a group of people based on one psychological study with so many holes. (It might be praised by mainstream psychology, but remember lobotomies and reparative therapy were too not so long ago )

Edited October 29, 2013 by W_L

[Thorn Wilde]

I'm not saying that sexual attraction and arousal is the same as sexual activity, but that necrophilia is defined as sexual attraction to corpses, arousal caused by the thought of or presence of corpses, and/or desire to perform sexual acts with corpses, NOT as wanking over the memory of a dead lover. Necrophilia is to do with corpses. What you are describing is NOT necrophilia.

 

 

Wiktionary states:

 

Noun[edit]

necrophilia (uncountable)

1. (sexuality) A pathological attraction to dead bodies, especially sexual attraction or intercourse.
2. Pathological fascination with death.

 

 

 

 

My copy of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary reads:

 

necrophilia noun sexual interest in dead bodies

 

 

Merriam-Webster Online defines it as 'obsession with and usually erotic interest in or stimulation by corpses'

 

In other words, there's a difference between sleeping with ghosts and sleeping with corpses, and the former is NOT defined as necrophilia.

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to drag this out, it's just that this is a simple matter of definition, and there are no opinions to talk about here. It's not about opinion, it's about fact, and the fact of the matter is that you are not operating with a proper definition of the word necrophilia. We are literally having two different conversations and not talking about the same thing.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Thorn Wilde

[Sasha Distan]

i have to say, watching this discussion has been most fascinating, possible because it's between two of the most literate people i know. i would like to see this recreate in a pub. i'll but the drinks.

 

on an actual on-topic note: i think that we need another word for the "necrophilia" which W_L is referencing, as we can all agree that loving people who have passed on is a natural and even on some level healthy emotion. But Thorn is correct, it needs a new name, because the adorable guy who loses his partner and chooses to visit his grave every weekend and fantasies about him does not deserve the stigma attached to a label like necrophile, nor the issues with things such as "attachment disorder".

Any suggestions?

[Gene Splicer PHD]

Why not call it what it is: love after death.

 

I know the article is about finding love after a loved one has died, but its got some insights that I think are relevant.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Gene Splicer PHD

[Sasha Distan]

Why not call it what it is: love after death.

 

I know the article is about finding love after a loved one has died, but its got some insights that I think are relevant.

 

That is a very interesting article. thanks for the share.

[Thorn Wilde]

That article won't load for me, but I agree with the sentiment and I think 'love after death' is a true and correct expression for what W_L has been talking about. Such love can certainly be a motivation for necrophilia, when it goes too far, as it were, but on its own is something else entirely.

[robsd92104]

I'm just glad it's not a taboo of mine and anyone out there who wants to write indetical twin incest stories I'll be very happy to read them since that's been my favorite fantasy for years (though it seems more like extensive masturbation than sex with one of my six brothers would) . There have been a few great twin stories posted on Nifty

[lovesickpuppy]

There's a 2014 movie called The Judge that kind of suggests incest. At that time, the parties didn't know, and then finally, one of them finds out that he's related to the lady he sort of made out with.

[Sasha Distan]

I'm just glad it's not a taboo of mine and anyone out there who wants to write indetical twin incest stories I'll be very happy to read them since that's been my favorite fantasy for years (though it seems more like extensive masturbation than sex with one of my six brothers would) . There have been a few great twin stories posted on Nifty

 

They weren't twins in Home Grown, just very cute and adorable brothers. I liked it, but then, I wrote it, so I would.

[Headstall]

They weren't twins in Home Grown, just very cute and adorable brothers. I liked it, but then, I wrote it, so I would.

Incest is such a tricky subject for me. I have two brothers and the thought of sex with either one makes me want to vomit. So that was my outlook...the key word is was...Now because of two fictional stories I can look at incest in a different light. The judgement I usually felt is not so much there anymore( although I haven't changed the way I feel about my brothers). the two stories are "Home Grown" by Sasha Distan...and "Thirty Two Faces" by kevinchn. Both have shown me that love is love and I have no right to make judgement on the love others find. Thanks to both authors for that....Cheers...Gary

[Mann Ramblings]

my misguided addition to this thread:

 

Edited November 19, 2014 by Mann Ramblings