CDZ Zoophilia and Necrophilia

[Onyx]

Just in case you did not already know, Zoophilia is a sexual fixation on another species besides your own, while Necrophilia is a sexual fixation with dead bodies.

I have no problems with either of these sexual attractions as fetishes, but I do have issues with acting on each. For Bestiality, there is the question of how another species could consent to sex. With Necrophilia, there is the question of the sanctity of the dead.

I have heard unique arguments from each, as I have personally known advocates for both.

For the Zoophile I knew, who was very intelligent and articulate, argued that an animal could consent to sex, and referenced times in nature when two different species would have sex with each other.

I knew a supporter of Necrophillia (not a necrophiliac), who claimed that if a living person consented to being used for sexual purposes after death, then the act of having sex with their corpse could be justified. He argued that there could be Necrophile clubs where necrophiliacs could have sex with medically preserved corpses, which I found to be an interesting argument.

Anyways, discuss....

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If one perverted sexual orientation is legal, they should all be legal. Some animals that have been raped have to be euthanized they are too badly injured to survive. So perhaps that should not be legal.

Sex robots will fix it all.

 

[Onyx]

If one perverted sexual orientation is legal, they should all be legal.

Sexual orientation refers to attraction and not action. Therefore no sexual orientations are illegal, because doing so would be in violation of the first amendment of the constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Just in case you did not already know, Zoophilia is a sexual fixation on another species besides your own, while Necrophilia is a sexual fixation with dead bodies.

I have no problems with either of these sexual attractions as fetishes, but I do have issues with acting on each. For Bestiality, there is the question of how another species could consent to sex. With Necrophilia, there is the question of the sanctity of the dead.

I have heard unique arguments from each, as I have personally known advocates for both.

For the Zoophile I knew, who was very intelligent and articulate, argued that an animal could consent to sex, and referenced times in nature when two different species would have sex with each other.

I knew a supporter of Necrophillia (not a necrophiliac), who claimed that if a living person consented to being used for sexual purposes after death, then the act of having sex with their corpse could be justified. He argued that there could be Necrophile clubs where necrophiliacs could have sex with medically preserved corpses, which I found to be an interesting argument.

Anyways, discuss....

"Zoophilia is a sexual fixation on another species besides your own, while Necrophilia is a sexual fixation with dead bodies."

What are we meant to discuss?

My response to Zoophilia is no, my response to Necrophilia is no.

People who indulge in such unnatural and disturbing things IMHO have psychological problems and need professional help.

 

[Onyx]

My response to Zoophilia is no, my response to Necrophilia is no.

People who indulge in such unnatural and disturbing things IMHO have psychological problems and need professional help.

They have sexual attractions that they cannot control that are different than our "normal" selves. The attraction is separate of the action.

The action is a topic I am willing to discuss. The only question that needs to be asked in regards to sexual relations is mutual consent. If one side cannot properly consent, then I am against it. If both sides can mutually consent, then it is of no consequence to anybody.

 

[BULLDOG]

When I was a teenager, I would have had sex with a knot hole in a pine tree if I had thought I could get away with it.

 

[Onyx]

When I was a teenager, I would have had sex with a knot hole in a pine tree if I had thought I could get away with it.

Treephilia?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

My response to Zoophilia is no, my response to Necrophilia is no.

People who indulge in such unnatural and disturbing things IMHO have psychological problems and need professional help.

They have sexual attractions that they cannot control that are different than our "normal" selves. The attraction is separate of the action.

The action is a topic I am willing to discussion. The only question that needs to be asked in regards to sexual relations is mutual consent. If one side cannot properly consent, then I am against it. If both sides can mutually consent, then it is of no consequence to anybody.

"The only question that needs to be asked in regards to sexual relations is mutual consent. If one side cannot properly consent, then I am against it. If both sides can mutually consent, then it is of no consequence to anybody."

As no animal can give consent to someone having sex with it, as no corpse can give consent to someone having sex with it, then of course you then must be against?

 

[Onyx]

As no animal can give consent to someone having sex with it, as no corpse can give consent to someone having sex with it, then of course you then must be against?

I believe there is no way of knowing if an animal can consent, although the one Zoophile I knew claimed that there was.

What if someone consented to be used for necrophiliac sex acts before death? Like how some individuals give their bodies for medical research, except these people would be paid money.

It is a better alternative to having necrophiles raid cemeteries and kill people to have sex with.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

As no animal can give consent to someone having sex with it, as no corpse can give consent to someone having sex with it, then of course you then must be against?

I believe there is no way of knowing if an animal can consent, although the one Zoophile I knew claimed that there was.

What if someone consented to be used for necrophiliac sex acts before death? Like how some individuals give their bodies for medical research, except these people would be paid money.

It is a better alternative to having necrophiles raid cemeteries and kill people to have sex with.

With all due respect Onyx, I'll leave this thread to others now who might like to comment, I'm just uncomfortable with these two subjects that I feel are beyond depraved and very disturbing and would prefer not to get in-depth with either of them.

 

[Onyx]

I'm just uncomfortable with these two subjects that I feel are beyond depraved and very disturbing and would prefer not to get in-depth with either of them.

Fair enough.

I personally am not prudish enough to be scared away from these conversations, but it is completely understandable if you are.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I'm just uncomfortable with these two subjects that I feel are beyond depraved and very disturbing and would prefer not to get in-depth with either of them.

Fair enough.

I personally am not prudish enough to be scared away from these conversations, but it is completely understandable if you are.

I'm in no way a prude, but I draw the line at some things which I feel are indefensible.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

When I was a teenager, I would have had sex with a knot hole in a pine tree if I had thought I could get away with it.

Treephilia?

That would be objectophilia.

 

[Onyx]

That would be objectophilia.

An umbrella term.

There are plenty of phillias involving inanimate objects. Necrophilia for starters.

 

[BULLDOG]

When I was a teenager, I would have had sex with a knot hole in a pine tree if I had thought I could get away with it.

Treephilia?

That would be objectophilia.

At the time it would have been omniphelia. I was a horny little bastard.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Dare I bring up the sexual attraction to dead animals?

.....or would that be beating a dead horse?

 

[Toronado3800]

My response to Zoophilia is no, my response to Necrophilia is no.

People who indulge in such unnatural and disturbing things IMHO have psychological problems and need professional help.

They have sexual attractions that they cannot control that are different than our "normal" selves. The attraction is separate of the action.

The action is a topic I am willing to discussion. The only question that needs to be asked in regards to sexual relations is mutual consent. If one side cannot properly consent, then I am against it. If both sides can mutually consent, then it is of no consequence to anybody.

"The only question that needs to be asked in regards to sexual relations is mutual consent. If one side cannot properly consent, then I am against it. If both sides can mutually consent, then it is of no consequence to anybody."

As no animal can give consent to someone having sex with it, as no corpse can give consent to someone having sex with it, then of course you then must be against?

To no animal giving consent....

I have been around plenty of male dogs who obviously have given whatever consent to sex with whatever with all their being.

If a person gave similar (edit: written in a will or whatever) consent to to necrophilia then I have no moral qualms.

There are a few public health problems you'd have to talk with me about before even limited forms of either could be legal. Put to crudely and simply, we are not going to start a "dog AIDS" epidemic on my watch so to say.

 

[Onyx]

There are a few public health problems you'd have to talk with me about before even limited forms of either could be legal. Put to crudely and simply, we are not going to start a "dog AIDS" epidemic on my watch so to say.

Necrophilia is the more dangerous of the two health wise.

There are safe ways to have sex with corpses not directly after death , but they are expensive.

 

[Coyote]

I could care less about what people do with dead bodies and truly don't want to know about it....but it's an object, not a life.

But an animal can not give consent.

 

[Toronado3800]

I could care less about what people do with dead bodies and truly don't want to know about it....but it's an object, not a life.

But an animal can not give consent.

This matters not so much to me, but I swear a good number of people's dogs have tried to have relationships with my leg. I would wonder they would figure it out if I were naked and prone.