Over the years I have gotten a fair amount of email from readers presenting the issue of prior consent in their objections to necrophilia as it might be practiced in real life.  As always I try to explain, my site explores the fantasy of necrophilia and not the reality, although there is a very real reality that occurs in the real world.  Let's recap the arguement for clarity.

There are those who feel that performing any act with a dead person that falls outside the normal embalming and funeral processes is lewd, abusive, and disrespectful to that dead person as well as the survivors.  And in debate those same folks who might concede to the argument that a dead person is simply dead organic tissue and nothing more will sometimes cite the moral position that the dead person never gave consent for someone to fiddle with them sexually, therefore it is a form of rape.  I have always stated that I feel any moral or religious argument concerning the sanctity of the dead is a very valid opinion.. one which I find no sense debating.  After all, I'm exploring a fantasy... I'm not recruiting members into some world-wide necro community.  But, I do think the concept of consent should be explored as I think therein lies a key... not so much for 'necro' as an activity, but for a post-mortum expression in paying last respects to a departed loved one.  And I think to begin this exploration we need to determine the many levels that might be interpreted as abuse.  

Just what is 'abuse' of a corpse anyway?
I guess the answer to that depends what religion you believe in or what a culture or society might tolerate.  It's all a matter of perspective.  Within my own mind I have reached a perspective of death by looking at death throughout history and throughout cultures.  Our modern society allows us to feel all warm and fuzzy with the knowledge that when someone dies you solomnly make the arrangments... choose the casket, select the clothes, yada yada yada... then the corpse is embalmed for viewing, generally a one to two day affair.  Then the funeral and/or memorial service before the burial or cremation.  We've accepted that process as being a comfort to us folks who are still living as we feel our dead loved ones have been treated 'properly'.

Well, one of the more obvious comparisons I mentally make concerning the paradox of what is 'proper' or not regarding the treatment of the dead are the battles and wars throughout the ages that have left their unburied mutilated dead on countless battlefields... the tragedies and events of daily life where bodies were never found...  the missing who will never be found, victims of crimes or unknown circumstances.  Do we morally justify somehow that their bodies were summarily abused or disrespected after death by having not gone through a formal funeral process?  I dare say not.  We might put up a grave marker or memorial to mourn and respect their spirit but that's about it.  So, just what constitutes abuse?

Many people balk at the idea of an autopsy on their departed loved one because it violates the physical body.  If one assumes 'abuse' as being some physical violation of the dead body then there is nothing more 'abusive' than the embalming process itself, a concept adhered to by many religions.  The mortician uses a device called a trocar which is simply a sharp tube inserted into one or many areas of the body, causing a wound much like a knife or sword might do, from which the blood is removed and replaced with some foreign chemical preservative which can deform the natural appearence of the body... and certainly changes the feel and sometimes the texture (for the details on embalming read my report in Section #10a, My Visit With An Embalmer).  This certainly sounds like 'abuse' to me, using the above definition.  Morticians will agree that while embalming is optional to some degree, they do perform this process with the utmost respect for the dead person.  So, are we suggesting here that 'abuse' is simply a state of mind with the person performing the 'act', whatever that act may be?  If the mortician is doing his/her job and notices the dead male being worked on has a penis of substantial size and touches it to admire it for a fleeting moment... does that constitute 'abuse'?  Is abuse simply an interpretation of 'purity of thought' or deed, or both?  Where is the line drawn?  Ask 50 people and you will get 50 different answers.

In my fantasies I am making a last spiritual contact of love with a female who has met an untimely demise.  My thoughts are 'pure' during that fantasy.  I do not cause physical damage nor mishandle the dead person in my fantasies.  My heart is full of sadness yet intense compassion.  In my fantasy I am technically engaging in a sexual fantasy with an inanimate object.  But I never see it that way.  I like to think there's a resident spirit that understands and shares.  So, is what I dream of doing any more or less 'abusive' than the coroner doing an autopsy or the mortician doing the embalming?  All a matter of perspective.  Given all that, perhaps we define 'abuse' as any physical action against the deceased remains without having had prior consent of the deceased... or when lacking that, not living up to a moral code of the surviving loved ones.  Boy, does that open a bevy of questions!  

And what does the law say about abuse?
Well, it depends on each state.  Some are less effective than others.  But for the most part, in my opinion, the laws reflect a knee-jerk reaction to two situations.  The first being a reaction to the commission of a heinous crime where the murdered person may have been mutilated physically after death.  As if committing the murder isn't enough itself to lock the murderer away, you can tag on the misdemeanor (in most states) of abuse of a corpse... which presumably may be weakly linked to some health issue so as to sidestep the obvious attempt to mandate morality.

The second situation has been to react at those truly necrophilac cases... where individuals, be it funeral industry employees or anyone else having access, are caught having sexual intercourse with a cadavor.  For most it's a repugnant act and when someone gets caught doing it the natural reaction from the public is to think, "there outta be a law".  Of course some of the criteria for justifying laws against this kind of conduct has been some sort of  'public good' arising from health issues.  But the truly interesting legal 'squirming' seems to be trying to determine the idea that, when a person dies do they cease being an individual with rights and become 'property' of the government?  Once that's determined then it's easy to make laws for the so-called public good.

Ok, let's take a really critical true life scenario that I have discussed in another area of my site as an example.  I was chatting with a mortician one day and discussing the 'liberties' some morticians take while applying their trade.  He went on to acknowledge much of it actually occuring but also shared with me his own feelings of deep professionalism in the work that he did (since retired).  He was one of those 'traveling' embalmers.. one who services other funeral homes who have no licensed embalmers of their own.  In all his career he admitted to never having done anything improper.  I asked him if he had ever received a body that had been obviously 'played' with... thinking maybe funeral home staff might have indulged prior to his arrival.  He told me once he had to pick up a body of a 17 year old female leukemia victim from the hospital.  Because of the disease and the treatments her body was fairly emaciated.  As he got her remains on the table to begin work he noticed that someone had, in his own words, "saturated what was left of her vagina with semen".  He immediately called the local sheriff and following blood type testing discovered it had been a morgue attendent.  What was interesting in that the only 'punishment' this fellow got was loosing his job.  The law never pursued it further.

I mention this case because it has all the emotional elements that would pull at any person's heart strings... the young girl who obviously suffered so much... robbed at youth of her life... the daughter of parents who no doubt suffered with her...  the indignity of that disease as it progresses... and then her body "abused" yet further after she had died.  And then to top it off, the law did nothing.  Now, I'm sure the parents were never advised of what had happened to their daughter's remains while in that morgue.  It was obvious this was all hushed up to save the hospital's reputation.  I'm sure the morgue attendant lost his job for being a potential embarrassment to the hospital for what he did and less for the act itself.  But everyone involved in this event made some basic decisions and none of those decisions involved any level of morality, or health issue, regarding an abuse of the corpse.  The mortician did his job calling attention to a law having been broken...  the sheriff investigating and determining who violated the law... the hospital proposing to the sheriff that job termination would be sufficient... and the sheriff deciding, quite arbitrarily in my opinion, in no further legal action, probably at advice of the local district attorney.  Bottom line... the crime was at best a misdeamnor and the dead are dead and no level of justice would change that.  No abuse determined and most certainly no morality displayed.  The parents were no wiser for not knowing, and they grieved at the funeral as any loved ones would grieve, and their daughter was buried.  Life goes on in spite of death.  That's the nature of life.

So I ask you, what is the nature of abuse and who decides what constitutes a level of abuse against any dead human.. or any other once-living thing for that matter, as grotesque as that may sound?  

If sex with a dead person is a form of unconsentual sex (interpreted as abuse)... can it ever be consentual?
Now we enter the crux of the entire argument.  I do not want my body buried in the ground but rather cremated and my ashes cast out over the city via airplane.   I tell my loved ones that and for the most part that wish will stay true after my demise.  No law mandates it... no law prohibits it.  But can I tell them I want my body used for sex for 24 hours by a hooker paid by my estate?  I hardly think not.  And the question is, why not?  My example is not really as far-fetched as you might think.  I have been asked by many, mostly women, who want to know if they can add a part to their will regarding allowing their husbands, or significant others, to have one last intimate sexual moment together before they are buried.  I have no idea if this has been tested in the courts... but if the spirit of a will means anything out of respect for the person who just died, and if it did not adversely affect others, then I see no problem with it... providing the health concerns are met, which is the entire pretext for government involvment anyway.

Ok, let's forget the sex part for a moment.  Can I put in my will that I do not wish to be embalmed regardless how long I've been out in the sun drying up because I don't want my body pierced?  Depends on local laws.  Can I request to be fully naked when I'm viewed and then buried because that's how I came into this world?  Maybe, if the funeral director doesn't balk at it. Can I request to be placed in a window casket and kept on display at my home so my loved ones can see me anytime they wished?  I seriously doubt it.  Can I request a Viking funeral (shoved out to sea on a flaming raft)?  Don't hold your breath.  My point is, folks, once our loved ones are dead we have NO say as to what happens to them.. or how we might want to spend time with them before we loose them for eternity.
(Did you know that most states have a law stipulating that only a certified embalmer can be in the prep room during an embalming?  No visitors.  That means, should my religion dictate the presence of a family member at time of embalming, or if I wanted to oversee the process to make sure my dead loved one was treated with respect (especially knowing what I know about morticians), I am prohibited from being there.  Why???)

Epilog