You mentioned on PAH that you have your own opinions on the morality surrounding necrophilia and zoophilia. I'm curious, what do you think?
ok, hi there! So well, be ready for some little controversy, I guess :P
First of all I would like to state a general and short view of my moral conceptions. I’m a moral nihilist,
in the sense that I don’t think that there is a superior moral system that rules them all and that is objective and natural and everyone should follow by the law of god or any other superior power. I think morals are a social construct, based in a specific culture and society and that changes over time, but that aren’t based in any objective source. The common things you can find in different societies are easily explained by some kind of “societies darwinism”. Mostly, the societies that follow a moral system where they take care of their own people and punish some stuff (as murdering of your own, for example) have more chances to survive that a society without morals where everything is fair game. That kind of society is self-destructive, so every human society groups towards some basics due to survival instintics, but not because those are the objective, good things. Some times a society morals can be, in fact, pretty harmful for some individuals even if they truly believe that is the right way to go, the logic and natural order.
So, going from this, I think a moral system is needed, of course. For the good of both, individuals and society survival and wellbeing. As I have said, an ‘everything is fair game’ society is a condemned society. But if we don’t have an objective moral, not a power superior to men to tell us what is wrong and what is right and traditional values are exposed as old constructs that can easily being wrong, what can we do? Well, my solution is created a moral of consense, a moral based in the best for everyone. And that is where my morals stands. My rules are easy. Every situation should be judged carefully and individually, they aren’t real moral statements or absolute truths aside a couple of things “every action should be consensual” and “something is wrong if it causes you or anyone else an involuntary harm”. And even these things have exceptions in some extreme or specific situations (I can provide you with examples if you want to, I love discussing morals!).
Now, making this clear (and if you have any question or don’t understand something ask me, no fear ^^) I’ll give you my thoughts around these two issues, that can be kinda out of the morals of our current society.
-Necrophilia: I don’t think this is inherently immoral in any way
. I dont see corpses as people. They aren’t human beings, they are, in a strict sense, a piece of meat. Of course, there is a big taboo about this for different reasons. We have the obvious one, people who still see the bodies as their loved ones and feel it as an attack to them, a disrespectful action. We also have the fear of death and the general taboo that it has (people who don’t even want to talk about death, people who are scared to go for a walk into a cemetery, people who look at you as a weirdo for liking “dark” things and gothic literature… there are plenty of this). And adding to that, we have misconceptions about the problems it can give you (diseases. People associate corpses with disease and this is normal, since humanity has gone through a lot of epidemics and the cultural memory about it remains. But the reality is different. If someone wasn’t sick before death they aren’t dangerous as a corpse. People still don’t understand this).
So, summarizing, I don’t think there is something inherently immoral about necrophilia. I don’t think these actions are something wrong itself. However, we need to understand our context and the effect of our actions. I don’t have this taboo, I think it is absurd and just a norm that comes from a sex-negative, scared of the death society that I don’t agree with. But I understand that not everyone is like me. That for some people it would be harmful, that they wouldn’t want this for their loved ones, so, and since you live in a specific context and our actions have consequences in real people’s lifes, you can’t just have sex with random corpses. Not because it is immoral, but because it can harm someone else (not the corpse, the corpse is not a person anymore).
I think the best way to go over this is educating people about why it isn’t harmful or immoral, explain the taboo and maybe someday we get a society where this isn’t seem as terrible and awful and people can have sex with corpses (I have always thought in some kind of necrocard, you know, like for organ donations, consent to necrophilic sex before die so the problem of consent gets solved. I know from plenty of people who wouldn’t care to give their corpses for this. It isn’t such a crazy idea after all).
I can feel this one is going to bring even more controversy up. But well, here we go. I don’t think every action in every case of sexual interaction with an animal is wrong. Harming an animal for pleasure is wrong. I don’t support animal abuse and zoosadism in any way. I believe that animals are living beings with a sense of pain and they deserve to be respected and treated properly. You can kill animals for eating. That is understable and natural. Killing them for fun is something I don’t approve. Causing them pain for fun is something I don’t approve either.
But now, about sex. Sex with an animal is not always something violent or traumatic as we could think. Sex is not inherently harmful and wrong just because it is sex. Also, animals *can* consent in a way. Of course, they can’t tell you what they want, but you can understand their reactions. It is obvious when an animal is distressed or in pain, when an animal is scared or uncomfortable and then you know something is wrong. It is obvious too when an animal is happy and feeling good, when an animal is comfortable and wants something. This applies to sex too. If the sex is unwilling, painful, distressful or hurts the animal in any way I’m against it. But if the animal is comfortable, seeks it, it’s ok and doesn’t get hurt I don’t see the problem. For example (*cw: for explicit stuff*, maybe?), if a girl puts some jam on her genitals and let a dog licks it to get sexual pleasure, where is the harm? Or a dog topping a man, how does the dog suffer? (*end of cw*) Also, we have to remember that some animals are proved as being specially anthropophilics (dolphins and dogs are prominent examples), that means they are sexually aroused by humans. They want to have sex with humans. And interspecies sex is not that weird either (and we get hybrids from it).
So, the summary here, I think if the sex is not harmful for the animal (not physically, not emotionally, like causing pain, distress, angst, fear…) and the animal shows signs around it of being comfortable and fine then it isn’t wrong. Of course, the person would be the responsable and would need to pay attention to all the animal’s reactions and notify any problem and stop it that happens. But doing properly, I don’t think it is wrong. (Ah, and if someone’s argument is ‘but sex with humans/like that is inherently traumatic for the animal! They are rape victims in every case and they suffer trauma for it’ I have to say that no, animals don’t have that conception about sex that humans have. They are animals. They don’t have the psychological development to have beliefs about sex or cultural conceptions of it. That is purely a human thing).
Well, these are mostly my thoughts, if you want to ask something else or need I make something clear or any other thing, just go for it, I’m always happy to reply :)
Tags: #anon #asks #morals #zoophilia #necrophilia #opinions #answer #me #sex positivity
Aleskakolja, Tumblr 5 Comments
[11/17/2017 2:58:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 3