chairdriver Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 Hm, what actually determines whether or not something is actively repulsive? Isn't repulsiveness often down to personal preferences as well? I mean, often we have instincts that tell us something is "repulsive", but there are always exceptions to these instances - paraphilias being a good example. Yeah, the idea of "stump sex" is really disgusting for me, but that's only because society tells us disabled people are monstrous and a lower class. Why don't you argue that about peadophilia or beastiality... >_> It's the same thing as rape. Some people are into it and love the idea of rape, but you can't endorse it because it involves exploitation.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 (edited) I know, it doesn't... :p I wrote a big paragraph about how sexual identity is integral to overall identity, but I felt like it was a pointless opposition, because I couldn't phrase what I wanted to say properly, and I hate arguments when it's obvious people aren't going to change their minds. Well, you may not instantly change their opinions - or change them at all - but hearing different views on something always improves understanding. Everyone can always get into a subjective and objective argument but that gets boring. Why don't we argue that about peadophilia or beastiality... >_>. Obviously I'm against all 3 of them, I'm just saying, your comment is possible to be argued for those as well. I never said it wasn't. Edited February 28, 2010 by Dannyboy-the-Dane Automerged Doublepost
Ellmeister Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 Yeah, the idea of "stump sex" is really disgusting for me, but that's only because society tells us disabled people are monstrous and a lower class. It's the same thing as rape. Some people are into it and love the idea of rape, but you can't endorse it because it involves exploitation. Its the same about necrophilia...that's what I'm saying. It involves exploitation, so you can't argue it might be acceptable in years to come. Nor can you say its in the same class as "fat sex".
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 Its the same about necrophilia...that's what I'm saying. It involves exploitation, so you can't argue it might be acceptable in years to come. Nor can you say its in the same class as "fat sex". No, but you can argue that it may not be "repulsive".
Ellmeister Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 To a very small minority. But there are always going to be a small minority for everything. I'm talking about the world in general. >_<
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 To a very small minority. But there are always going to be a small minority for everything. I'm talking about the world in general. >_< Yes, but as mentioned earlier, 100 or 200 years ago, the whole world agreed that homosexuality was repulsive as well. Many still do.
Ellmeister Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 So you're arguing my point believing everyone will find Bestiality, Necrophilia and Paedophilia given enough time? What are you hoping for first ?
MoogleViper Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 It's the same thing as rape. Some people are into it and love the idea of rape, but you can't endorse it because it involves exploitation. Bestiality doesn't have to involve exploitation. The animal could choose to have sex with the human. Like a dog humping someone.
Paj! Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 I love the discussions in here. I think Chair's points are valid, but I DO think that necrophilia has a degree of exploitation in there. It's using another's body.
The fish Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 It's the same thing as rape. Some people are into it and love the idea of rape, but you can't endorse it because it involves exploitation. The problem with that example is that rape isn't actually about sex, it's about power - pretty much all studies suggest that what gets the rapist off is not the act itself, but the feeling afterwards of having the power to have done so. Bestiality and Necrophilia are more about the actual sex.
Ashley Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 (edited) I love the discussions in here. I think Chair's points are valid, but I DO think that necrophilia has a degree of exploitation in there. It's using another's body. Of course its exploitative. Its exploiting the fact the other being can't say no. Perhaps that was badly worded as it sounds like I'm making it akin to rape. But, as I see it, it is objectifying what was once a human into nothing more than a fleshlight. I don't think any of us would really wish to have that done to us. Edited February 28, 2010 by Ashley
Diageo Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 Necrophilia isn't exploitative. The other being is dead. It doesn't care. It doesn't need to give permission because it is dead. Its just lifeless organic tissue.
MoogleViper Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 Necrophilia isn't exploitative.The other being is dead. It doesn't care. It doesn't need to give permission because it is dead. Its just lifeless organic tissue. But then you could argue that paedophilia through grooming is ok.
Ashley Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 See edit. What I meant was it's using something to get your end off. May as well use a hand/sex toy if you're unable to find someone else.
Diageo Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 But then you could argue that paedophilia through grooming is ok. I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean...
Eenuh Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 I don't get how anyone can say necrophilia is okay... If one of your family members died, would you be okay with some guy having sex with their bodies? Seriously?
chairdriver Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 I don't get how anyone can say necrophilia is okay... If one of your family members died, would you be okay with some guy having sex with their bodies? Seriously? If there was consent involved, yes.
MoogleViper Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean... Because you said that "it doesn't care". But if somebody mentally conditioned a child to want to have sex with them (or if a minor did actually want to have sex with an adult) that still wouldn't be ok.
chairdriver Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 ----- QueerCam (LGBT Campaigns, of which I'm the treasurer) group is meeting with WomCam (Woman's Campaigns) group tomorrow, to "share ideas, skills and experiences" (quoting the email). Both of us are autonomous groups with OUSU (Oxford University Student Union), so it will be interesting to see how (dis)similar we are. I'm so ambivalent to the type of feminism usually dealt with here though. ----- Vaguely interesting:
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 So you're arguing my point believing everyone will find Bestiality, Necrophilia and Paedophilia given enough time? What are you hoping for first ? No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that it being repulsive may simply be a social norm. Whether it's okay and should be accepted in society is another discussion entirely. In the case of paedophilia, the point is not that many people find it "icky", it's that children are not at all developed enough neither physically nor mentally to engage in such behaviour. Add to that that it's often against their will and consent, and it's perfectly clear why it is and should be unacceptable in society. With beastiality and necrophilia, the question about consent is much harder to address, and so the acceptance of those rely much more on people's perception of it being "repulsive" and "okay" in regards to the norms of society. I think the main question is: "Why exactly it is considered wrong, and are those reasons valid?" I'm not necessarily arguing that those things are actually okay or should be. I'm not even sure of that myself. I'm merely arguing that we shouldn't forget to question our ideas and perceptions once in a while.
chairdriver Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 I'm merely arguing that we shouldn't forget to question our ideas and perceptions once in a while. The most essential thing I've ever read.
Gizmo Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 Every now and then I come into this thread and just find myself utterly bewildered by the thing being discussed.
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 I don't get how anyone can say necrophilia is okay... If one of your family members died, would you be okay with some guy having sex with their bodies? Seriously? If there was consent involved, yes. That's a very delicate issue with the idea of consent. When does consent "count"? Does it have to be written, or is it verbal? Because, if it's verbal, then this person you're having sex with is dead. What do you do when the police turn up? "It's ok, she said it was fine when she was still alive." Uh, there's the problem. I find the idea of the act itself very, very vulgar. The body has stopped living, so to still continue to "do" things with it once the person has died seems very wrong. Once the person has died and been buried, then surely they have left the world...What is the appeal anyway?
Paj! Posted February 28, 2010 Posted February 28, 2010 I find the act of necrophilia doubly offputting because I read about (I think it was a film, but either way, fact or fiction) a guy who had sex with his dead wife in a bath, and then rigor mortis set in and his penis got trapped. But also because I don't find dead people...attractive. :/
Recommended Posts